Here Be Dragons

2009, Science  -   496 Comments
Ratings: 5.24/10 from 105 users.

Here Be DragonsHere Be Dragons is a video introduction to critical thinking. Most people fully accept paranormal and pseudoscientific claims without critique as they are promoted by the mass media.

Here Be Dragons offers a toolbox for recognizing and understanding the dangers of pseudoscience, and appreciation for the reality-based benefits offered by real science.

Here Be Dragons is written and presented by Brian Dunning, host and producer of the Skeptoid podcast, author of Skeptoid: Critical Analysis of Pop Phenomena, and Executive Producer of The Skeptologists.

More great documentaries

496 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to Kevin Shea Cancel reply

  1. I stopped watching after he mentioned free energy.. Seriously? There are generators that run off of urine And others that pull energy from rotating magnets(this poor guy) . I'm also sure he'll down naturopathy. Doesn't EVERYONE know that pharmaceuticals are nothing more than natural chemicals from NATURE that they try to synthesize? Or indigenous enzymes And proteins? Not to mention if we Just used plants we couldn't be poisoned buy the added chemicals in pharmaceutical drugs, like the dissolvants, time releasers, coatings, on... I can already tell this guy is just a wanna be know it all, about to try and corrupt my in-depth self teachings... No thanks.. I'll go find something educational...

  2. Simplistic, reductionist tat and a disservice to any inquiring mind. A critical approach is healthy, I agree, but a default skeptical approach is moronic. Conspiracies happen all the time, you have to bear in mind that the pharmaceutical industry would like to wipe out the alternative medicine industry and so focuses on its quacks and ignores its successes of which there are many. Bringing 911 into it moves you popular mechanics/shill territory. Could not recommend this video as having balance.

  3. Dropped after 16 minutes so i might miss some narrative.
    He has good points, but implies everything is true or false, thing can't contain some truth and some embellishment.
    Well i like analyzing "conspiracy theories" and his explanation that it's all "red herrings" kinda annoyed me... About the 9\11 thing - believe everything TV says; that Iraqi terrorists where the sole cause? Government employs the same methods explained earlier - their "experts" are often just some people in white coats. Also i don't say believe conspiracy theories blindly. In the end what i suggest (and personally do) is look for information on a particular subject or event from multiple views - look at the corporate TV News, but also listen to your crazy neighbor's "conspiracy" theory and draw your own conclusion! Don't believe "there be dragons", but lookup extra information on the claim and draw your own conclusion whether there actually are dragons.

  4. This video definitely deserves mixed reviews. He's quite right about using critical thinking skills and the presence of pseudoscience. However, in his opening video about pseudoscience he demonstrates a serious lack of knowledge. Some of the items he shows are perfectly legitimate. The Omega 6 oils found in fish oils are well documented and commonly recommended by physicians who have actually studied nutrition (most MDs haven't). St. John's Wort is commonly prescribed for depression by medical doctors in Europe and tests show it to be effective for that purpose. The video maker demonstrates his own fuzzy thinking and prejudices throughout in rejecting many things wholesale without even looking for evidence. If he will look, he'll find that there is actually a lot of extremely well done science proving the existence of psychic connections (see books by Russell Targ, physicist, for example). He is also extremely naive about the actual scientific research process, especially when millions and millions of dollars in profits are on the line. Then cherry-picked studies, shaded statistics and sometimes plain fraud help produce the desired, and profitable, results. Happens a lot in the drug business. There's a more to say, but this is enough. This video is a useful talking point, but falls prey to its own thought dragons..

  5. Very nice easily understood C.T. documentary, although many stupid and ignorant comments might indicate otherwise.

    In William K. Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” and William James’s “The Will to Believe” two essays are given as the classic starting points for reflection on the norms governing responsible belief.
    Clifford renders his view by bravely stating that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Clifford, thus, stands as the paragon of intellectual honesty; following his arguments where they lead, and spurning comforting fiction". [redacted]

    "The curse of men and the cause of nearly all their woes, is their stupendous capacity to believe the incredible".


  6. I wonder why I don't see blacks making videos like this debunking psuedo-science and teaching black people to be critical thinkers. Maybe I don't see it because most black thrive on falacies and psuedo-science which is why 85% of the populous still has blind-fail belief in a 'god', 'jesus', and the christian/catholic institution; Muslims too are not excluded, their primary false belief is in a "god called Allaah" that does not exist.

  7. At last - someone with rationale'!

  8. Dont waste time with this nonsense

    1. WHAT? This Is all about the DANGERS and FUTILITY of nonsense! Wake up!

  9. one of the most ignorant documentaries I have ever seen. He is
    describing progress and history as a linear process. The fact that
    something is modern and confirmed by the established elite, dosen't
    necessarily mean that it works. If we were to put this guy in the middle ages he would be thrashing Gallileo saying that all studies statisticaly imply that the universe evolves around Earth.

  10. You've made some intriguing observations in your article. I am impressed with how well-written your article is and how much information you included. It just verifies that there are writers a passion for the art.

  11. I think that this dude is quite r******!
    And quite ignorant about is statements more research will help you mrs knows everything.

  12. me thinks thou doeth protest too much, sir dunning. and the audience here much agrees with me. seems like they are much better at critical thought than the author of this video is. and to those who posted this silly thing..."you can do better!" ;-)

  13. the thing about critical thinking that is missed here, is that you have to "question everything", which is the true substance of critical thinking. if i apply the principles of quantum physics to the arguments presented in this little "defense of reason", then "believing in" these arguments will sound as silly as "believing in" a big male rabbit that lays multicoloured hard boiled chicken eggs all over the place and delivers baskets of cheap candy to kids on Easter (formerly the feast day of fertility goddess Oesther/Ester/etc.) in short, this man is making science into a religion, instead of using critical thinking to question all human "belief systems". what we may really conclude, if we dare, is that "the universe loves paradox" (as do i). and if you don't find paradox at the end of your critical thinking rainbow, then you're not trying hard enough. ;-)

    1. quantum physics

  14. damn, he is saying so many true things and also saying some false things. reminds me of when I discovered Chris Hitchens and fell in love but then you find out the guy supported George Bush. doesnt makes Hitchens claims faulty, Just makes me wonder how someone so smart can end up supporting something like Bush. humans are so versatile...anyway

    I love the comments below, you all are bright people.

  15. By the looks of the comments it's clear that docs like this are in terribly short supply. These people's minds are so open their brains have fallen out. "I'm 4 minutes into the movie and I already know everything!" Scary.

  16. I am only three minutes into this and, treating the material skeptically, some of the examples of modern day "dragons" are quite biased; many of the items listed are not really questionable so as to be lumped in with psychic readings and other pseudoscience. For example, there were shots of a yoga studio, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil (supplements), and St. John's wort. None of these function on pseudoscientific principles, they are quite valid. St. John's wort is now a clinically tested and approved supplement for sleep disturbances and some mild cases of depression.

    1. agreed on this side. Some issues like yoga, or even 9/11 are so complex, to include them in the intro with the music set to ridicule.....seems a little irresponsible. I watch a lot of docs, i mean, hundreds and this so far feels off for some reason.

      I do enjoy the stuff that doesnt seem questionable, like the stuff that deals with defining different types of logical arguments or cognitive processes.

      also, so far (im still watching the vid) religion seems to be getting a concession by exemption by the creators. makes me wonder why. maybe it will come up

  17. Boy this is hard to watch. I hope this guy never has or teaches children. Imagine a bunch of people walking around yelling "I'm a critical thinker!" While only taking info from fox news and proudly spitting on any evidence not personally handed down from rupert murdock. "Martial law and dictatorship are awesome! Bill oriely said so, so I voted for to suspend the constitution because I'm scared of terrorists!" "not good enough for the FDA! All those drugs that are recalled and kill people are pure speculation. Red haring...."

  18. Well, I have watched 20 mins of this movie and he's contradicting himself.. I mean, the first point he made was,people dressed in white can deceive most people, that's correct. But then when he talked about 9/11 he keeps asking "so who crashed the planes into the buildings?" well.. We're not really sure but if you believe it was terrorists you're believing in what the president of US said when he was interviewed with the big white house logo behind him^^ so he can deceive you too,right?.. And of course there are cheaper solutions energy.. but it's not worth to big companies..In fact there are studies that proves you that.In the 20 mins I watched he's talking non sense, of course there are pseudoscience but there's the opposite too..There are things that we can in fact do,to improve our life but we do not do it because it would be to expensive..

  19. OMG... Mr. Spok in real life. I live my life a little different... if it works for me, logical (or scientifically proven) or not, it's all good. Period.

    1. Few enterprises bring more peril than casting doubt on the cherished beliefs of the ignorant.

  20. Also, don't you kinda debunk yourself? We don't know everything yet, so how can we say it doesn't exist? it's like galileo all over again.

  21. obviously you have never taken psychedelic drugs!

  22. OOoo I must get his book, he put it up there with Carl Sagan! Oh hang on, didn't he say something about people promoting their views in order to sell us things?

    "Science has not thrown in the towel and admitted to magic." That's true...but hang on just a cotton pickin moment: If the hyperthetical 'magic' is proved scientific, then it becomes science and not magic. If science can not understand the 'magic', it becomes unexplained science. Either way it ceases to be magic and therefore magic remains non existent. Examples: sustained nuclear fusion, dark matter, dark energy, a multitude of quantum behaviour. Magic or unexplained science?

    9/11 was a fraud - this guy's claims of its red herrings of pseudoscience were the most feeble I've ever heard, and completely discarded the facts.

    Doesn't practice what he's preaching Q.E.D. 0 out of 10.

  23. "Science never suppresses good science?" What about all the famous scientists in history that were threatened, killed, or physically suppressed for explaining ideas that were different than what the church or political leaders thought at the time? We see similar head turning with current scientists and discoveries.
    Good science has USUALLY been SUPPRESSED throughout history. Freedom of knowledge is NEW.
    This movie has one thing right, LOOK AT WHO IS PROFITING! And ALWAYS CHALLENGE the science of others. Pharmaceuticals being the #1 growing industry in America should tell you something. Or that the FDA approves of Aspartame which was only found because the scientist licked his finger after working with the RAT POISON, discovering its sweetness.
    We should always question and challenge these ideas and discoveries.
    Just take everything with a grain of salt, eh? :)

    1. Let's start from the top.

      You're using a straw-man argument at the beginning.
      He said science never suppressed good science. He's not saying that good science has never been repressed by the church or by political leaders. That would be very hard to argue for. He is saying that the science community will always accept good science, and build upon that good science. Not that it never has been repressed.

      You say that he just debunks the stupid arguments. Then write him an email containing your logical arguments, after researching if those logical arguments are true. If those arguments turn out false, then you've learned something new. And if those arguments turn out true, then you've helped all of us learning something new.

      You mention aspartame isn't safe and that because of that we shouldn't trust the FDA. It took me only a few minutes to read enough about aspartame that by the current knowledge of science it is safe to consume. If you think it's not, then show some research.
      And the funniest thing is that you use this as an argument that you can't trust conventional medicine.

      I'm getting bored now, so you can research your last few arguments yourself. Because I'm pretty sure you haven't done that yet.

    2. Then it isn't "science suppressing good science" but rather politics and religion suppressing good science, isn't it? :)
      Also your point on "follow the profit" is exactly what the video calls "red herring". Is there any reputable scientific proof aspartame is bad? Either there is, or there isn't. If there isn't, then who profits from selling aspartame is irrelevant to the issue. Oranges aren't bad for you, AND there are people profiting from selling oranges. See how your logic doesn't stand up?

  24. The comments here are hilarious. There is no point watching this documentary if you are going to disbelieve everything he says beforehand.

  25. Brian "Dumb"ing is a pseudoscientist, because genuine science is the "genuine" desire to know all there is to know! A "true" scientist is not "afraid" of what lies beyond the present reach of classical science! Copernicus, Einstein, Neils Bohr, Ken Wilber, Shroedinger, etc were "REAL" scientists because they looked beyond the realms from which our scientific instruments at the time could measure. It is what brought about the advent of Quantum Physics!

    "Dumb"--ing calls pseudoscience whatever he does not understand. He is no different than those he produced this film against! Is he not expressing behavior paralleling a religious (ascetic) adherent? The only difference is that his fundametalism is direct towards the boundaries of what he calls science, mental concepts. Just as the religious fanatic identifies stringently to the bondaries of his beliefs (mental boundaries).

    Shakespear had it right "there is more to heaven and earth than can be dreamed of in your philsophy 'Dumb-ing'"

    Quantum Physcists have said that if you claim to understand "quantum physics," you don't understand Quantum Physics. Bohr said this and HE WAS a real scientist because him mind remained open enough to recognize that the mind itself (which Dumb-ing claims to be the tool for critical thinking) cannot be a took used to reach all levels of reality.

    There comes a point when we must grow up pyschologically and realize that "all" concepts are ultimately illusory. They ALL dissapear every night when we all go through the deep, dreamless sleep state. Religious concepts as well as so called scientific concepts. All science can do is point out the obvious, show what is happening, but its reach has been mediocre at best at explaining the "CAUSAL" factor! I want Dumb-ing to explain to me how the cell, which has no frontal lobes, hypocampus, no executive seat, can know to go through mytosis, how it is able to undergo autopoisis?

    He talks about probability, synchronicieties and states that these things are very rare, my dad would say the same thing when we talked about people who made it big in life, despite all the odds stacked against them--yet the fact that ONE is able to do it, reveals volumes. With Dumb-ing, the fact that there are factors that seem to be tied in, that actually happen, does not discredit them if he cannot process them through the limited reach of his mind.

