What Happens When Science Clashes with the Public: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #7
video description
Date: 2026-04-12
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
crash_course
I'm old, very. PhD, Professor, retired (Emeritus. Cognitive science, how we think shows we act from habit, ritual not reason. There is more evidence that eating meat causes an equal and even more cancer risks. And people fight this and big industries are known to pay for comments against Vegans and vegetarians. Not one study, dozens and dozens, hundreds have shown that meat, milk, eggs, beef, pork, chicken and fish cause increased cancers. And increased all-cause mortality in those eating them, versus controls who do not. And the two top killers, cardiovascular and stroke, one becomes virtually bullet proof, protected from them when one is Vegan and consumes no meat, milk or eggs, no animal products. Similarly, whole foods are best over processed foods. All cause mortality and cancer higher in those consuming processed foods than those consuming whole foods. But again, people fight to eat their fat filled, sugary, salty processed food and big industry fights for decades the simple message that their foods kill you when you eat them. And this comment will receive 98% negative reactions to it though 100% science based and exactly correct factually.
reply
I'm old, very. PhD, Professor, retired (Emeritus. Cognitive science, how we think shows we act from habit, ritual not reason. There is more evidence that eating meat causes an equal and even more cancer risks. And people fight this and big industries are known to pay for comments against Vegans and vegetarians. Not one study, dozens and dozens, hundreds have shown that meat, milk, eggs, beef, pork, chicken and fish cause increased cancers. And increased all-cause mortality in those eating them, versus controls who do not. And the two top killers, cardiovascular and stroke, one becomes virtually bullet proof, protected from them when one is Vegan and consumes no meat, milk or eggs, no animal products. Similarly, whole foods are best over processed foods. All cause mortality and cancer higher in those consuming processed foods than those consuming whole foods. But again, people fight to eat their fat filled, sugary, salty processed food and big industry fights for decades the simple message that their foods kill you when you eat them. And this comment will receive 98% negative reactions to it though 100% science based and exactly correct factually.
reply
deawinter
A lot of stuff comes down to dunning-Kruger and confirmation bias. People who are 1) biased to believe something and 2) don’t know of any arguments against it are going to actively resist even acknowledging that those arguments might exist. You don’t know what you don’t know, and nobody wants to learn that the things they like are killing them. We’re ALL vulnerable to this, but uneducated people particularly because they start with less information and are less able to evaluate new information against what they already have. Without a clear understanding of why a medical journal is more trustworthy than advice from your nurse family member, you’re going to trust the family member over the articles from strangers who make a lot more money than you and aren’t even real doctors or nurses. And now, any attempt to teach you more about the medical journals will be experienced as an attack on the credibility of the family member.
It’s a hard bind to get out of.
reply
A lot of stuff comes down to dunning-Kruger and confirmation bias. People who are 1) biased to believe something and 2) don’t know of any arguments against it are going to actively resist even acknowledging that those arguments might exist. You don’t know what you don’t know, and nobody wants to learn that the things they like are killing them. We’re ALL vulnerable to this, but uneducated people particularly because they start with less information and are less able to evaluate new information against what they already have. Without a clear understanding of why a medical journal is more trustworthy than advice from your nurse family member, you’re going to trust the family member over the articles from strangers who make a lot more money than you and aren’t even real doctors or nurses. And now, any attempt to teach you more about the medical journals will be experienced as an attack on the credibility of the family member.
