John Oliver: Funny & Insightful Science Video

  • Thread starter micromass
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Science
In summary, the conversation discusses a video that is both funny and insightful. The speaker praises the creator's ability to compress lengthy subjects into short videos while maintaining accuracy and engaging content. They also mention the potential involvement of a team in the video's production. The video is also praised for its criticism of sensationalized media and pressure to publish in the scientific community. The speakers also share their personal experiences with rejected papers and the potential for garbage to be published. The video's content is summarized as addressing how the media, pop culture, and individuals misrepresent or trivialize science.
  • #1
micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
22,183
3,321
Very funny and insightful video:

 
  • Like
Likes StevieTNZ, ShayanJ, Greg Bernhardt and 3 others
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The cool thing I find about that guy in my opinion is how he manages to compress to less than half an hour a lengthy subject (of anything he talks about) and still make it precise, accurate, informational, and attractive to hear.

I say "he manages to compress", but there's probably a whole team working on and stuff (perhaps helping with editing and such).
 
  • #3
Haha! Nice!
 
  • #4
His criticism of how the media sensationalizes 'new' studies, or any study, or otherwise portrays science or scientists, is warranted.

And then there is the pressure on the part of many to publish. I often see the same paper published in different journals without much new information, and sometimes, the same work is published at multiple conferences.

I know of some cases were reviewers rejected papers that were subsequently published, and so, sometimes, garbage gets published.
 
  • #5
Astronuc said:
I know of some cases were reviewers rejected papers that were subsequently published, and so, sometimes, garbage gets published.

Just because a reviewer rejects a paper, that doesn't mean it shouldn't get published. It's a big red flag though.
 
  • #6
micromass said:
Just because a reviewer rejects a paper, that doesn't mean it shouldn't get published. It's a big red flag though.
Two reviewers rejected the paper, and there was some problems with the work, not to mention that the paper failed to address something that in the paper was claimed would be addressed. One of the authors was a former student of the editor of the prestigious international journal. But I digress.

Three of Oliver's criticisms are how the media portrays science, or scientific studies, how popsci trivializes science, and in some cases, how some institutions or individuals misrepresent scientific matters or mislead the public.
 
Last edited:

1. What is the main focus of John Oliver's science video?

The main focus of John Oliver's science video is to discuss the importance of scientific research and the potential consequences of ignoring or downplaying scientific findings.

2. How does John Oliver use humor to convey his message about science?

John Oliver uses humor to make complex scientific topics more accessible and engaging for his audience. He also uses satire to highlight the absurdity of certain anti-science beliefs and policies.

3. Does John Oliver provide any evidence or examples to support his arguments?

Yes, John Oliver provides numerous examples and evidence, including clips from news sources and interviews with experts, to support his arguments about the importance of science and the dangers of denying scientific facts.

4. What is John Oliver's stance on the role of politics in shaping scientific research and policies?

John Oliver believes that politics should not interfere with scientific research and that scientific decisions should be based on evidence and facts rather than personal or political agendas.

5. How does John Oliver address the issue of misinformation and fake news in the scientific community?

John Oliver discusses the prevalence of misinformation and fake news in the scientific community and the potential harm it can cause. He also encourages viewers to fact-check and seek out reliable sources when it comes to scientific information.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
652
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
725
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
810
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
877
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
182
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
95
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top