    This video is definitely a good one to spark up your critical thinking ability, and it has lead me to one resounding conclusion--Dumb--ing does not know what the hell he is talking about. He is an infant mind that calls itself a scientist to creat contrast. Thank you Dumb--ing, for inspiring me to do my own work and help people mature from the ethnocentric levels of delopment where adherence to a group, which you think is the one, simply because it feel right to you--is critically analyzed through ones own development. At the higher rungs, it cannot be but clear that you are totally unaware of a deeper causal factor that you cannot see but the results of.

    Dumb--ing calls himself a scientist because he is measuring the shadows cast upon the cave wall in Plato's cave, and thinks he is intelligent by doing so. The source (causal factor) of the shadow alludes him, due to his closed mind.

    Dumb--ing states in this video--"Give Einstein and the others the credit that they are due. It is rational to believe in their theories even if you do not understand them. It is irrational to disbelieve in them because you dont understand them." I think Dumb-ing should practice what he preaches! I can tell that he cannot undestand the benefits of meditation and its link to psychological development, etc. He has no idea of the benefits of yoga and natural remedies. He does not understand these but clearly knocks them in this video.

    Dumb-ing, the Salem witch trials were not advents of critical thinking, your pseudo philosophies are equally deprived of critical thinking. Grow Up!

    1. quote - "Brian "Dumb"ing is a pseudoscientist, because genuine science is the "genuine" desire to know all there is to know!"

      Wrong!! Science is about predicting natural phenomena through models; nothing more and nothing less.

      quote - "A "true" scientist is not "afraid" of what lies beyond the present reach of classical science!"

      All scientists are always advancing science, or trying to. How could they all be doing this if they were all afraid to do this? Something people don't understand about science is that all attempts to expand it are rigorously scrutinized and criticized to see if they stand up. Always. In that sense, every scientist is always mounting a challenge to the rest of the scientific community. But some insectile minds cannot comprehend that this is, in fact, how science is done - and see it as a battle between an anonymous orthodox establishment and lone mavericks, like a romanticized drama. In reality, every scientist, even those part of the supposed orthodox elite, must face resistance to their ideas in the form of intense criticism. This weeds out the weak ideas from the strong.

      quote - "Copernicus, Einstein, Neils Bohr, Ken Wilber, Shroedinger, etc were "REAL" scientists because they looked beyond the realms from which our scientific instruments at the time could measure. It is what brought about the advent of Quantum Physics!"

      Hilarious. You protest the scientific establishment, then bring up Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger, and quantum physics. Quantum physics took shape under these individuals, who, at the time, were entrenched members at the top of the scientific establishment, and in fact, the development of quantum physics was a collaborative effort involving the scientific community as a whole. Not "rogue agents" at all. The other name you bring up, Copernicus, was at odds with religious orthodoxy - most of the scientific community was, at the time.

    2. Exactly what I was getting at. :)

    3. Oh my god, dude! I have never seen a more blatant, thorough and lengthy rant of naïve psychological projection in my life! This planet we're on; we call it "Earth". If you need any pointers on where you can read more up on it, feel free to ask.

  26. oh, my god! He should be more careful when talking about pseudoscience. I wonder how many science studies has he read lately.

  27. Boring. This gu8y has a very narrow minded outlook, and yes... they are bold statements! I'm no yoghurt-weaving hippy, but even I know that "spiritual", or whatever they would call themselves, people don't think of "Spiritual/Life Energy" as a cloud following them around to be drawn upon.

    This guy totally misses the point that a lot of the concepts of chi, energy or whatever are as much about an individual believing in their own capabilities to perform whatever action - be it healing or Bruce Lee punching through bricks.

    I'd like to see how he explains away the concept of how we condition our own mind due to a set of beliefs (spiritualism or whatever) to help us perform a task better.

    I wouldn't recommend this as good watching but try it and make your own mind up

  28. Sorry if this guy burst some bubbles. Okay, a lot of bubbles apparently. But jeeze guys, repeating B.S. doesn,t make it true and calling the man names isn't much of an argument for anything other than your self perpetuated ignorance. Scariest thing is, you guys probably vote.

  29. wow gave it the benefit of the doubt , ill never get back my 16 minutes , who are you shilling for quote unquote sir ?

  30. I only got as far as 14:00. So much of what this guy said is bullshit. Seriously...911 is a conspiracy theory with no information supporting the claim?? Thats the main thing that pissed me off. Any intelligent person will find this video offensive on so many levels to your intelligence. Is this guy a priest or something?? This guy is a pseudo-bullshit artist.

    1. An intelligent person did see this docu to the end and then have an comment about this topic:)


      i consider myself NOT smart
      I consider myself HUMAN, maybe something to CONSIDER:)

  31. Wow this guy is a tool, he should follow some of his own advice.

  32. This doc is obviously aimed at people with little or no critical thinking skills.Anyone that can watch this guy for more then a half hour gets a free seat on the short bus. "Who crashed the plains in to the buildings?" uhm ...he dont know as there was no one that survived to actually say(but I know what I was told by the media) <--sarcasm . ever experience De je vue ? thats pretty common stuff and this guy explains only one scenario about dead uncles or what ever ...good math I guess but lousy narrow example. know anything about "love"? it probably has no room in this guys shallow world of proof . This doc made me slightly puke in my mouth and about the only thing I got from it is the pathetic fact that some people will watch and think its helps them discover a way towards critical thinking. The irony here is that if you have no critical thinking skills before you watch. chances are you will probably be dumber after you've watched the whole thing. I can only think there is one person stupider then this still born dent in the brain alcohol syndrome host ,and that has to be the person behind the wedding ring on his left hand. who ever (he or she ) is . you have my utter pitty . for Gods sake I hope this creature didn't breed. good luck on the book sales bone head, I think you were subtle enough with the advertisement that top docs probably missed it . (waste of internet space on this one :/ )

  33. "it's backward to think the ancient's had a better understanding of any of the science's " wow ! really ? explain the pyramids n thats only one . here be dragons more like" here be dead fish " boo! mr. dunning

  34. That red herring part is funny. Ok Brian, the guys that ran the planes into the buildings, their dead. They died in the plane crashes. So case solved. Right? But your government bombed the **** outta Iraq as a result. Why?

  35. I was really hoping this would be about some real dragons. next...

  36. A complet pessimist. Not worth your time unless you believe in everything conventional... you know, where they pull the wool over your eyes !!

  37. this guy and his whole video is a red herring. His irrelevent pseudo facts are distracting people from the real truth. I'm not disagreeing with his main point that people should be more skeptical I whole heartedly think people should question things more including this guy and even what I've written here.

  38. This is straight propaganda. He builds a lot of straw men.

  39. Building 7 feel at free fall speed... WATER FLUORIDATION gives you cancer! 1."In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical."--Dean Burk -- Congressional Record 21 July 197
    2. "Here in Toronto we've been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver - which has never fluoridated - has a cavity rate lower than Toronto's." --Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D., in Biochemistry, D.D.S., head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, and president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research

  40. Watched the doc. Very impressed. Gonna show it to my teenage kids. Wish it had been expanded to 2hrs.
    My only criticism; Am somewhat disappointed at the posted comments. Perhaps I'm mistaken about this wonderful site I've recently discovered, or are there an inordinate number of r*tards who should limit their viewing to x-factor or gladiators???
    Who the **** are you people out there?

    1. We're people that like to think rather than just running with what dunning says. figure things out for yourself rather than letting others do it for you.

    2. Mr.Dunnjng speaks to the ignorant mob...and the results are evident. Quite sad...really. I'm afraid 'we shall leave this world as wicked, foolish, and ignorant as we found it'.

  41. LOLZ.......This documentary is corny and does not offer much to people who are already skeptics. But it is a good intro to skepticism, I suppose.

  42. Liked the documentary for awakening the critical thinking process. Sometimes we all tend to get suckered in by so much stuff being shoveled our way either by bonafide or pseudo-sciences for our share of the wallet.

    On the flip side, being a skeptic / critical thinker doesn't equal closed mindedness! Science has gotten there by questioning and experimenting. If we had rested on our laurels we would be staying on a flat planet that was the center of the universe.

    Always remember to take everything with a pinch of salt.

  43. A decent documentary. But I think it IS dangerous to place too much faith in the "proven" sciences as well. I think ever since I started eating organic food ive been much healthier, where as before I used to trust that anything out of a packet couldn't be too bad for me, yet this guy pretty much just said organic food is a pseudo science. I definitely prescribe to the train of thought that real food is better then processed, in spite of all the scientific assurances to the contrary.

    I believe we still have a very long road ahead of us, a lot is being learnt but a lot is being forgotten as well. ATM the populations are like guinea pigs for these scientists and the statisticians are just treating us as one big experiment, while everyone is competing to make money at the same time. Just look after yourselves and I think listen to your own body and don't get lead too much by anyone, be it a scientist, or a pseudo scientist. This doc says question everything and I agree, but question this documentary as well.

  44. Well... The 9/11 issue he`s talking about has also been analysed by 1500 scientists, engineers and construction workers... all agreeing on one thing: 9/11 smells... So where`s your scientific method now huh?

    1. 1500 out of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of scientists, engineers and construction workers from all around the world, some who may have agendas that have little to do with the truth. A very low total disagreeing with the findings of the 9/11 commission. Given any issue, one can expect to find a small percentage of dissenters in the ranks. That is the human equation and human weaknesses coming to the fore. Besides, why would you believe the tiny minority over the over whelming majority? Is it because your confirmation bias is being pulled to any evidence that helps to prove your own opinions in this matter?

    2. Well, if you really cannot see/believe building 7 came down by explosives, just like any ordinary `pull` you have ever seen on Discovery Channel, there`s really no point in discussing this subject any further. If the footage of building 7 collapsing doesn`t convince you even a tiny bit, then there`s, with all respect, nothing else to say on this subject.

    3. Even though the collapse may look like a "pull" on Discovery Channel, doesn't mean that it was. If one decides that it is suspicious, it is only the starting point of an investigation.

      Since it is apparent that you have watched how a building is prepared for demolition, you must know that it takes weeks, even months to complete the job of setting the charges. Steel girders must be exposed, cutting torches must be used to direct the fall, thousands of feet of wiring must be strung out so the explosions are synchronized, etc. Yet, no one has come out to say they have witnessed this activity. Thousands of people who work there, who went there on business, who visited friends or family have ever came out and said that they saw the exposed steel, the men using cutting torches and all the wiring being strung out. Did not one of them lose friends or relatives when the towers collapsed. Did not one of these individuals think back and remember seeing this type of activity and then feel horror at the implications of what they saw. Or were they all in on it? It doesn't seem likely.

      Then there is the planning stages. Those who came up with the idea and formulated the plan. Those who were given the task of managing such a large endeavor, and those who did the actual grunt work. All of these individuals would have to be in on it. But there seems to be no evidence of any work orders, no purchase orders, no schematics, no memorandums. There are no suppliers who remember selling or delivering the supplies needed to anyone who had the capability of such a demolition. There are no family members or friends of those who have demolition skills who remember that this individual was in NY at the time and wondered what building he was actually working on. There are no Wiki-leaks type documents available. We can't even follow any chain of command linking this to government leaders. In other words, other than a suspicious collapse we have nothing.

      If you only want to discuss issues with those who agree with you that is your prerogative. It may also be a little self serving.

    4. Ever heard of the term Selfappointed guardian of the status quo?

    5. How does the term "selfappointed guardian of the status quo" address any of the issues that I brought to your attention. This is exactly what Dunning meant when he talked about the "red herring" tactic used by some people.

      My previous post discusses the some of the nuts and bolts of an investigation trying to prove government involvement. This has nothing to do with my opinion. These are questions that must be asked and resolved before anyone can definitively say that the collapse of building 7 was a demolition project. As of yet I have not seen the evidence that proves that it was. Suspicious circumstances is not proof.

    6. At some point we have to ask ourselves. What is more plausible.

      1. That a never seen before supposed international terrorist group, that has capabilities to outsmart the greatest military power in the world, fly in not one but two Boeing 747 into the same countries largest city and blow up their central economical mega-structures?

      2. Some faction of probably the most capitalistic and corrupted country's government (unfortunately the US at the time), through top-secret agencies used an stealthy and expensive method of demolishing their own structure (to which they know all the specifics and control all security) and extract all possible financial reserves it possess and profit by the stock market reaction. And in the same go, politically validate continued warfare in the middle-east following the war in Iraq and then Afghanistan.

      Also, we have to ask ourselves, how likely is it that we through the mainstream media, who generally in the US is censored through industry or politics (Ill just mention FOX as an example), would be able to find any material covering this subject objectively? Even Wiki-leaks cant cover everything (heck wiki-leaks didn't start until 2006).

      Sometimes you have to read between the lines, look for the fine-print in all the media-flow, and sometimes look for alternative sources.
      Personally I was convinced by watching a documentary on this called "Loose change" which was banned by the US government at the time.

      Sometimes "What you see is what you get" doesn't cut it.
      Id say mostly "There is more to life than meets the eye" is more an accurate a life-philosophy for seeking truth. The discovery of Quantum Physics and prior to that, Niels Bohrs Atom structure are good examples of that.