It’s a hard bind to get out of.
reply
arianahunt3956
I was JUST having a discussion with someone about smoking and quitting and their argument was that smoking actually helps some people. I said it feels good but nicotine (or any other chemical in cigarettes and vapes) has no positive effect on the brain or body. He said no, it must help because why else does it make them feel better And that was his only argument. I explained it in every possible way I could and he continued to say I was not taking into consideration the fact of opinion and genuinely I don't think I could have been more dumbfounded. Fact of opinion is not a thing. That's just opinion which is not factual. I didn't know where to even go from there and he assumed he won with that statement but in reality I was SO confused.
reply
I was JUST having a discussion with someone about smoking and quitting and their argument was that smoking actually helps some people. I said it feels good but nicotine (or any other chemical in cigarettes and vapes) has no positive effect on the brain or body. He said no, it must help because why else does it make them feel better And that was his only argument. I explained it in every possible way I could and he continued to say I was not taking into consideration the fact of opinion and genuinely I don't think I could have been more dumbfounded. Fact of opinion is not a thing. That's just opinion which is not factual. I didn't know where to even go from there and he assumed he won with that statement but in reality I was SO confused.
reply
Voyega2
Were already seeing some cracks in the environment misinformation campaign, there was recently a lawsuit against Exxon mobile and other oil companies out of the state of Washington, the lawsuit itself is pretty simple, a large spike in homeowner insurance premiums have taken place in northern Washington where large scale flooding is becoming more frequent, the flooding itself can be attributed at least partially to winter warm air currents being triggered by more extreme El Nino wind patterns.
Currently this lawsuit is headed to the supreme court, and if passed, it means that oil companies may be held responsible (atleast partially) for some damages cuased by global warming.
reply
Were already seeing some cracks in the environment misinformation campaign, there was recently a lawsuit against Exxon mobile and other oil companies out of the state of Washington, the lawsuit itself is pretty simple, a large spike in homeowner insurance premiums have taken place in northern Washington where large scale flooding is becoming more frequent, the flooding itself can be attributed at least partially to winter warm air currents being triggered by more extreme El Nino wind patterns.
Currently this lawsuit is headed to the supreme court, and if passed, it means that oil companies may be held responsible (atleast partially) for some damages cuased by global warming.
reply
rd-um4sp
For anyone well informed, it is known how much money the industry (this case the tobacco one) puts to keep the public misinformed so they can make an extra buck. We have many (many many) cases of this.
Now, it'd be interesting to see the other side. I can think of Study shows that coffee is harmful to your health or Eggs are harmful but I also understand how it could be used to discredit science as a whole.
Then again, part of this discredit is self-inflicted because of misaligned incentives. When Universities have (or give) very little reason to replicate studies, you have less reliable results, consequently less credibility.
It is a very very. sad world.
reply
For anyone well informed, it is known how much money the industry (this case the tobacco one) puts to keep the public misinformed so they can make an extra buck. We have many (many many) cases of this.
Now, it'd be interesting to see the other side. I can think of Study shows that coffee is harmful to your health or Eggs are harmful but I also understand how it could be used to discredit science as a whole.
Then again, part of this discredit is self-inflicted because of misaligned incentives. When Universities have (or give) very little reason to replicate studies, you have less reliable results, consequently less credibility.
It is a very very. sad world.
reply
flamenco108
9: 20 A very accurate statement: you get better information and results when you trust the scientific process. So it became clear to me why so many people distrust the scientific consensus on human-induced global warming. They simply learned one day that this is precisely the scientific consensus: that all scientists believe the observed global warming is caused by human activity. But people haven't been given the chance to learn about the mysterious scientific process that may have led to this consensus. So you can't trust the supposed consensus because you can't trust the supposedly scientific process that led to it. All clear. Thanks, man!
reply
9: 20 A very accurate statement: you get better information and results when you trust the scientific process. So it became clear to me why so many people distrust the scientific consensus on human-induced global warming. They simply learned one day that this is precisely the scientific consensus: that all scientists believe the observed global warming is caused by human activity. But people haven't been given the chance to learn about the mysterious scientific process that may have led to this consensus. So you can't trust the supposed consensus because you can't trust the supposedly scientific process that led to it. All clear. Thanks, man!
reply
Velvetec
9: 04 Scientists and the ones who depend on it like doctors for example only know - if they are skilled - the best possible information available about a given subject. Thus it is 100% possible your doctor doesn't know the best possible cure or relevant info about your problem either because they are lazy and don't keep up with the research or because the research doesn't have good answers yet or they have kept up with research but the research is flawed. So, yes one should trust experts to a certain degree but should understand they are humans and thus potentially fallible and flawed.
