Відео

Where can I see the complete discussion?

I think it's pretty clear that evolution doesn't always favor energy efficiency. Just look at the evolution of homeothermy and the development of thyroid thermogenesis. Also consider diet-induced thermogenesis in overfed rodents or cold-induced thermogenesis in man. The emergence of homeothermy allowed the mammals to come to dominate the Earth and no doubt contributed to the impressive brain power and intelligence of man. However, the results aren't always good . . . huge mammals such as elephants may well have been better off being cold-blooded. They could still retain a lot of heat from the environment and would need a lot less food. However, we can still point to many cases in which evolution has selected for energy efficiency - the evolution of sleep and hibernation, for example, or the slow metabolism of the giant panda, which used to eat meat but now subsists on a very low calorie bamboo diet.

🙏🏽🙏🏽

unbelievably unfathomably incredibly based

Bro seems like they are the same concept with competitive and non competitive inhibition

Who votes for morons like her, it’s so comically evident that she is incompetent

How can those C7 and C8 bind to membrane of pathogen? I don't see any speficic force to bind. If it bind using hydrophobic interaction, then what is difference between mammalin cell membrane and pathogen membrane?

I prefer social sciences as they deal with things I can understand and therefore I can have more confidence in what social scientists research. I have more confidence in research that seeks understand what humans do than in research on qunatum mechanics because one deals with the world i live in and one deals with something I can't understand.

Forgive me but Peterson is playing fast and loose with language here. How can he prove that the samples that were utilized were “randomly selected“ how can he prove “bias“? Nebulousness that he employs within his statements he uses to distract that he doesn’t have an actual counter argument and also I would like to see what proof he has for the claims that he makes. Just because he speaks confidently and articulately doesn’t mean anything. It’s just theater. Histrionics. Sophistry. And forgive me… What is this ridiculous nonsense about “you don’t say what they say precisely“? He’s not attacking the data. He’s attacking the syntax. And he does this as a form of rhetorical trickery in order to avoid actually presenting a counter argument. This is crackpot level thinking. Further, I would like to know where exactly within the Bill it’s says *anywhere* that it can and will do the “compelled speech“ that Peterson rants about. He never does this. I’ve never seen him quote the Bill once. And so basically? I’m looking for the “smoking pistol“ that proves compelled speech. I can’t find it, and Peterson never throws it on the proverbial table. Perhaps… Because he either lied about the bill? Or the “smoking pistol“ doesn’t exist? So the farcical irony at the end of Petersons diatribe is that yes indeed… He demonstrates that he is acting against the methodology and scientific inquiry of his field of study. He provides over no actual evidence that supports what he states. He engages in this alarmist nonsense of “it’s only a matter of time“ as if instead of engaging within pragmatism or actual analysis he’s just wiping off a proverbial crystal ball. His employment of sophistry and severely being resistant to actually presenting the evidence that he uses to support his alarmism is his where his entire argument turns to vapor. And what I find so troubling about someone like Jordan Peterson is how he plays fast and loose with language and says “I’m not discriminatory! I have all these UA-cam videos!“ But then he goes on to outright lie about a law that he says is some type of totalitarian overreach. But he never proves this. He’s never been able to prove it. Because it simply doesn’t exist.

What is the source of this video? Would love to watch the full interview or documentary. Seems very interesting. Thanks

He saw wokeism coming without even knowing it

Bro's high

doesn't hyperbolic curve only describe simple enzymes and non cooperativity??

has anyone ever told you that you kind of sound like hank green?

dimensional analysus about fractals where or how exactly?

i dont get the cranial nerve stuff, what would happen if the face touch hot stuff, what would that pathway look like.

found your immunology series a day before my exam and im so thankful for it :')

This a wonderfully done concise and precise presentation.

Thanks dude !!!!

thank you so much!!

OUCH?!?!!?!?!?

Thank youuuuu🙏🏿

I hate it to be that person, but you are wrong. Right, there is a lot of plagiarism on YT. But this Veritasium video is no example. All examples you mention are the classical textbook examples you now find all over the place for Chaos theory, rabbits and convection roles included ;) Note that original credit goes back into the 70s and before. "Deep Simplicity: Bringing Order to Chaos and Complexity" is itself drawing from the material of others.

Thank You for this piece of valuable info. I am trying to figure out what is the role of the microbiota in mothers birth channel regarding the baby's future ROS signaling capability. I understand that we inherit only half of our ROS signaling capability from the egg's mitochondria and the other half from carbon redox molecules made by microbiota living on the birth channel surfaces. Many with c-section history have autoimmune problems. Correlation, cause or effect? I am a semiconductor engineer with deep biohacking interest in natural solar radiation, earth magnetism, structured deuterium depleated aka metabolic celluar water and circadian changes regarding to our mitochondrial health.

someone who thinks against a stupid person who joined a gang

:)

Thank you ❤❤❤❤❤

~She knows bullshit & did not walk in it....she went her own way to learn everything she could to understand the WHY in science....that is why she is extremely intelligent. RIPDr. Margulis.