    7. Al-Qaeda was well known to the American and other governments. In 1996 Bin Laden declared a fatwa against the United States and its allies. Later that year they were believed responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in which nineteen Americans were killed. Bin Laden came from an immensely rich Arabian family and had the financial means to carry out bombings and other missions against his supposed enemies. 9/11 would not have been as expensive as one would think. Money would be needed to get the hi-jackers into the States and buy the tickets to board the planes. The hi-jackers then steal the planes and fly them to their targets. The Twin Towers stand out like sore thumbs against the New York City skyline. They were the most distinctive buildings in Manhattan, sitting ducks for anyone wishing to fly into them. Not difficult at all.

      The rest of your comment is nothing more than saying that because someone has done bad things in the past we should automatically assume guilt for any crimes being committed. None of it is evidence. Neither is reading between the lines. A person can read whatever he wants between the lines. Absolutely useless as evidence.

      Maybe the American government is guilty but no one has put together a comprehensive case that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are no witnesses, no physical evidence, nothing that is an irrefutable link to anyone in the American government. This case wouldn't last the afternoon before a grand jury.

      I watched "Loose Change" too. It puts together a compelling case as long as one doesn't dig too deep. Its evidence is superficial and none of it stands up under deeper scrutiny. Once again, the evidence it presents looks great at first but any first year law student would rip it apart before a court of law. That is just the way it is. The truthers are going to have to do a better job in presenting its case if they want to prove government wrong doing.

      Your examples of quantum physics and the atom fail also. The discoveries in those fields were made using the scientific method building one discovery on another. It took a lot of hard work to dig to the depths that the researchers have gone. No truther has dug that deep. They ask superficial questions and then provide answers that seem logical to them. They do not provide any real tangible proof, only a series of "no ways" and "think for yourselves you sheep". It proves nothing. They may even be right but they have to dig deeper before they can prove it.

    8. Perhaps think of a "scuttle the ship" type action. The building under went major renos years before to make it the cities "battle bridge."

    9. Is there a special way a building collapses when it isn't a controlled demolition? If the building fell because of the reasons given how should it have fallen. Or is the collapse all the proof you need? If the building went done it must be on purpose.

  45. well i see your still talking about this Ai (three toed sloth) his comment about Mc donalds or as he puts it fast food outlets.I will make one point the medical profession in england is trying to ban all fast food advertising,Brian states that this food is the same as what you would eat at a restaurant incorrect dunning you are a buffoon.I have also posted on this guy many times,i do not believe in aliens i do not believe in fengsui and certainly do not believe in anything until proven.dunning tries to manipulates with ludicrous cross overs of fiction to promote his own untruths.

  46. there are such things as emergent knowledges or science.

    the only problem in my eye is that people seeking profit hijack such unproven methods, remedies etc and eventually deter the scientific community from embracing them in an effort to further their understanding.

    I was dissapointed to see yoga and organic foods presented as quakery in this film. Highly arrogant of the presenter to overlook their proven benefits to people.

  47. If you criticize this documentary, notice that he only wants you to see past the wrapper and focus on the content. Then consider if you want to spend money in the product or believe the statement.

    Excellent documentary. Should be mandatory to watch.
    Though the ones who would benefit from doing so might be the very ones disproving it.

  48. And you don't have to be a new age fanatic who even glances at homeopathic bs at the store just because you believe that meditation, or concentration or whatever you choose to call it can change the physical appearance of your body. Neuroendocrine Immunology, as the title implies, is the study of the connection between our thoughts and emotions, [which to a hardcore skeptic are just nerves and hormones (Neuroendocrine)] and our immune system. Even the most uneducated of people have media shoved down their throat all day, so we all know that the immune system is much broader than we used to believe. Our immune systems absolutely effect our physical appearance, our weight, skin tone, facial expressions and even the way we move. All of these things together are definitely "our physical appearance". And our thougts and emotions, or our mental and emotional well being absolutely directly effect our immune systems, and so also our physical appearance. The fact that Neuroendocrine Immunology exists as a branch of the NIH (National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH is one of the world's foremost medical research centers. An agency of the U.S. Department of Health, proves that this is a widely known and accepted idea and a major part of the foundation of the "beliefs" of the scientific community. I have to find this guy's website and email him. He's a living oxymoron.

    1. The national institute of health is also subject to political pressure from the altie-med lobby to study all sorts of pseudoscientific nonsense. Just like the top medical schools have added "integrative medicine" to their curricula. and I dont think he made enough of a specific claim about how meditation is supposed to change the physical experience of the body in order for you to completely write off EVERYTHING he has to say

  49. Totally agree with the assymetrical eye comment. I know that science says assymetry is a very accurate predictor of bad genes and/or health, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

  50. And the overzealous debunkers are the sibling of the child who believes the above statement. The difference is the debunker sibling is 12 years old and still believes in the Easter bunny and spends countless hours proving how he is real and pointing out how if the conspiracy sibling thinks he's fake, he must be real, because everything else they say is crazy. Aside from that, everything she can do, he can do better.

  51. Who's more crazy and stupid...conspiracy theorists or overzealous debunkers? I'm totally amazed by both. Do governments have agendas that are hidden from the general public? Yes. Do I hide or not discuss the things we have to do to run our family from my children? Yes. So...that means that I'm probably telling them I can't afford to go to disneyland this year, yet pay tons of money to utility companies because I have an evil plan to brainwash them using pleasure deprivation techniques and will eventually sell their souless bodies to higher ups in the oil industry to work as brainless slaves. Right? Right.

    1. obviously he stepped on some particular pseudoscientific toes of yours...what was it chakras?

  52. The more I listen to this guy, the more I want to punch him in the face. He is ridiculously self-righteous and smug and presents his completely biased views in a, ( I could be misinterpreting it ), similar fashion that he is saying these pseudo-sciences try and convey their information. The skit about Sept. 11 was just irritating. I began watching this because it had a large number of comments and figured a lot of people had something to say about this piece; I had very little other criteria guiding my choice this morning, if I knew I would become so unattracted to another person through this, I would have not bothered viewing. To continue the rest of the video is not an easy choice, but I do so only so I can wholly evaluate why I dislike this presentation. (Also, because I can't be bothered restructuring my comment to fit it in elsewhere, I do not believe in psychics, however do believe there is an 'ether' or energy connecting us all, because matter and energy, as far as I'm aware, are pretty closely related to each other, and we all came from the same singularity. This is a very uneducated view and am willing to eventually reflect on it with the presentation of more information, but I will definitely not seek it out through...this guy.)

    TL;DR? This guy is a joke.

    1. "The skit about Sept. 11 was just irritating" I found it to be pretty accurate in terms of the nonsense I hear from truthers

  53. One of your eyes is bigger then the other, if science is so good why don't you use it to be symmetrical you ugly person. The scientific method is a faith too. Listen to your self, you are a scientific fundamentalist. Have you heard of being of heuristic, knowledge derived from empirical study and practical adoption of experience. It's not pseudoscience, it simply works if you have enough balls to try it and break away from your conditioned mind.

    1. I love how you say ''conditioned mind'', as if you are superior.

    2. Unbelievable. The scientific method has absolutely nothing to do with faith. It has to do with evidence, observation, deduction, and induction. Faith is entirely absent. You need to learn a little more about heuristics and how experience and observation are not always the best methods to acquiring truth. I suggest you read David Hume. Perhaps after you read that you may want to pick up one of Karl Popper's books on the philosophy of science.

  54. Reading all the conspiracy theorist's and pagan's comments here is hillarious, i might have to bookmark this page XD Seriously though, its like people are expecting him to prove (and/or disprove) every single thing he referenced, that would require a month long documentary.... The ponit of the documentary anyway was to go out and discover what sources of information are valid and which ones are not, go and do some research, as he suggested

  55. You cannot choose where and when to apply critical thinking, but this guy obviously has, choosing to apply it to new ideas, but not the ones he seems to firmly believe in.
    He is not a critical thinker, he is a defender of his beliefs, and no man can hope to think critically when he holds beliefs.

    1. You must be joking, you can think anytime you want to. The message in this film went way over your head.

  56. Actually, I own a scientific tool, called a level, that proves the world is flat.

  57. If you consider death as a direct result of medical care an acceptable GOAL of treatment, then the practice of medicine may not be pseudo-science. However, the inability to produce a unified field theory proves physics to be pseudo-science. My point is that, he says that you should not believe claims unsupported by facts, then makes assertions that he expects you to believe without any evidence at all. His lies are more egregious because he purports to know better. Really, I'm sure it's meant to be a joke, it just isn't funny.

  58. Unless you consider death a desirable outcome of medical care, the fact that we can't synthesize food, and the inability to produce a unified field theory makes medicine, chemistry, and physics psudo-sciences. In fact, all accepted science began as unaccepted theories, and the general acceptance of a theory as fact doesn't make it true. Your documentary is pseudo-truth.

  59. Moronic!

    Future viewers - click back!

    Brian Dunning... get a haircut!

  60. no background no evidence, this documentary is bullshit

  61. 9.11 Americans crushed it

  62. Firmianus Lactantius and Kosmas Indikopleustes where a few of the only well known fanatics whom thought the earth was flat, most others knew that this wasn't true. Just a note, one can even be critical against Brian... Note to self: think for myself.

  63. Terrible doc. Narratively weak, has no focus and points out the obvious. Also, cherry picks the interviews thus does not present a balanced story.

  64. Great Presentation. I watched it a few weeks ago when it was first posted and expected that alot of nutters would be offended. I can tell by the 400+ posts I see below that my prediction was correct :) LOL

    1. It's a joke , Stephen. You're one of the few who didn't get it.

  65. Well, I was hoping for a good doc on this subject to sharpen my mind. But just a few minutes into it, when he's saying vitamins, organic foods, and yoga are "pseudoscience" I used my critical thinking and said this doc must be a load of crap.
    HEY! It worked! LOL

  66. He deliberately avoided the word "religion", probably cause he didn't want to be controversial. He did however reference things like creationism and "Teach the controversy", with the "2+2=5" and "flat earth" examples.

    We all laugh at the lady who would turn her car around if she saw a black cat, but somehow organized superstition isn't silly.

    1. Well said!

  67. He condemns what he claims to be faith-based thinking w/ faith-based thinking. No empirical data was used to make his point.

  68. He uses his own arguments to make his points. Non-facts, confusing causation w/ correlation, red herrings and extreme language. His 'world was flat' example, for instance, was a scientific fact in the western world at the time. It was the mystics that understood the world was round. Galileo was considered a heretic by the modern people of his day and spent the remaining days of his life under house arrest for claiming the earth was round.

    I wonder what he thinks the base substances in pharmaceutical medications are? And no energy or electricity in the body?!! That's like stating that the world is flat. How does EEG's work, and what do they do? Hello?!

    1. He never stated that the body didn't have energy or electricity. It does, but the notion of an "energy field" or being able to sense onces "inner energy" is absolutley meaningless since the concept of energy has nothing to do with it. Please study and understand the concepts before you comment on it being bogus.

    2. No, the "mystics," aka Christians, believed the world was flat, and that's why Galileo was considered a "heretic," as you so aptly put it.

  69. Yes, there is a lot of phony bullsh*t in the world, and Brian Dunning rightly debunks some of that bs in this film. But something is fishy here. Dunning seems to have some ulterior motive -- a private, hidden agenda. He has a penchant for throwing the baby out with the bathwater -- and I don't think it's an accident that he does this. If you watch this doc, or any other film by Dunning, then keep both eyes open and all your little gray cells tuned to propaganda and bullsh*t detection.

  70. would like to point out here that, whatever my commentary, I do dig this site

  71. @ Vlatko:

    Are you saying, then, that this documentary is well made?

    I had problems with some of Dunning's arguments, not because I'm a believer of pseudoscience, but because his arguments are flawed, simplistic and incomplete.

    I don't believe in precognition--have never experienced it--but you can't, when debunking, just assume that everyone who allegedly experiences it has a general experience and then makes the mistake of attaching a particular meaning. He seems to think that a person who had a dream about feathers would assume precognition if they found a bird in their house the next day, and indeed many falsely would. But it does not end there. My question is: how do you know there aren't people who have dreamed about the bird itself, its color, actions and the sounds it made? Still not precognition? He even gives a mathematical probability presentation, which is a ridiculous argument without knowing the details of the individual experience.

    Then there is 9/11. I'm tired of people who simply will not have an open mind on the topic. If believing that there is more to 9/11 than has been told is pseudoscience, then at least give me some concrete answers on questions like: why was all the steel from the buildings shipped off to China (for recycling!) on barges IMMEDIATELY--blood, guts and bones all still attached?

    Few actions could have been more disrespectful to the dead. Why did building 7 fall despite not being hit at all? There are a dozen more similar things that don't compute. The debate has nothing to do with pseudoscience, and to say otherwise is a disingenuous lie.

    Critical thinking is important. That is what I believe. But if I insult Dunning by saying that his documentary is a very poor introduction to it, then so be it. The truth is the truth.

    1. Yeah I had a problem with his critique of 911 conspiracy, he completely ignored the facts you went over as well as the fact that the rubble from these buildings contained nanothermite. Who crashed the planes? Middle eastern extremists yes, but who were they funded by? All signs point to the US government.

  72. This is borderline garbage. There are a few good points, but most of the illustrations are oversimplified nonsense:

    He dismisses precognition giving an example of an experience that 'you hear about often' when a person dreams of someone and they die at the same time and you assume paranormal stuff to be the explanation. He then gets into an insulting illustration of laws of probability. Oversimplified generalization is what this is. What about the guy who doesn't just dream about the person, but dreams about them dying, and in the exact way that it happens. Give us some probability numbers on that jackass. 1 in 150 still?