_[18th March 2026, __17: 11__pm, Wednesday]_
reply
9: 04 Scientists and the ones who depend on it like doctors for example only know - if they are skilled - the best possible information available about a given subject. Thus it is 100% possible your doctor doesn't know the best possible cure or relevant info about your problem either because they are lazy and don't keep up with the research or because the research doesn't have good answers yet or they have kept up with research but the research is flawed. So, yes one should trust experts to a certain degree but should understand they are humans and thus potentially fallible and flawed.
_[18th March 2026, __17: 11__pm, Wednesday]_
reply
vikrambagrodiya105
You know its much harder to state a scientifically correct statement among people who are superstitious and don't know science that much. They just want to believe their own beliefs which makes it quite hard for us who believe in science to even talk to them. It happens with me every time I talk to my family on some topic and if I give scientific explanations for anything they strongly deny and say you don't know anything. Its really hard to focus on science being part of such society
reply
You know its much harder to state a scientifically correct statement among people who are superstitious and don't know science that much. They just want to believe their own beliefs which makes it quite hard for us who believe in science to even talk to them. It happens with me every time I talk to my family on some topic and if I give scientific explanations for anything they strongly deny and say you don't know anything. Its really hard to focus on science being part of such society
reply
anyawillowfan
I understand why companies ignore/change the message around science when it is financially beneficial for them. I don't understand why governments (or individuals in politics) manufacture this doubt around science regarding things like vaccines (already proven to be safe, and beneficial for society) when there doesn't seem to be any financial gain for them (or is it really because we live in a social media age where 'controversy' keeps you relevant)
reply
I understand why companies ignore/change the message around science when it is financially beneficial for them. I don't understand why governments (or individuals in politics) manufacture this doubt around science regarding things like vaccines (already proven to be safe, and beneficial for society) when there doesn't seem to be any financial gain for them (or is it really because we live in a social media age where 'controversy' keeps you relevant)
reply
LaurenC1. 4
I have found that people in academic circles, doctors and some lawyers are the most likely to defer to professionals. The rest of the working world is more likely to replace an outlet themselves (parts are 5 bucks, common household tools, and literally thousands od tutorials showing how to do it the same way) than hire an electrician for $100/hr. That same skepticism carries over to other professionals.
reply
I have found that people in academic circles, doctors and some lawyers are the most likely to defer to professionals. The rest of the working world is more likely to replace an outlet themselves (parts are 5 bucks, common household tools, and literally thousands od tutorials showing how to do it the same way) than hire an electrician for $100/hr. That same skepticism carries over to other professionals.
reply
Malavander
I think science CAN answer some of these ought questions, it's just that the answers are so complex they seem intractable from our limited view. I could imagine a massively zoomed out meta study in the distant future that measured centuries of data about the general well-being of populations who weighed personal freedom to participate in vices versus policies that prohibit said vices to some degree.
reply
I think science CAN answer some of these ought questions, it's just that the answers are so complex they seem intractable from our limited view. I could imagine a massively zoomed out meta study in the distant future that measured centuries of data about the general well-being of populations who weighed personal freedom to participate in vices versus policies that prohibit said vices to some degree.
reply
d4mdcykey
This is the work of lobbyists. Without them there would never be enough funding of corrupt politicians by corporate interests, or special interest groups that put profit above all else, or enough disinformation to make people believe ludicrous junk science, or a bought and sold SCOTUS. Lobbyists will be the ultimate downfall of this country, and it started decades ago.
reply
This is the work of lobbyists. Without them there would never be enough funding of corrupt politicians by corporate interests, or special interest groups that put profit above all else, or enough disinformation to make people believe ludicrous junk science, or a bought and sold SCOTUS. Lobbyists will be the ultimate downfall of this country, and it started decades ago.