I have this saved on my ipod from middle school, all my songs have a producer tied to them except this one. Even in like 2012 nobody knew who made this song 😭 but thanks for the youtube upload, at least now I can put it in the youtube copy of my old middle/high school vocaloid playlist lol. Lots of obscure songs that are hard to track down....

The only thing I'd say is off in what he's saying here is that if you're trying to minimize the issues specific groups of people are encountering in your society then just taking a random selection from the entire population Isn't representative of the specific issue you are trying to improve. Samples taken randomly from the specific groups (more difficult I understand) with as little information as to what the purpose is, would seem better. I'm in a position between these 2 (if Peterson did mean whole society only). You certainly can include whole society as well (for more understanding as a whole) but I see doing that alone as in a similar category to only taking samples from those who have had the worst grievances. You end up with a skewed idea of the problem and would come up with ideas that are either far too weak or far too heavy-handed based on which approach you took. In a way, in this specific instance, that seems to be the root of the debate both are having.

Psychology is not a science. Two key criteria to qualify as a scientific approach to acquisition of knowledge are objectivity and quantification. As regards objectivity, the very thing that makes psychological inquiry distinct from biological investigation is its (supposed, not typical) focus on the subjective causes of behavior. Subjectivity is, by definition, not objectivity. There are no objective means of assessing subjectivity absent reducing the experiential aspects of reality to objective (currently conceived as material/physical) aspects. If that is undertaken, then the subjective essence of a phenomena is reduced out of existence. Second, quantification in psychology is a game, at best. We assign numbers to concepts lacking any measurable physical properties (think Likert scale). What, for instance, are the units of a thought? Absent units, there is no justifiable quantification for measure. More, our so-called scientific theories permit the parametric precision of "effect present/effect absent" (e.g., try predicting the numeric outcome on ANY memory study. You can't. All you can say is that if the IV is in play as hoped, the experimental condition will differ by some non-specifiable amount from a comparison condition). In short, our "numbers" are simply proxies for the words "more" and "less".

It is really hard understanding real science and a few do. It is really easy to understand social science theory and many do.

Galileo was a party of one.

He could have cleared up a lot of his confusion if he had simply looked up the etymology and history of the word “science”, but I guess if he’d done that he couldn’t have done the obnoxious “haha social science dumb” routine, which was already clapped-out in the 1970s. What a jackass.

Appreciate it☆☆☆

Pseudoscience : Science without Maths

"it is not man's irreducibility, what is designated as his invincible transcendence, nor even his excessively great complexity, that prevents him from becoming an object of science. Western culture has constituted, under the name of man, a being who, by one and the same interplay of reasons, must be a positive domain of *knowledge* and cannot be an object of *science* " - The order of things, M. Foucault, 1965

I was a microbiology major in 1988 and our department brought Duesberg out for a lecture. Very enlightening right in the thick of AIDS.

I think there are lots of polymaths, they just check out from the capitalist expectations so arent noticed.

So 11 is a universal question.

What a cop out. There's a classic cartoon strip. A man walks down the street one night and loses his keys in the dark. But he refuses to search for his keys anywhere but under the street lights...because it's easier to see. Shall we endeavor to study the things that lend themselves to easy measurement and abide by simple mathematical structures, or shall we study what is important to advance our species? I do not mean "easy" in terms of being intellectually challenging. I mean easy relative to the socio-behavioral sciences because of the complexity of studying human beings...the interactions of 100 billion neurons per brain, interacting with hundreds of millions of brains. And easier because of the ethical considerations of studying life versus inanimate objects and forces. No doubt the social-behavioral sciences are less precise and lend themselves more poorly to empirical and theoretical research methods. But because something is more challenging, and will involve more error along the way, does not mean we should limit our searching to under the street lights.

Hey can we write the definition of huckel,s rule as it's cyclic resonating and have 4n+2 ?

Evolution is an unproven theory. This woman has it all wrong. It's better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you're an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt!

super clarifying for med school biochem review!

I appreciate so much this clarity from Jordan. Wonderful example!

i dont know the world very well....says the man who knew more than most men in the history of humanity..

The one thing that motivated me to become a polymath is poverty. I was too poor to pay for all the things that life requires so I started learning how to provide them for myself. Soon I noticed that those around me were not interested in basic reality so, I started studying all the things most people choose to ignore. This pursuit has enlightened me to a very very simple fact of Life .. Idiots run the world and more idiots help them. This is why there are fewer and fewer Citizens willing to pursue much of anything outside their own preconceived reality.

Canadians keep voting her in

Are you still active? First of all thank you very much for your teaching. I do have a really important question to ask you. It s the regard the production of IgE, IgG and IgA with the different TCR. I hope to hear from you soon.

Did I mishear her or did she describe one of the Chicago schools attended as a “black boy jungle?”