    "Who flew the planes?"...
    There are many critical thinkers out there--much smarter ones than this guy I might add--who believe that controlled demolition took down the towers. People who design buildings have gotten behind it..but it all boils down to who flew the planes right? Why not put some of your critical thought into this question: How difficult would it be to get some Syrians (for example) to volunteer to fly such planes? Americans don't get much love abroad these days. This guy has not noticed.

    1. i don't think you understand what this video was conveying. Where you are arguing for precognition, he is basically letting you know to suspend your judgement until you have enough peer reviewed evidence. there is not enough evidence to support precognition...

      if there were proof, science would take it seriously. not that science doesn't take it seriously.

    2. LOL. I didn't understand? YOU didn't even read what I wrote. I'm not arguing for precognition; I said in my third paragraph that I don't believe in it. And Dunning says nothing about suspending judgement and waiting for evidence as you claim (I just watched the relevant section again to make sure). He does say that improbable events are mathematical certainties, so we should not be surprised when we hear about them, or when people ascribe supernatural explanations.

      My original points stand. Dunning assumes that all claims of precognition are based on improbable events (dreaming of someone at the exact time they die in this case). But his probability argument breaks down if the precognitive experience is specific in nature--for example a dream including the circumstances and actions of the person in their last moments that then later happens.

      If you are going to claim that I have not understood this film, please be specific and accurate in your points.

  73. I can't believe Brian Dunning actually compared St Johns Wart, Yoga, and Vitamin C with palm reading, astrology and 9/11 conspiracy theories! This documentary is a joke, and I'm ashamed to have sat through the first four minutes of it.
    But seriously, the 9/11 conspiracy theory bit in the beginning seemed so random, until I realized that Dunning wanted to make your somewhat rabidly patriotic American id**t associate herbal supplements with terrorism. The agenda of this documentary is sickening.

    1. You don't make any sense at all. The whole point of this is to expose the modern day dragons as he says, typical of the average moron to dwell on the examples given regarding the 9/11 conspiracies. How did you come to the conclusion that he was 'comparing supplements and these theories anyway? Did you just not listen? He's basically outlining that they are both misguided and take advantage of people's lack of critical thinking because they fail to present evidence for their claims. Please explain in your infinite wisdom what is so bad about that.


      Richard, Lizard man, illuminati bloodline warrior and government spy.

    2. @Richard L.A Johnson,

      "Richard, Lizard man, illuminati bloodline warrior and government spy."

      Good one. You should expect someone to blame you for being government spy, or paid by Monsanto at least.

      Anyhow, I find this thread very interesting. If we analyze the comments so far (400), most of them sound like: "He has some good points but he failed at __________ (insert the pseudoscience someone happens to believe in). And then the comment continues with the usual ad hominem combo, insulting the maker of the video, instead of arguing why the author is wrong."

      If we do some stats we will see that all the conspiracy theories and pseudosciences mentioned in the documentary have almost equal number of supporters, on this thread. So if we judge by this thread only, Brian will be wrong on all counts in the film, which is not possible.

      The point is, if you watch this, it is very likely that you'll hear something bad about your favorite pseudoscience or conspiracy theory, and depending on your personality, you'll get mad very quickly which may lead to making a comment full of insults.

    3. Well, it is possible to be wrong on all counts, especially if that is your intent. My favorite pseudo-science is Sophestry- a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

  74. it seems a lot of you are missing the point, whether the man is right or wrong on some things, or even his own bias is irrelevant. it just perpetuates the actual problem.
    a lot of you seem to be judging the content of the film on the man presenting it. i am not denying that he was erroneous ( being diplomatic...), and coming from a scientist, critical thinking is important, especially in "science". and hey, the earth is not flat, he was right about that!

    1. lol the earth is not flat well i would love to here dunnings recall of that, age by age.I actually feel sorry for people who try to make money by illegal means so im giving him a break.I hope and wish him the best luck on his adventures and a quote from some mental pod he did was to sate that we get our education from Oprah Winfrey he is a rely special person that needs help to inform the masses.

      I will dedicate my time to educate dunning with what i know and i need others to educate dunning also conspiracy is not allowed only solid facts.

      we need to educate dunning i think he is a bright guy he never rely sees the answer and you feel that every time he speaks.

      I say we create the teach dunning foundation before he runs amok and breeds more dunnings.

      we might even get a wildlife grant lol.

    2. I think you're missing the point of this. Its all too common for the general public to believe what they are told by the mainstream media and it appears as though everyone I meet now wants to believe in every conspiracy theory they hear. Dunning is, from what I can see, explaining to the delusional public how to think rationally and see the difference between established theories and pseudo science. It just makes me laugh as everyone slating him for this documentary aren't making any specific criticisms. I just get the impression they're all info wars nutters and don't like him because he doesn't buy the 9/11 and pharmaceuticals conspiracy 'theories'. I don't care what any of you supposed rational thinkers say; he's right in what he's saying and I'm shocked to see such criticism without any substance.

  75. I am starting to feel sorry for this guy maybe he is just uneducated and his method of gaining validation is basic he uses ridiculous then follows with something i knew at 12.I know everybody deserves a chance but he even did a video on how sustain and rebuke a negative argument.I am starting to feel pity the more i listen and maybe thats why he broke the law who knows but at least he is trying maybe he is not the smartest guy in the world but as Socrates said the man who said he knows everything is the man who knows nothing.I think dunning is trying to bat way above his level hes trying but some of the facts are way of base and his knowledge comes from what he is told rather than solid understanding.Brian Dunning would love to have a 142 IQ but he will never have so the facts he relays he will never rely understand he should play a role of the uneducated trying to figure out truth than walking tall and running with the science breakers.he would be a lot more likable also in my eyes because and i think most hear see an arrogant uneducated person of il repute talking on things he has read with little understanding.

  76. He says that you should not debunk unless you are debunking to advance humanity Dunning you have been debunked.

  77. Brian Dunning strikes again this weasel should be fed watered but not allowed near electronics or or fiction for that matter.

  78. @MrIreland,

    I'll have to ask you to calm down. Stop with the name calling.

    1. may have been a different site that cut the 9/11 category half.sorry.does (here be dragons)really belong in the science category. just a common sence question,don`t mean to offend.

  79. I was excited to read the blurb for this documentary and really thought I would learn something. After all, there are a large number of people out there who believe in weird things without any reliable proof. And lo and behold, I find that the presenter himself falls right into this same category, and has absolutely no sense of the irony of his own situation!
    Just taking one simple example - there are literally hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that show the effectiveness of vitamin C in a wide range of applications to human health. But with single sweep all that scientific data is thrust aside, while drugs like Prozac continue to be sold long after independent scientists conclude that the effect is no better than a placebo. Now that is something interesting to investigate, but this presenter clearly has an agenda in favor of the status quo, and stands out as a prime example of the type of pseudoscientist that he claims to be interested in debunking.
    This documentary is pure pseudoscience itself!

  80. I am highly disappointed I wasted 3 minutes on this. I'll share it on a social network and give my true opinion along with info about where the opposite of what this promotes is true.

  81. He has way too much real stuff in there for me to pay attention to anything else he has to say. He lost me at the first 2 minutes of the "show". Vegetables and herbs really do have health benefits.

  82. This guy seems to present himself as the authority to define what is true and what is not. He seems to have knowledge of everything in this universe. After visiting to your website skeptiod, its clear that you are not a critical thinker but a biased thinker.

  83. and who are you? mister critical thinker? you forgot to tell me about your all knowing self and its credentials? never mind I just started thinking critically.

  84. 'It's normal to like pseudoscience, it's cool. Even smart people don't know any better.'

    but of course, he knows better than to believe in any of these things.
    God, it's really hard for me to like this guy. What really annoys me is the music he plays whenever he's presenting the pseudoscience side. Isn't that in of itself, a advertising ploy that causes bias?

  85. Aso a nice book with more things people like to beleave in. Your Not So Smart from David McRaney

  86. I didn't read the many posts below but for a many years of my life I thought that there were many conspiracies out there. After having seen so many videos and reading so many pages of "credible" knowledge, the one thing that is always the case is that you can't find credible source any from any institute of education, military, government, or even a witness that is credible, when names are put out there, look them up and you will see how credible they are. Here is an example, I recently watch the "ancient aliens" series and they mention how the Hopi Indians have a creation myth of "sky beings" and after looking at many universities, wikipedia and ... there was nothing.

    Now to the point, about oil/car companies are suppressing clean technologies. Well I honestly felt this way till about 5 years ago, then I started to realize that why isn't this stuff coming out, like come on it's been around for 30+ years ... before scientists/engineers become so they have these same naive views so when learning why not just test it out for fun... You would think that 5, 10, 20, 30 years later that someone out there out of the millions that have graduated would have at least tried it somewhere right? The fact is that things such as weather, reliability, power output(aka torq), distance travelled, weight (lead acid batteries or any other dense chemical powerpack make up a large majority of weight in any pure electric car). These are the challenges that face engineers, and just because someone has a one of its kind out there doing its magic doesn't mean it can be sold on the market. There are laws that car manufacturers must follow to sell a car in any market, you know so you can get insurance to be legally allowed drive on the road.

    Well I'm sure it happened many times with the same results, nothing, nada, just a hoax. Now this made me think for about 5 years and the only thing I realized is that it requires funding and real engineers/scientists to do this kind of work, so that it is reproducible by anyone (this is a key thing in science, make the claim back it up). The universe is filled with many things so many possibilities and permutations that are possible, it truly is dizzying if you try to look at it all at the same time. So being that I am not as monetarily motivated as others (although I do EXPECT to be paid when working for an employer) meaning that I don't mind spending some of my personal money to explore the mysteries of the beautiful world around us. This leads me to my personal solution which was to go back to school. Now before you bash, smash and destroy everything I mentioned above I chose to back to school at the age of 35 the same year my first child was born, I'm 36 now still have at least another 5 or even 6 years to go, what have I chose to study, Electrical Engineering, why because maybe if enough people do the same as I do there may be someone somewhere that may stumble upon an effect that may be the next big thing.

    I'm tired of waiting for big business to find it financially profitable for funding to be put into this line of research. These days they are starting to see the light and a bit is trickling in slowly but there is still not enough. I can't promise that I will do anything at all to advance science even one femto meter but hey I have one life to live and I would rather spend it trying to discover and solve then to sit back and point fingers at things I don't understand.

    BTW I have a second baby on the way... I don't like it easy ;) but nothing is worthwhile if it came easy.

    1. Id love to know exactly how much the government, motor or the oil industry paid you to write that complete drivel, the only reason clean energy hasnt come out yet is because the oil corporations havnt let it because they would loose a fortune and if you actually believe anything to the contrary then you are a very sad and delusional individual who i can place in the BRAINWASHED category

    2. So you do know for sure that clean energy is working just fine and that we could get rid of our oil dependency just like that?

    3. Surely it would take huge piles of cash to research and develop clean energy, anyone with that much money is not going to be put off by bp chucking a wobbler. I suppose the oil people themselves could have the answers and be holding them back but what would be the point? Even if clean energy happened the switch from oil would take years and they would still be the guys in charge. And, if some inventor came up with it in a garden shed how would they stop it? Information spreads like wildfire now. Sad and delusional. Oh well.

  87. stupid propaganda

  88. In this document, they're just telling you how to think by confusing psudo science with some things that actually have worked. They are just lumping every thing together. Only an id**t would take this documentary seriously. That's real critical thinking for you.

  89. they just threw healthy eating in with fake psychics and 911 conspiracy. They didn't do thir research at all.

  90. why is he throwing ghosts and organic food in the same bucket? funny to see this cheap association technique being used in a film about critical thinking. 3 minutes in and skipping this one.

  91. He seems to forget that most, if not all, sciences started off at some point as being labelled "pseudo-science" by the mainstream scientific establishment. Before "science" was mainstream, most all science was considered blasphemous by the church. Dunning presents some subjects he believes are "pseudo-science" as blasphemous of the current scientific status quo. In essence, his entire argument against the validity of "pseudo-sciences" is contradictory of itself. Writing off entire subjects of study simply because they are not yet accepted as mainstream scientific fact is against everything 'science' is supposed to stand for, and fundamentally counter-productive. Historically, the majority of all of great scientific breakthroughs were the result of thinking beyond what was commonly accepted as truth, scientific or not. Dunning is a hypocrite, and an *****.

    1. @Nathan Daniel
      you stated "He seems to forget that most, if not all, sciences started off at some point as being labelled "pseudo-science" can you please give me examples of this? the fact that many areas of science were considered blasphemous is irrelevant and not the same as pseudo science. the fact that many scientific ideas weren't immediately accepted doesn't make them pseudo science. scientific ideas first of all have to deal with the natural world (not supernatural). if they do there is a required set of standards and rules that any ides has to be subjected to. now if this doc or anybody labels your belief as pseudo science you have what i see as four choices. one ignore them and go on believing whatever you want. two fight back by bringing up what the nazi's did of refer to some unnamed study or some non scientific paper. three take your belief use it to form a hypothesis test it (scientifically). make predictions based on hypothesis. test predictions. if predictions turn out true form theory. retest . allow others to test and try to disprove theory . now i left out many steps for saving space but i think many will get the idea. if your theory stands up welcome to the world of science. and lastly fourth accept that your idea or practice is not scientific and that doesn't mean it is wrong but please don't try to attach a non scientific practice to science in the hopes of leaching off of others credibility

  92. Seriously!? "An introduction to critical thinking" is what this vid is called, then he goes on about how this and that claims to be the truth and how we should be careful when listening to people claiming to have the "truth" THEN he lays his "truth" on us..!? Im gonna take the advice he gives about critical thinking and skip the rest of this.. .