reply
Sqweeno
Science in the broad sense of the word is the best method we have to measure and observe the natural world. The more you pursue science however the more you find it insufficient to explain that which matters most, human dignity, purpose, love etc. Science is wonderful for its purpose but applied to the philosophical or romantic yearnings of men it is found wanting.
reply
Science in the broad sense of the word is the best method we have to measure and observe the natural world. The more you pursue science however the more you find it insufficient to explain that which matters most, human dignity, purpose, love etc. Science is wonderful for its purpose but applied to the philosophical or romantic yearnings of men it is found wanting.
reply
derpyideas
This is imperfect but I would say science is not science if it includes any version, flavor, or whiff of in-group. Same for consensus, which seems almost paradoxical but consensus can't have in-group-ness because then it also includes out-group-ness, which then breaks the true mechanism of consensus.
reply
This is imperfect but I would say science is not science if it includes any version, flavor, or whiff of in-group. Same for consensus, which seems almost paradoxical but consensus can't have in-group-ness because then it also includes out-group-ness, which then breaks the true mechanism of consensus.
reply
_feltenix_
Did you know chewing tobacco also causes dental cancers and other issues I didn't know people still used it until after I was in the Navy where smoking was banned inside the skin of the ship, and people need their nicotine fix. Haven't seen nasty until you have seen a bottle of dip spit burst.
reply
Did you know chewing tobacco also causes dental cancers and other issues I didn't know people still used it until after I was in the Navy where smoking was banned inside the skin of the ship, and people need their nicotine fix. Haven't seen nasty until you have seen a bottle of dip spit burst.
reply
carstensommer2287
When you are addicted to something, you pay more attention to things that keep letting you do that thing.
HankGreen do you guys have a specific source for this I know of the system 1 and 2 thinking, but wanted to know if you had a specific source for in an addiction context.
reply
When you are addicted to something, you pay more attention to things that keep letting you do that thing.
HankGreen do you guys have a specific source for this I know of the system 1 and 2 thinking, but wanted to know if you had a specific source for in an addiction context.
reply
Jedi_Vigilante
The same situation with the tobacco industry and cancer currently exists within the oil industry and climate change.
We just haven't reached the end of that story yet, and it may have far more sweeping consequences than a financial settlement and some misleading propaganda.
reply
The same situation with the tobacco industry and cancer currently exists within the oil industry and climate change.
We just haven't reached the end of that story yet, and it may have far more sweeping consequences than a financial settlement and some misleading propaganda.
reply
itsarendeforlife
This is a perfect example of how capitalistic ideals favor making money so much more than the lives of the consumers. Buy an addictive product that can kill you, but don’t worry, it’ll cost so much more money to get (possibly unhelpful) help for your illnesses!
reply
This is a perfect example of how capitalistic ideals favor making money so much more than the lives of the consumers. Buy an addictive product that can kill you, but don’t worry, it’ll cost so much more money to get (possibly unhelpful) help for your illnesses!
reply
Adriell. h. b.
Didn't the research into smoking happen at/around the same time as the research into the effects of asbestos Seeing as they have similar effects (lung cancer, it would be really interesting to hear about the intersection of the two (if there was an intersection.
reply
Didn't the research into smoking happen at/around the same time as the research into the effects of asbestos Seeing as they have similar effects (lung cancer, it would be really interesting to hear about the intersection of the two (if there was an intersection.
reply
crash_course
Minsey & company was hired in 1956 to help big tobacco blur the lines on the science, their stragedy was to question the science, then Minsey also helped Prdue pharma get oxcotin passed thru the fda as NON-ADDICTIVE, Hank please do a video on MCKsey.
reply
Minsey & company was hired in 1956 to help big tobacco blur the lines on the science, their stragedy was to question the science, then Minsey also helped Prdue pharma get oxcotin passed thru the fda as NON-ADDICTIVE, Hank please do a video on MCKsey.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
