Looking for resources that avoid berating people and just simply lay out the data with it’s context from professionals in the field.
I don’t know if I’m changing or the format of constantly pointing out how stupid someone is just gets more views, but it’s getting to be hard to digest. I’m all for learning new things and possible deceptions on claims being made, just without all the sarcasm and personal attacks.
I used to enjoy Thunderf00t, and while his content is probably the same from the beginning I just can’t do that condescending speech for 30mins anymore. My brain just starts to tune it out but I want the information. Professor Dave Explains, is probably borderline for me, Adam Something used to be less energetic with sarcasm in his past videos. Basically anyone that seems to have a personal vendetta with the people involved.
I believe I’ve ran across more positive debunking lately which might be why I want to shift my focus. Some notable mentions: Kyle Hill - Youtube’s Science Scam Crisis (more humorous presentation), acollierastro - harvard & aliens & crackpots: a disambiguation of Avi Loeb (spends most of the time actually talking about history versus attacking Avi Loeb), Fraser Cain - A Big Problem with Modern Science Communication (just an all around kind presenter).
I’m open to any field or subject matter, just wanting creators that aren’t raising their blood pressure while having to use an extremely incredulous negative tone to get their point across. I love to share the more positive videos with others when a conversation comes up and they’ve been sucked into a scam video that’s twisted the narrative. I know if it’s hard for me to watch, then they aren’t going to get more than 2 minutes into a video with that type of approach.
Edit: Thank you everyone for all the awesome recommendations! I’ve added a lot of subscriptions and will make a master-list of all the sources to upload for anyone else looking.
The problem with debunking is that it is inherently boring and an inefficient way to learn. To debunk something, first you have to explain the nonsense to the audience (which is ultimately pointless, especially if they haven’t heard the misinformation before), and then you go step by step providing accurate data.
Itll always be more interesting to provide the correct accurate>!!< information in the first place, because then you can control the narrative that is used to provide the information instead of being forced to conform to the narrative of the misinformation.
A clear, non sarcastic debunk is simply 50% explaining nonsense, then 50% a list of correct information. And a list is boring. That’s why all the debunkers inject personality into the debunks, because that’s the only way to make it interesting and entertaining.