  93. Where to begin? He has a lot of truths, but it is so lost when it became mixed into the untruths. Totally lost his impact when he ventured into political views. And left out that small detail about the revolving door between the FDA and BigPharma. Or the fact the most MDs training includes one Friday afternoon lecture, or less, on nutrition, not to mention little awareness of soil science. And that it was only a few decades ago that medical school instructors enjoyed impunity when snide remarks were commonplace about the female of the species. That was real scientific.
    He could have noticed how wonderfully "science" has brought us things that defy common sense such as fluoridation of water, mercury in our teeth, or GMO crops. That might have offended his funders. And he's picking on people who eat a few herbs to feel better, or hope that the way they think may have some meaning?

    1. flouridation of water is an amazing advancement in health and preventative medicine. stop pushing this conspiracy theory stuff, and GMO crops are helpful things, its the business practices that are the problem.

      he doesnt have funders. he is not picking on anyone.

      i dont understand why all you people are being so irrational. oh well i give up. clearly when i or Brian Dunning try to educate we are just yelled at and insulted...what can you do other han just tell people what they want to hear?

      okay, well buy anything the health food people sell you at exuberant prices. everyone else is evil and trying to get your money but the naturopath industry really cares about your well being and not your money, that is why naturopath care and medicine is so cheap.....oh wait....

    2. "flouridation of water is an amazing advancement in health and preventative medicine."

      lol, do you realize that, historically, the first water fluoridation experiments were carried out by the nazis during world war 2? fluoride was added to the well water that prisoners drank in concentration camps because of it's proven ability to create a docile, easily manipulated prisoner population. fluoride is a psychotropic drug at low doses where it tends to have the effect of inducing apathy and sedation. the officers and guards did not drink the fluoridated water.

      "okay, well buy anything the health food people sell you at exuberant prices. everyone else is evil and trying to get your money but the naturopath industry really cares about your well being and not your money, that is why naturopath care and medicine is so cheap.....oh wait...."

      OK, so by this line of reasoning, McDonalds food must be super-healthy because it's so cheap. I mean, it MUST be, right? Because it's cheap, and McDonalds primary motivation behind producing such cheap food is the customers health and well being. Companies whose products are expensive do not care about the well being of their customers. Do you realize how ST*PID you make yourself look? Did you ever consider that it COSTS MORE to produce "healthy" food than it does to mass produce CR*P? McDonalds prices are so cheap because, uh, it's NOT GOOD FOR YOU. It's chemical-laden, factory produced garbage. Open your eyes, fool. For making so many comments here, one would assume you wouldn't be an id**t. Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubts.

    3. I think i love you Nathan (in a total brotherly way ofcourse) lol

      That Epicurus person is without a doubt the most obnoxious, irritating muppet i have ever come across in real life or the world wide web, he is making me loose the will to live and though i am not a violent man, he is bringing up these violent feelings towards him that i didnt know i had, ya know the kind, when your watching a film, maybe a true story and you see a murdering rapist go free and the bastid is laughing at the victims family while walking out of the court, Grrr came down G........

  94. Brian, do you have it translated in Spanish. If Not, would you please contact me and let me know. I can have someone do it for you. Then you can add this to your video It has subtitles right?

  95. Thanks Brian for submitting the videos to this site.

  96. And yet not once did I hear him say, "And very often science itself is actually a pseudoscience, but in that case it is generally referred to as a theory instead." He did say, "Science never suppresses good science." Hmm, Anti-depressants vs placebos?

    1. a theory in science is very different from "a guess" or "idea" a theory is a well established, tested, explanation of a fact.

  97. Epicurus!!!! I love you. . . Don't listen to that blabbering fool that slated you. If you want to write, then I say WRITE!!! The doc is excrement though. They picked on omega 3 suppliments, and there is a doc on here which gives empirical evidence of its benifits and names and papers to look up if need-be. OK, maybe not papers, but it was a University funded project so the papers will be accessable. Take the famous saying, or moral, or code of conduct from my beloved country's Royal Society, which was started by two of the greats; Newton and Wren, and two nother people that I can't remeber the names of, and that saying is. . . 'Take nobody's word for it'. If you really want to know the truth, then investigate it your selves you lazy bunch of, oooooh, was I about to swear???? Na. But I gave up on this shitty doc at about 16 min!!!! Lol

    1. if you watch again you will notice he is not "poo-pooing" omega-3's just telling people to be careful of expensive supplement pills, when there are perfectly normal ways to get those essential nutrients. like HEMP!

      and thanks for the encouragement.

  98. is this for real?

  99. This is a stupid video. Who put him up to this ****? He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. I agree that not everything you read and hear is true but I think most are smart enough to decide for themselves.

  100. this is a really great of the best i've seen. mr dunning is truely blessed with the spirit of wisdom and truth.thank you mr dunning.

  101. This guy is an id**t. The film itself is based on pseudoscience. You can't simply choose to discard anything because it is profitable. Wasn't this film supposed to learn people to think critical? Then why is the 9/11 inside job theory just thrown in between healing and ghoststories like nothing, when the red flags of mass media is just that, what he wants to expose??? Brian Dunning has just fallen for the "Appeal to Authority" trick and listened to "the president in the white house" and the official story told by mass media which has never been scientifically proven. I red flag this bull****-film.

    1. of believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theory so now everything this guy says is wrong because he thinks it wasnt a conspiracy.

      if only you guys understood how silly you looked by doing that.

    2. If you only could hear yourself. Wait you can. You can actually read what you just wrote. Do you even realize how you fall on your own tricks. I never said everything is wrong. That was a huge red herring right there. Just putting your words in my mouth. I guess ignorance is bliss for you guys. The new religion. It's really bad for truth. This guy is stupid because he can simply rule out any gouvernment involvment by the share fact that none of the gouvernment drove the actual planes in to the buildnings. WHAT? Yes he actually says that. I guess he doesn't know what motives are and totally rule out "qui bono", who prifits. He rules questioning obsolete. The opposite of science. Get a grip dude

    3. "This guy is stupid because he can simply rule out any gouvernment involvment by the share fact that none of the gouvernment drove the actual planes in to the buildnings."

      that is not his point at all.

      also claims of who benefits and motive are good for induction but it doesnt give a certain answer, that is when evidence is required. and every claim by truthers as evidence falls flat.

      he doesnt rule out questioning. he rules in sane questioning.

  102. this guy is a closeminded idiot, he is totally a whore to science which is constantly changing and dis proving itself, even science argues within it's own ranks !!!!!!!!!

  103. Mr. Dunning has stirred up some interesting conversation. I agree that one should always be cautious about what one reads and listens to on the internet, books, magazines, etc... not everything we read about is the truth. It is always a good idea to get facts and lots of information - just common sense. I do not agree though with everything Mr. Dunning has to say. There are many health products that are beneficial, certified organic foods and proper diet are important for good health. I also feel that a little spiritualness (if that word exists?) and respect for our planet and other human beings to be important. Spiritualness can come from a walk in a quiet forest with no distraction from the outside world. If a person has a spiritual belief and it helps him/her in a positive way, that is good. I do not believe in pushing one's beliefs on others. How boring our world would be if we all thought like Mr. Dunning! I enjoy a good UFO or ghost story. I have heard of, first hand, many true UFO sightings, and have also seen 'unusual' zig-zagging lights in our skies (on Vancouver Island) and where I once lived in the Mediterranean. I cannot explain what they were as I am not an expert in that field. Monsanto is scary and they are destroying forests in Argentina and Brazil. The FDA are not always reliable and have approved products unsafe for human consumption (i.e. aspartame just to name one item). It is probably wise to be a 'critical thinker' but not to the point where one becomes too critical about everything and shuts out opportunity to new ideas and possibilities. Imagine those 'critical thinkers' around the time of Galileo, he was ostracized for his discoveries....I am afraid Mr. Dunning is one of those.

  104. there's 325 comments on this article, i am sure you Epicurus own 75% of them, its almost as if you felt like you had to engage everyone who gave an opinion and i don't like you because you think you are some kind of authority on every subject discussed, i only have a minimal education but i am well educated in people and you my friend are a nerd and most definitely were one of the unpopular kids at school

    1. a nerd and was unpopular? come on....

      whether that was true or not, those unpopular nerds are the ones employing people like and paying your wages.

  105. Maste of the Obvious here. Im pretty sure there are alot of Scientist who have come out against the official WTC story. Not to mention they discovered Dark "Energy" Go back to the POD. Should have called this Over Critical Thinking.

  106. ive just read everyone of these posts and even though im new to all this, i have to say Epicurus, you have to be the most delusional and tbh the most annoying individual ive ever had the displeasure of reading, as for Brian Dunning, well, he's just kissing government/corporation (who runs who?) ass

    1. lol yes he is trying to tell you not to buy into corporate marketing scams yet he is working for thr corporations....

      and of course you dont like me, im saying things you dont like and you dont know how to rationally argue against anything i said so you decided to just call me delusional and

      you and everyone like you have responded EXACTLY how you were expected to.

  107. I always enjoy hearing a point if view, I love the freedom of expression.
    I don't believe much of what he has to say, yet I support his right to say it. Also it is through people like him that help strengthen and develop support for Holistic Health. Gotta love it

    1. Oh come on! Who flew the planes into the buildings?

  108. Hmmm...brings up a few good points and then totally embarrasses himself by failing to acknowledge the facts such as that acupuncture and chiropractic have many "clinical trials". Anyone who actually uses the "tools" he gives can see right through his logical fallacies.

  109. Suggests you say? Of course you would say that. What else have you got?

  110. This Brian Dunning Guy is an lame host to do a show like this. He is just a skeptic on everything it seems but tries to come off as a pro. Im sure he does not know much about what he is skeptic about. So I am a skeptic on Brian Dunning.

  111. Epicurus besides the bugs and the reports that GM doesn't do any better than conventional agriculture it takes power from the farmer and places it in the hands of corporations. If you want your food supply to be controlled by a corporation and in this case almost one corporation, Monsanto is the way to go. With the terminator gene food becomes a potential weapon to coerce and control populations. In case you don't know the terminator gene means that the seed from the crop is infertile. So Monsanto will have farmers and world population by the balls. They will control who eats and who doesn't. Thanks but no thanks Epicurus.

    1. The patenting of GM seeds is the problem. The evolving of super bugs is more hype than substance and these two issues are completely separate.

      If my traditional crop of corn is being destroyed every year by corn borers, I may be tempted to use a GM modified seed. If the corn borer pest evolves and is able to infect my GM crop ten years down the road, then I am right back where I started except I did have ten years of abundant crop yields. It is not the disaster that is sometimes described.

      The use of terminator seeds or forcing farmers to sign contracts that will not allow them to save a portion of a seed crop for next year's planting is problematic. Farmers have been using their own seed for planting since farming began. It is outrageous that a farmer can buy seed and still not own it. Google Monsanto and you will find numerous sites that speak out against the questionable practices of this corporation.

    2. exactly

  112. Well, I made it a whole 2:49 into this preposterous piece of garble.

    Combining nutritional supplements, and doing Yoga, with psychic readings and conspiracies??

    This documentary shouts warnings of imaginations gone amuck by magical-trickery and witch doctors, while simultaneously the magician that made this film is waving a wand of misdirection for the viewer.

    Perhaps this film was intended to be a sarcastic anecdote? Shame on you if you fell for this.

    Critical thinking indeed....

    1. @Tyler Partridge
      I agree with you. He could do a great remake of 'Duck and Cover'. x

    2. Since you didn't watch the doc you cannot know what he said about nutritional supplements. What he implies is that if someone is charging exorbitant prices for a supplement, using certain catch phrases and new age slogans, whose benefits can just as easily be found in a balanced nutritional diet, be wary. He does not discourage the use of supplements, just be aware of what the vendor is saying and protect yourself from snake oil salesman. That sounds like excellent advice to me.

    3. A lot of "nutritional supplements" ARE pseudoscience! Amazing how easily people have bought into the health food industry's propaganda.

  113. You are dragon of your own defintion.

  114. @ Epicurus

    Unlike you I am not waiting for scientists or a government to help me decide what I believe in. I'm not stupid you rude, arrogant, smug, fuk stick. I can join the dots well enough myself. Again I can make up my own rational mind just fine. You are an intellectual coward.

    You are rude and stupid yourself to call anyone gullible when you seem to be the one who believes what you are told by governments with regards to extraterrestrials.

    "the vastness of our universe should tell you how damn near impossible it would be for a species to survive long enough and evolve the intelligence to conduct intergalactic travel..."

    Pffff... Right... You got me there... Where do you get this crap from? You must be the oracle or something. You clearly don't know shite!

    Where do you people get off thinking that you are the only people capable of or practicing critical thinking just because people disagree with you?

    I don't really care that you don't see things the way I do. That's fine. You have not had the experiences I have had nor are you likely to have seen most of the real evidence that I have. You have your own biases and expectations that make sense to you. Now kindly get off your high horse and STFU.

    1. @geamala:

      It does not matter what you think you saw or believe in, the moment that you insult a person as you have done to Epicurus, you automatically lose the debate.
      Please read the comment policy above.

    2. Excuse me mate Epicurus was the first to start firing insults by calling people stupid. So suck my balls the lot of you ok?!

