News and science documentaries which do not back up claims with facts are nothing more than anyone trying to be reasonable. Theories are not facts.
I don't watch just any youtube link.
95% of the youtube videos which get people excited are posted for other reasons (likely to get subscribers).
Just like proof of alien abductions and ghosts, if there is no physical evidence available for detailed scrutiny or in this case, coordinates to the Lost City of Atlantis, its all speculation.
Even well-known authorities on subjects speculate. Deductive reasoning is not the same as fact. Fact should be supported with evidence and testing. Deductive reasoning is not evidence.
I've seen reasonable deductions which claim to prove there was a worldwide flood and that Noah's Ark rests on a mountain in Northern Turkey (Mount Ararat). Thing is, there is no direct evidence to support either claim.
Nothing in a museum, no scientific papers which positively identify those assumptions with facts, no actual expeditions which bring forth actual evidence. Oh, there's plenty of 'authorities' which try to convince you they're right with deductive reasoning.
In “The Fine Art of Baloney Detection,” Sagan reflects on the many types of deception to which we’re susceptible — from psychics to religious zealotry to paid product endorsements by scientists, which he held in especially low regard, noting that they “betray contempt for the intelligence of their customers” and “introduce an insidious corruption of popular attitudes about scientific objectivity.”
By adopting the kit, we can all shield ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation.
1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts".
This means claims by authorities need to be confirmed by someone not associated with the one(s) making the claim.
2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
This means evidence should be examined and discussed intelligently, thru scientific process, by people who also initially disagree.
3. Arguments from authority carry little weight, “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science, there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
In other words, the first job to determine validity is to look at all the possible ways a claim could be proven. Go into the process with a goal to disprove the claim. If it can't be disproved by scientific processes, the claim is valid.
5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
Just because you think your claim is valid, doesn't make it so.
6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
Gather all evidence and consider the factual validity of all the evidence, not just the facts which agree with your claim.
7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
You can't pick and choose only the facts which validate your claim.
8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
Nature usually exists in cause and effect sequences. If a person is seen in the sky, it is more likely they the are falling from somewhere than flying by will alone.
9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
If the claim can only be verified by specific support by specific people, the validity should be questioned. I tend to disagree with this. I do not have the capacity to actually perform experiments at CERN. However, I can look at the evidence presented, follow the reasoning and arrive at the same conclusion as those actually performing the tests.
Youtube videos however, are not actual scientific process. They are biased to the agenda of the person gathering the data and the person posting the video.
This holds true whether it is a fellow citizen looking for subscriptions and likes on their youtube channel to NASA/ESA looking for future funding.
The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) is a limited, specific government establishment aligned with the United States. Last I looked, we live in a world full of nations and governments which are not aligned with United States agendas. To 'assume' the CIA has the power to sequester worldwide scientific data is a conspiracy theory.
When someone makes a claim like this and someone else reads, hears or watches a video about the claim and just agrees with it doesn't make the claim valid.
It doesn't matter if one agrees or many agree. If a million people 'like' the video that doesn't make the claim valid.
Consider this:
Help support me in my effort to share interesting, and otherwise unknown information with as many as I can by contributing to my Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/BrightInsight
Follow me on Instagram:
^^^The real agenda of this video series.^^^