  115. Most of what Brian Dunning is saying is accurate, but it bothers me to hear him use fallacies he himself warns you about. (about products claiming to stem from ancient knowledge) "It's probably because they have no real evidence to support their claims." Probably? That's right you don't know, The fact is we have no idea how they came to the conclusions they did, and just because blood letting and witch burning where grossly archaic, doesn't mean everything should be met with caution. It also bothers me to hear him denounce the 911 conspiracies based on the most outlandish claims. Really, you believe terrorists with minimal flying knowledge, hijacked a plane with a box cutter, flew it undetected to the twin towers, crashed it, and the only thing that survived was the terrorists passports?

    1. Let me correct myself, I'm not saying Brian Dunning believes or disbelieves the events of 911.

    2. The alleged finding of terrorist Satam Al Suqami's passport is one of the urban myths surrounding 9/11. It started with an erroneous report by ABC that passports were found in the wreckage. It has subsequently been found that this was not true. The reason the authorities knew that he was on American Airlines flight 11 is that his name was on the flight manifest. That is how they knew the identities of all the terrorists, passengers and crews of all the hijacked planes. Every commercial passenger plane has a registered passenger list. It is the law.

      If you don't have to take off or land the plane, minimal flying knowledge is all one needs to fly a plane. The ability to steer, recognize landmarks and keep ones foot on the throttle, so to speak, is all that is required. These hijackings were not committed on a whim. It was a well thought out plan and the hijackers were prepared to handle what was necessary for them to carry out their mission.

      I have already explained how terrorists armed with box cutters could easily hijack a passenger plane. In order to avoid redundancy in this comment section, I would suggest that you find and read it.

      As for those products stemming from ancient knowledge, Dunning is saying that there are no scientific studies that support their effectiveness. That means no one knows why, how or if it works. In other words "We don't know". Don't pass it off as science when science has never examined them. Their effectiveness is not the point.

    3. On 911- I'm not saying its impossible, or that I know exactly what happened that day, all I know is that there are way too many " mistakes" and holes in the popular explanation for me to believe in it comfortably. I don't believe the story I'm being told, and I'm not alone. This, in itself is reason for concern.

    4. A lot happened that day. There were thousands of eye witness accounts as well as physical evidence to examine. That there are conflicting accounts from eye witnesses is to be expected and is normal. The investigators had to listen to all the eye witnesses, match it up with all the physical evidence to fully understand what happened that day. It is impossible to get everything exactly 100% correct. What is only possible is to be as close as one can get to an accurate picture of those events. If there are certain aspects that make you go "Hmm" it does not invalidate the entire account. Remember also that people on both sides of the story have vested interests in their beliefs and tend to over exaggerate the significance of certain details that support their version. Investigating all aspects of those details before an objective decision is made is what is important. That you say that you don't know exactly what happened is true as no one knows exactly. All we can decide upon is as plausible an account as possible.

    5. @ MrMikeunderscore,

      Actually, it was one passport, although that doesn't change much :))).

  116. Did anybody have a strong theory as to what was in the cinnamon that stopped the illness in your cattle Jack?

    That was an excellent demonstration you wrote.

    1. I really have no idea. I witnessed my father administering the cinnamon when I was very young, around 5 or 6 years old. What stuck in my mind that first time was how actively the calves resisted and my dad telling me with a chuckle "They hate it but its for their own good." When I became older I was given this unpleasant task. To this day when I come down with the symptoms of that affliction I have cinnamon and brown sugar on toast. I can't really say if it helps and the affliction may have disappeared on its own but it tastes good so no harm.

      This was a strong memory and I thought it showed how easy it is to believe something even if there is no real scientific evidence to prove its veracity.

  117. I copied the below from Wikipedia entry on Carl Gustav Jung on synchronicity. Remember there was no internet in 1951
    The comic strip character Dennis the Menace featuring a young boy in a red-and-black-striped shirt debuted on March 12, 1951, in 16 newspapers in the United States. Three days later in the UK, a character called Dennis the Menace, wearing a red-and-black-striped jumper, made his debut in children's comic The Beano. Both creators have denied any causal connection.

    Jung wrote, after describing some examples, "When coincidences pile up in this way, one cannot help being impressed by them—for the greater the number of terms in such a series, or the more unusual its character, the more improbable it becomes."

    My critical thinking consists of Don't know. When you think you know then your are bound to provide evidence to support your position and refute evidence that does not support it. At the end of the day you are closed to anything but what you have chosen to believe.

  118. how did he manage to get this put in the science catogory.maybe some inside help.I went to the science section to watch universe season 1 2 3 4 5 before corporate greed relised how popular it was and pulled it from this site. the only pseudoscience or urban myth that might have some fact is,when a fellow talks with his hands so much it is a clear sign of over masterbatsion.

  119. There be dragons in the rhtoric of both Brian Dunning as well as those he argues against. While many of the focal points discussed are indeed lacking evidence, Mr. Dunning has overlooked the fact that western science as we know it is merely in its infancy. Just because something has not yet been confirmed by scientific research does not automatically discredit its validity. His idealistic notion that science would have already discovered something if it is indeed a valid claim, exposes the holes in his theory and lack of true critical thinking.

    1. SnDvl4Life, can't argue with that... well I could but I won't. I would add that critical thinking is always a difficult thing to present as closely held beliefs can be challenged directly(like: there is no god!) or it can also be used to silence all kinds of dissent, be it political or even to cast vitriol when someone questions closely held popular belief. For instance when someone suggests that America is NOT "the land of only Exceptional People who love peace and selflessly helping other countries!" (Many people will quickly object to this while others will quickly praise it-- asking "why" to both is very important)

      There is always trouble around the corner. Brian Dunning throws some stuff out there to display critical thinking that can often double back and defeat the purpose. Presumably the purpose being to assist people with using critical thinking skills to assess validity of argument, products, ad campaigns, marketing blurbs, political policy... amongst many, many others. In presenting this it would serve those watching if he took the opposite position and FIRMLY ARGUING FOR IT and after then doing the converse and FIRMLY ARGUING AGAINST IT. Then eviscerating all possible sides of the argument to show the logic, fallacies,syllogisms, etc etc. I admit that I have always wished critical thinking to be a Middle School or High School subject, but perhaps parents would revolt if their kids were too develop really strong skills in argumentation, protestation or debate.

    2. Why Cap'n is critical thinking a hard thing? It takes no more effort than stupid thinking.

    3. lakhotason... funny, ha ha, but most people can't handle questioning everything they are conditioned to believe, especially if they hold such "truths" close. That alone can be challenging. If I told you that Native Americans were given small pox by the English you might accept that, but far too many Americans are unaware of that practice and may think of it as a CONSPIRACY THEORY!! But just blaming the ignorant or those who are intellectually challenged is, in my opinion, cowardly and just not acceptable. If that is acceptable to you then we can have a conversation. If not, I am sorry...

    4. And if I hold forth that the English had no more idea what and why small pox was and from where it came would you accept that?

    5. No not really...speaking frankly, to those in power it DOESN'T MATTER. The fact is that it is documented that the Brits gave blankets to Natives that were infected with small pox, and they were hoping that the Natives would get sick and die. It was a risk they were more than willing to take. And it worked.

      From Wikipedia:
      "Warfare on the North American frontier was brutal, and the killing of prisoners, the targeting of civilians, and other atrocities were widespread. In what is now perhaps the best-known incident of the war, British officers at Fort Pitt attempted to infect the besieging Native Americans with smallpox using blankets that had been exposed to the virus. The ruthlessness and treachery of the conflict was a reflection of a growing divide between the separate populations of the British colonists and Native Americans."

    6. Oh here comes Wikipedia again. Facts 'r Us. Look at my name and take the last three letters away. I don't need or want Wikipedia.

    7. because, why? Your name has an obvious tie in to Lakhota but I will not make presumptions. (I've know some Dakhota and Ojibway.) DO you not agree that the English used biological eliminations techniques in the 18th C.? Could you seriously object to my quesitoning of British Empires motivations with regard to removal of people who occupied the great Lakes?

    8. No, I do not agree. Friggin obvious "tie in". Wikipedia's obvious "tie in" for sure. But that is Wikipedia.

    9. part of the reason for my objecting to Dunning is that he seeks to display critical thinking techniques but in doing so he only ostensibly supports those who are in power, his intentions are not clear. Does he do so to gain more cred or is he using such as a way to show that he his willing to question all things deeply held by those who truly believe in America? It would be best if he seriously questioned all that we've come to accept as Americans who bleed red, white and blue. I just don't think that his river is gonna run deep.

    10. And just exactly where was he wrong?

    11. His opening of Here Be Dragons suggests a political agenda with St Johns Wort, GMO foods, 9-11 truthers, are castigated though there is some validity to their concerns. At that point it becomes a political war and not an exploration and search for valid argument.

    12. I think his intentions were very clear when said, "and lastly I recomend you read MY book". Brian isn't doing any of this for free.

    13. Of course he isn't doing it for free. He has to make a living.
      But his books exists out of transcriptions of his free podcast. You can listen everything he sells for free on his own site.

    14. This is also from Wikipedia:
      "Indians in the area did indeed contract smallpox. However, some historians have noted that it is impossible to verify how many people (if any) contracted the disease as a result of the Fort Pitt incident; the disease was already in the area and may have reached the Indians through other vectors. Indeed, even before the blankets had been handed over, the disease may have been spread to the Indians by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements. So while it is certain that these British soldiers attempted to intentionally infect Indians with smallpox, unlike the Australian First Fleet example in 1789, it is uncertain whether or not their attempt was successful."

      It may or may not have worked. Smallpox was such a virulent disease that intentional infection may not have been necessary. Even if the attempt was successful the numbers pale beside the numbers of Indians who died of European diseases contracted unintentionally. Isolated incidents do not account for the unfortunate staggering loss of life caused by the inadvertent introduction of old world illnesses to the people of the new world.

    15. agreed... to me it was always odd that the English would attempt this despite the fact that the germ model of disease was still rather novel and not as yet widely accepted. Regardless, the real problem is the that they were attempting to play dirty, to use nefarious tactics. One would only need to use a Rush Limbaugh level of logic to see that even smallest miniscule question proves that even the most specious point can legitimize political action. Say like making unfounded accusation as per "who really killed Vince Foster?" Either way Foster is dead and his death served none of the purposes the Right Wing accusers suggested it was meant to serve... with the possible exception of being served up on a plate as a red herring. But in re to Small Pox, I don't doubt that the English might have floated the idea and then acted on the idea without having complete understanding of possible success, arguably they may have not thought is was possible at all and yet they made note of it. Problem is that action worked and the result being that natives died en mass of SMALLPOX. Forgive me for feeling that the English might possible deserve to take some responsibility for their actions. lol mistake, in the future I will take pains to avoid blaming those in positions of power.

    16. This guy is LAME !!! get a life,what a waste of my time !

  120. He's got a lot of bold claims. If you read the book "Fallacy Detective" you can learn this 'red herring' and 'appeal to authority' stuff, it's very-very interesting, and handy if you want to learn critical thinking. One of these rules is that if a scientific (con. and non-conventional) theory is not accepted by every expert on the field than it is called 'controversial'. But of course much of the scientific community, and the boards that decide what is considered science fact, and what not is comprised of the same old dogmatic thinking people just like at the time when the church was the 'science'. And this science is very much like a religion, where new ideas ARE suppressed if it contradicts with existing facts. For example some astronomers observed that the Big Bang Theory might be just false.They observed an object called 'quasar' which are supposedly the outermost objects known to man (more than 10bill. light years according to Hubble's laws who gave the Big Bang Theory) is somehow connected to a galaxy which is incomparably closer. It suggested that the 'quasar' is not at all so far away, so the laws that were the basis of telling their distance are wrong.The 'B.B.' theory is based upon these same laws, and the age of the universe, this is very important stuff, something very fundamental to know about ourselves and seems to be false. I don't remember everything this was a doc. I saw long ago I hope one of you knows and replies with a link.. Point is that a lot of other theories had been developed from this theory, and a lot of people spent their lives, or pledges their lives today to develop these ideas, and then somebody comes along and says that 'according to observations what you spent your life with is false, and something was just misunderstood. So the board didn't take it nicely they published the images in a scientific paper edited with the appearing connection simply erased, and said that the observation is wrong... Whereas if it is really wrong then they could just contradict it with some kind of explanation or proof, but they just erased it and called it bad observation. That is all about 'science does not suppress good science'.
    Also medicine... There are hundreds of thousands dying in the worlds most developed country -home to the 'american dream'- every year out of something called 'iatrogenic illness'. This is illness derived from medical care. It's you having an illness, for which the highly respected, well taught doctor gives you all kinds of stuff and you die from the side effects. This is how it's done with people whos' government spends average five times the money for health care than other countries. Ancient people knew that health care is about not getting sick, by living a healthy life as possible and nourishing the body with healthy food. The body takes care of everything else. Whereas today you can eat the GM crap food, live in an environment where you'r value is your wealth, and you have to work hard all your life if you want to live a decent life, or sometimes just to stay alive, pay for energy that today TECHNICALLY COULD be gathered for fu*ken free, and this is called the modern human civilization lead by science that renders us smart and the ancients stupid.
    This guy is a bad joke... Says me

    1. Kornel Komor, well said...I agree. I guess at times Dunning appears to confuse societal acceptance with objective truth.

  121. I like how he never said that anything was or wasnt a "dragon" and instead provided us with the tools and initiative to start questioning for ourselves honestly before watching this documentary i was open to believing anything... i was never taught to question

    1. amazing, im glad you understood the point of the documentary and im extremely happy to see that it was able to enlighten you to the art of critical thinking!

  122. Yes this guy is a douche bag. Granted he does have some points but I couldn't believe he dissed the idea of UFOs at Roswell. Man does this guy live in a bubble or what? And yet he is talking about thinking for yourself?! I can say for certain that UFOs are real. I have seen one with MY OWN F***ING EYES! I couldn't give two s***s if he finds that highly improbable or not. This guy ought to pull his head out of his arse and realise that we are not told the truth about everything! The universe is teeming with life beyond our planet. Get real!!!

    1. You didn't watch the documentary did you?

    2. Of course I did! Did you read my post? I said he had some points. I saw validity in some of what he said and contradiction in other things he said. It is my opinion that he is a douche bag none the less. My apologies if you disagree with me. That doesn't mean that I disagree with him on everything he said. I disagree with some of his black and white over simplified logic. And yes I have seen a UFO myself. I'm not afraid to admit it or speak out about it regardless of what others think. And yes I also use my own critical thinking in my daily life. Critical thinking doesn't always lead everyone to the same conclusions. Just bear that in mind....

    3. lol you say a UFO...UNIDENTIFIED flying object. you didnt know what it was you cannot pretend you know it was aliens.

      and if you believe an alien crashed at roswell you are extremely gullible.

    4. I do not think that Brian Dunning would dispute that you have seen something that we would call a UFO. What he disputes is your conclusion. You witness what we culturally believe a spaceship should look like and that becomes evidence of alien visitation. You have automatically rejected all other explanations for the phenomena that you have witnessed. That Dunning cannot explain what you have seen is not proof that it was an alien spacecraft. It proves that there is still a great deal of the unknown in the universe and that the scientific community is not about to run out job opportunities any time soon.

      If you look a little you will find a comment that I made earlier in this segment documenting my own experience with such a sighting. I did not state that I had seen an alien craft. What I did say was that I had seen something that I could not explain. It could well have been an alien ship but in reality I don't know...and neither do you.

      If a spacecraft did crash at Roswell the evidence has been become too muddled with the passage of time. There are no authenticated physical remains and all we have left is anecdotal evidence. Therefore, as interesting and seductive as it may seem, it has to be rejected as definitive proof of alien presence on earth.

      The use of expletives and insults does nothing to enhance the validity of any point that you would hope to make. In fact, it does your argument harm as it demonstrates that your opinions are clouded by emotions and not sober critical thinking.

    5. I have never stated that what I saw was an Alien spacecraft. I guesse that may have been unintentionally implied but just for the record I don't know what it was but it certainly wasn't swamp gas or some ridiculously vague "atmospheric phenomena" which is often said to explain away such sightings. The fact is that there is a massive cover up in full swing with regard to the topic of UFOs wherever it may be they are from. There is a growing movement of disclosure from whistle blowers from all levels of the military and intelligence etc.

      To say that Roswell has to be thrown out as proof because of "muddled" information I think is sad. The information has only become "muddled" as a result of the active cover up and nondisclosure of the facts. The truth is known about this incident and is still being withheld from the public. It wasn't hundreds of years ago. It was relatively recent.

      If you are not aware of "The Disclosure Project" then I suggest you take the time to look it up and inform yourself with the current information that has been coming out over the past 10 years. The people coming forward with this information are in most cases highly respected and professional people in highly specialised positions (Navy, Airforce, Army, Intelligence and civil and commercial aviation from all around the world) for example, John Callahan, Former head of the FAA who came out with hard copy evidence of UFO activity in US airspace. There are many more examples i could site but I'll leave it to you to research it for yourself.

      It is my research coupled with my experience and shared experience of others whom I've spoken to (as well as the vastness of our Universe) that leads me to rationally conclude that there is plenty of advanced life beyond our planet that may have an interest (or no interest at all) in our planet and it's inhabitants.

      It is a shame for me to hear people talk about the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial visitation when in many cases they are not aware of much of the pertinent or current information or incidences where contact has (allegedly) occurred. Quite often they are communicating to me their lack of knowledge on the subject.

      Lastly there was a mass sighting in 1966 in my home city of Melbourne Australia in a suburb called Westall. There is a documentary recently made about it called "Westall 66" I suggest you watch it.

    6. Since you apparently have not read the post where I tell of my own sighting of something unexplainable in the sky, I do not doubt that there may be phenomenas that we do not understand. It even looked like what our culture envisions as a spacecraft. That doesn't mean it was one. That puts me on the same footing as those who claim on Project Disclosure that they have seen alien ships. Seeing something unexplainable in the sky does not automatically imply aliens. Eye witness testimony is good but what we now need is solid physical evidence that we can touch or look at any time we want. It means we need further investigation to fully understand what is going on.

      My son-in-law is obsessed with the disclosure project so I am quite familiar with it.

      That there is life on other planets would seem a very strong probability but until there is physical evidence it remains a probability.

      It doesn't matter why the evidence of the Roswell incident is muddled. What matters is that it is muddled and has become so muddled that it has become almost useless as proof.

      If it does turn out to be fact that aliens have and are visiting earth, I would find that to be quite exciting and welcoming news...unless they have a nefarious reason for coming here.

    7. there is NO EVIDENCE for extraterrestrial visitors or life. NONE.

      there are unidentified flying objects and it could be many number of things. the fact that you jump to the conclusion of aliens is telling.

      the vastness of our universe should tell you how damn near impossible it would be for a species to survive long enough and evolve the intelligence to conduct intergalactic travel and then somehow be stupid enough to be spotted.

      also there are explanation for the westall 66.

      once again, if you used critical thinking you wouldnt be falling for this stuff.

      try reading The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

    8. Did I say it was Aliens?! I cannot say it was aliens any more than you can say it was not. You can't even tell me what I saw because you weren't there! You seem to have a bias in your reasoning perhaps because you think that there is little likely hood of space fairing intelligence. I didn't see distant lights in the sky at night in the middle of nowhere. I saw a small black craft hovering no more than 30m off the ground no more than 300m away from my house at 11am on a bright cloudless sunny day. I saw it with 5 other people and we watched it for 5+ mins. No I didn't see any beings or humans but this craft was obviously intelligently guided. They didn't extract my sperm or anything like that nor have I had repeat visitations or anything of the like. Ok?

    9. so why couldnt it have been a military craft?

      or just any normal craft? are you a pilot? what is the extent of your knowledge when it comes to flying crafts?

      how can you know how high off the ground something is if you dont know its size or speed and it is 300M away? you couldnt. all of that was assumptions you have filled in for your memory.

    10. @ Epicurus,

      Well, I can recognize a conventional craft from quite a distance. When I see a plane high above in the skies I can tell with a lot of certainty that it's a plane. You can't??? Though you are right, some of these phenomena could be non-conventional, experimental craft of our making. But then again, they could be something else. As long as we can't explain them scientifically, your guess that it's a 'normal' craft will be as good as someone else's guess that it's an alien craft.

    11. unless we use occams razor.

      It is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

    12. You so readily presume that I know nothing about what I am talking about simply because your own personal bias is to disbelieve and discredit something that you think is impossible or at least highly improbable. Who is filling in the gaps? Again I remind you, you weren't there!

      First of all it's speed was 0 kms per hour because it was hovering perfectly still in the sky. I know it was roughly 300 meters away because it was it was between where i was standing and some tall buildings roughly 400 meters away. I remind you again it was no more than 30 meters off the ground. I wasn't born yesterday. I can estimate distances just fine like most people.

      And besides I wasn't even the first person to see this thing. I was in my kitchen making some food when one of my house mates who was having a cigarette at our back door saw it and called the rest of us out to see it.

      This craft was clearly intelligently guided, It doesn't take a genius in a lab coat to figure that out. My personal impression was that this was some kind of drone or reconnaissance craft as it appeared to be too small to comfortably house a crew of even one person. There is the possibility that this was indeed a military craft and I never said that it may not have been. Again, who's filling in the gaps?

      So are you getting the picture? You are out of you depth trying to explain away what I saw when you simply weren't there and in doing so you show yourself to presumptuous, arrogant and stupid.

      I still haven't even described what it looked like or it's shape yet, and no it wasn't a silvery disc at all.

      I have better things to do than try to convince you. I am aware that that will never happen because you have made up your mind that you know more than me about something you know nothing about even though you weren't even there to see it for yourself. You are entitled to your opinions and assumptions.

      I have nothing further to say to you and I will not bother to respond any further (and no that does not mean for a second that I back down from my position).

      Have a nice life....

    13. right so only you and your friends saw this. no one has pictures or video even though as you say, it was there for a while.

      now lets assume everything you are saying is true. what makes you think it was an alien?

    14. @ Epicurus,

      The unidentified flying object could be many things, I think nobody could deny that. In that same line of thought, they could also be alien craft, in particular that tiny percentage of UFO cases for which no rational explanation could be found so far. Why would that notion be more unbelievable than quantum entanglement for example?

    15. quantum entanglement is often misrepresented. it is not some magical event like Deepak Chopra tries to make it seem.

      i already explained why i think it is unlikely.

    16. @ Epicurus,

      Quantum entanglement has its critics, among real scientists I mean, not the likes of me and you, but there is nothing conclusive in that regard, the critics could not provide any evidence that would undeniably prove it as a false postulate. Hence, unless you are an expert in quantum mechanics, I'd rather wait for the word of relevant scientists to prove it unlikely.

    17. the problem is people like Deepak Chopra use it to confuse people and sell it for what it isnt.

      I love that you admit how little you know about quantum mechanics and I will say the same about myself. i dont understand. but i know when to be suspicious about people making claims about quantum physics and mechanics having any effect on the classical physical world.

      here is a little quote i came up with: quantum physics isn't about photons or quanta it's about stealing complicated interpretations of it to support your whacked out new age philosophies

      and that is how i feel when anyone who doesnt have a degree in physics let alone quantum physics, start making claims about it and how it reacts with our physical world.

    18. Agreed, people like Deepak Chopra, a medical doctor, or Andy Thompson, a psychiatrist, should not be making any statements about quantum physics. We actually agree that none of us should be making assumptions, especially if we are laymen in the field. It's better to simply let those who know a bit about the quantum mechanics to talk about it - and they have a lot to say. They are opening a new world to us.

    19. @WTC7:

      Right, could be many things, we are still in a class 0 civilization mode, we just came swinging from the trees a very short while ago, a long way to go to class 3.

      We know very little as yet, if anything at all, maybe more advanced civilizations are bending spacetime and paying us a visit. Our could even be us coming from the future, can never discount anything from the quantum world, anything, and I mean anything is possible.

    20. @ Achems, you are absolutely correct. The more one learns about the quantum world, the more is one open to possibilities that exceed our current understanding. If I'm not wrong, the classification of civilizations you are referring to was presented by Michio Kaku?

    21. WTC7

      Correct, I have his book, "Visions" by "Michio Kaku:

    22. @ Achems,

      Thank you so much! So far, I was enjoying him on YouTube only, now I will look for his book!

    23. actually its the The Kardashev scale and it was proposed by a Soviet Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev in 1963

    24. Good to know, thanks Epicurus.

    25. @WTC7
      There are things of which we will never understand, at least not in our lifetimes. The day that all of the secrets of our known reality are finally revealed,you can be sure the first words uttered shall be: 'back to the drawing room then boys, it's going to be a long night' xxx

    26. @ Norlavine,

      Although it sounds quite defetistic, I myself think that for humanity to have all the answers will take many more generations, (well) if ever... But the least we should do is to allow for our individual intellectual growth by using what nature gifted us with - an expanding brain capacity - to its utmost.

    27. @ Epicurus,

      "also there are explanations for westall 66"

      Could you please refer me to a relevant site, or book, or whatever, because I am trying for some time now to find an explanation and I can't.

      Thanks in advance.

    28. @WTC7
      There are no plausible explanations for 'Westall 66'. Two hundred eye witnesses were scared sh**less though.
      It wasn't an experimental craft, because if it was, we would have seen them in military action by now.
      There have been many explanations put forward but none have ever satisfied the 200+ witnesses, and to this very day, some still have not quite recovered from the mysterious event.
      But, you knew this anyway, didn't you! xx

    29. it could have been a failed military experiment right?

      what do you think is more plausible? that an alien species had the technology to fly thousands of light years and yet get spotted by a group of humans (none who had a camera), and only occur in a rural area.

      or the military was testing something, or the stories are greatly exaggerated?

      just always ask yourself what is the most likely answer...and i admit that doesnt mean that what happened WASNT a UFO or what-have-you, but just showing you how my mind works. i never jump to the most fantastic answer...and im always very suspicious of the answer i would LIKE it to be.

    30. @Epicurus
      I don't believe that 'UFOs' are 'little green men' or that we have visitors from distant galaxies, because, for starters, the 'math don't allow it', they would be little green dead men by the time they reached here.Unless they can breach the finiteness of the speed of light, I highly doubt their existence.
      To keep their species alive through millions of light years traveling whilst procreating generation after generation within such a confinement would be no mean feat, so therefore my neighbors don't look like Mr and Mrs Conehead.
      However, I do believe that there are people who have witnessed and have been actively involved in, willingly or unwillingly, true and outrageously bizarre events that defy not only common sense, but the very 'unbreakable' laws of this realm we call reality.
      Not everyone who detects an anomaly in this slice of space time is deluded or hysterical. The maths are incomplete, but we're working on it xx

    31. @norlavine:

      Sure the math allows it, advanced civilizations by maybe millions of years may have the technological achievements and know how that will allow them to bend spacetime and travel to any planets/galaxies instantly at will.

      And then can not discount wormholes to travel to other parallel universes, Re: Einstein, Hawking, Greene, Feynman and many others.

      But the thing is why would any aliens want to travel to our tiny little planet with our average class 4 sun on the out-skirts of our average milky-way galaxy with people still believing in the bronze age myths of some deity named yahweh or other deities forming all that is?

    32. well said.

    33. interesting.

      i agree not everyone who experiences some phenomena that they cant explain are delusional, just the ones that INSIST that it was something supernatural.

    34. @ norlavine :),

      I am very interested in the subject of UFOs and have done a lot of research on various reported sightings. I looked not only into records of contemporary reports but also those that reach into quite distant past and certainly before man's ability to build flying machines. Nowadays, many think that the easiest way to put a UFO sighting into question is to state the possibility of an experimental craft. I have no doubt that some of the reported sightings in the 20th century may involve such craft. I've come across reports where people were obviously seeing some conventional phenomena with which they were probably not acquainted and took them for alien spaceships. One also has to take into account all sorts of fraud, which is quite frequent. BUT, there are cases when even the most meticulous investigation doesn't provide satisfactory answer as to the nature of the object or phenomenon in question. I've seen the Westall 66 doc and read some related possible explanations, but it still seems to me that the event remains a mystery to our conventional understanding xxx

  123. It's a good video .... makes ya think for yourself, and form your own opinions. (He certainly pointed out MANY controversial ideas) I think that was the whole point of the video :)

  124. everyone i appreciate the care but my mother is fine. the conversation went:

    "Seriously Epicurus, is that the best you can do? Wow, I didn't wanna believe this but, like everyone else says, you are way easier than your mother."

    .....what if i told you my mother just died last week? how would that make you feel?

    i worded it in such a way so as to ensure that it wasnt certain if she did. but at our age people shouldnt be making stupid comments like that and i figured this was the best way to teach them.

    I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE if anyone was affected by that comment.

  125. Just think for yourself ya bunch of Skeptoids.

  126. I found this doc to be quite interesting, in that it meshes quite well with my own belief system, only it doesn't go far enough. Some of my friends tell me that I am an extremely cynical person, who wouldn't take anything at face value when it comes to claims on ad's or packaging or testimonials, and they would be right, I take very little of it as gospel truth. This is especially true of me when it comes to the pharmaceutical industry. The double and triple blind studies are fine, and are probably the best way of determining the effectiveness of a drug in a given circumstance, but barely looks at some of the unintended outcomes of the use of that drug. Thalidomide is an example that springs to mind, billed as a wonder drug to ailing pregnant women, until their babies were born malformed. It took years for the drug company to concede the link, and longer still to remove the drug from the shelf world-wide. This is where corporate greed trumps science, after spending millions on R+D, these companies would prefer to disregard study after study, demonstrating bad results, until they come across one that they can hold up as proof of effectiveness that they can publish and market. Meanwhile, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars world-wide, turning ourselves into a chemical dumping ground because somebody was paid to say it was okay, and it is in some way good for you, where a critical thinking person might say 'I don't really need it, so I won't take it.'

    1. Always be a cynic. It will serve you well.

  127. @Azilda
    John Lennon:
    'Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey'.
    I believe he penned that phrase for the famous song in regards to the public 'over interest' and speculations regarding his relationship with Yoko Ono. x

  128. The ones who stand by one side of the argument about 9/11 can equally be wrong as the ones who stand on the other side of the argument. And both could be right in some of their claims.
    If i am not mistaken, not one person who has commented on the many 9/11 docs on TDF was there in the rubbles searching into the evidences to prove if it was a conspiracy or a government mistake gone wrong. We are influenced. Everyone base their opinion on what they have read, seen in reports, newspaper or on the net. As we know both sides could have easily made a case if enough people tried and they did.
    There are good chances we will never know the true story, and people will continue to take side, people will continue to be influenced by reports from poeple who were not in the rubbles, by docs make by people who were not in the rubbles and/or by a government who has a history of hiding a lot of shite to it's own citizen and to the world.
    While we argue against the side we mistrust, other shite is happening in the world that we are blind to and when they blow in our face, we will start taking sides and start new arguments.
    All governments have a lot to hide, all business have a lot to hide, all people have a lot to hide, some more than others because of their attitude, policies and what they have to lose in being transparent.

  129. A good watch, though I wouldn't call it a documentary, really.
    It's more of a prologue to the idea of critical reasoning.

    The guy is genuine and sane, both of which do not require a Ph.D., or any other similar level of formal education.

    1. @haynesch
      I disagree with you. He may be sane but he made some sweeping and ill informed generalizations.He was smooth and yet exuberant - the perfect television 'personality'. His critique was as informed as someone who has newly discovered there is no Santa Claus.
      He may be genuine and his role doesn't require a Ph.D, but the importance of the televised information he was conveying required the researching skills of someone with one.x

    2. Yeah, sure, it's not a breakthrough of any sort. Semi-pro editing and such... Could be an ad for his radio show even. But I got the impression that the doc was intended for a specific audience; for instance the one which draws advice from Oprah and whatnot. I agree that he's not someone that i would take as an reference, but in essence he didn't say anything wrong.

      i only hope that you take ALL televised information under such a close scrutiny :) xx

  130. Why does he not talk about Christianity?

    1. I'm guessing that you want to hear something you already know :)

      i do it myself from time to time...

    2. But more importantly, why aren't Christians discussing this?

    3. @tigerfan2000
      Because he probably is a Christian and doesn't want to lose any Atheist fans. x

  131. I really enjoyed reading through the comments for the past hour or so.
    Now I will watch the damn doc and hope to be equally entertained.

    Also looking forward for the debate to continue when certain gentlemen decide to log in again, presuming they're sleeping as they should.

  132. I have to admit I kinda liked this one. I think it appealed to my bitter, somewhat cynical, skeptical approach to life. Actually found myself smirking along with Mr. Dunning in places.

    I tend to agree with the earlier comment by @JezusVanNazareth. As he mentioned, I too think the object of this film is not whether you agree or disagree with the subject matter or claims of the writers & producers. What is important is that perhaps some of those who watch this production might be spurred towards a little critical thinking of their own.

  133. i was expecting some frontal lobe stimulation. yet instead in the first 2min and 45 seconds "here be some dragons" Omega 3 and St Johns Wart... as a 3rd year medical student, those aren't dragons. Omega 3 thickens the myelin around ur nerves, and st johns wart is a natural SSRI that if u take with certain antidepressants u can risk death... RIGHT NEXT TO PSYCHIC READINGS... what a fraud punkk...

  134. unfortunately the presenter lives in a very infantile black and white world. He almost seems to use his "skepticism" as an excuse against thinking for himself. Not in every case but to discount the possibility of certain things merely because they seem improbable or unpopular is intellectual cowardice. At one point he claims that pharmaceutical companies would be mega profitable if they had miracle cures. The fact is they are mega profitable already by treating symptoms only in many cases. Look up Gwen Olsen on Youtube. She is a former pharmaceutical rep who came out and blew the lid off Big Pharma and how they are only in the business of disease management and symptom control, Not cures.

    Again this guy seems to believe only what is generally accepted on face value. Sad...

  135. Yoga is 'dragons'. Oh please. This guy isn't a scientist but just a scientistic idi*t.

  136. @Epicurus
    But your country is ranked at 46 on the LEVEL of literacy. Australia isn't great, but we are 26. That's why I can identify your fellow countrymen on any site, without asking - the spelling and grammatical errors are a dead giveaway x

    1. are you sure you know what country I am from? eh?

    2. Epic and I are both Canadian, are you saying CND literacy rate is that low?? I did not know that my spelling and grammar was lousy. lol

    3. actually we are rated 20th in the world tied with australia where she is. and we have 99% literacy also. but as John pointed out there are many factors that are probably not taken into account.

    4. Okay, I dig, thanks.

    5. If you read the footnotes you'll see the biggest factor not taken into account. The UN only ASSUMES that all highly developed countries have a literacy rate of 99%. This is why you'll find a knot of nations at 99%.

      I knew damn well the US didn't have a literacy rate of 99% so I went looking and found that little caveat.

    6. @Achems_Razor
      I spoke to Epicurus of his 'fellow countrymen' - you and he spell just fine, should have known you were both Canadians. Sorry for that blunder,see, I don't know everything - thanks for reminding me xx

    7. If you'll look at the list carefully you will see that Australia and US have the same rate. The reason US is lower is because @ the 99% level they list all countries ALPHABETICALLY. In the alphabet race the US always loses. Can't believe you missed that.

      I'm just a poor dumb illiterate American and I caught it.

  137. Very poorly done. Amateurish and juvenile presentation. The narrator/presenter was rigid and superficial to the point of being quite silly. He disparages a lot of common beliefs and "conspiracy theories" -- most of which deserve being disparaged. However, he does slam a few topics on which the jury is still out, and upon which plenty of credible research and investigation are still being done. In the end he may turn out to be right, but on a few of his very opinionated points the verdict is not yet in. Overall, while the concept of this video was, I think, good and well intentioned, he completely fails to pull it off. Not worth watching. Sorry I wasted my time.

  138. I couldnt get past 10 minutes. It labels some truths as "dragons". Im not going? to get into what. Do some research before doing a whole documentary based on trying to pass some truths as lies.

  139. horrible documentary, take this down otherwise youre just keeping the ignorant, ignorant.

  140. A "brilliant" statement of the author of this documentary on critical thinking:

    "For those natural compounds that are NOT HARMFUL, synthetic versions have been engineered in many cases to make them EVEN SAFER, more effective or able to be produced in large quantities." Ok, he thinks that natural stuff is shite in general, but why does one have to make something natural that is not harmful - safer?

    1. @WTC7
      Because whoever wrote the script did very little informed research xx

    2. picking on semantics now.

      ignoring the methods of critical thought he taught throughout the entire film.

      i would love to see you people in a university lecture hall scoffing at anything you find offensive to your beliefs.

      and nothing is perfectly harmless so im sure he figured the audience would know what he meant.

      you guys are trying WAY too hard.

    3. It is not as if we are trying so hard, it is because you are not trying at all and taking the easy road, just following the leader, re: this doc in question, coming up with nothing of your own.

    4. why do truthers keep saying things like "you are just following what the authorities tell you"

      well you are just following what crazy conspiracy theorists tell you. i am looking at the facts without ANY bias.

    5. The whole doc is slip shod tripe. I was so disappointed, but he is trying to explain critical thinking in 45 minutes? That seems like intellectual malpractice. It makes the complex appear banal.

  141. 'Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it'.
    This doc appears to be politically biased and tells us to trust only the government and pharmaceutical companies, to not think outside of the mainstream square that is offered to the masses.
    Drugs created in a lab can save lives, and vaccinations at this point in history are very necessary to avoid epidemics of terrible diseases.
    But there are alternative ways to help the body and mind without always being subjected to the health degrading effects of (mostly) toxic chemicals.
    Of course, anyone who seeks psychics, faith healers,crank cures and 'cottage industry' herbalists is going to be severely disappointed and needs educating.
    However,there are many 'alternative' practices that are not pseudo sciences, that actually take many years to achieve university degrees in the known medical,botanical and psychological sciences.
    This guy is great for prime time television viewing, so sadly, I won't ever see him again x

    1. *facepalm*


  142. a guide to critical thinking...the ultimate oxymoron

  143. Is he hating on organics? If so that's totally not cool man, organic farmers grow thru great pains to keep it natural, and its not just a bunch of bull that fresh organic food tastes at least 10X better than Monsanto's factory farm GMO. The Terpenoid development in plants we consume is a complex process with a lot of science involved, being too lazy to research organics and then calling your self a skeptic is akin to a naive young teenager not believing rocket science is real because he doesn't understand it.

    1. in every double-blind taste test done even people who said they prefer organic food chose non organic food most of the time for taste.

      we can genetically modify food and selectively breed food to bring out the flavours and terpenoids.

    2. I have no problem with selective breeding. Maybe you didn't understand my statement, plants grown with harsh chemicals do in fact have a harsh chemical taste when they are still ripe. Ever ate a FRESH GMO BANANA fresh off the factory farm? IT tastes like poison!

    3. a banana wouldnt have the tastes on the are just making **** up. when was the last time you ate a banana from the farm? you know the farms in south america?

    4. It's not about flavor

    5. so you admit organic food doesnt taste as good?

      so what is it about? nutrients? can you show me studies that say organic on a whole is more nutritious?

      i would also like to ask how you expect to feed 7 billion humans without genetically modified food.

    6. Epicurus try researching a little. Google Genetically modified failure. resistant pig weed. gm super bugs. Epicurus we now have super bugs and super weeds. It has taken nature less than 20 years to adapt.

    7. and we will adapt with it. had we not been using any methods and just using organic many years we would experience famine due to draught and other factors. it is not feasible.

      also there are no cases of these "super bugs" just more nonsense he is trying to warn you about. but people like you wont listen, you think you know it all.

    8. Your the know it all. I said look it up on the internet. But your too frightened of the truth. Here's a cut and paste.

      Western corn rootworms are tough little bugs.
      Monsanto genetically engineered a type of corn that keeps them at bay. It's worked for more than a decade, so well that some farmers plant it year after year. You're not supposed to do that, because it gives the worms time to learn how to survive. The study found that farmers who grew the Monsanto corn three years in a row got infested by worms that turned into "super bugs."

      Monsanto has revealed that a common insect pest has developed resistance to its flagship genetically modified (GM) product in India. The agricultural biotechnology leader says it “detected unusual survival” of pink bollworms that fed on cotton containing the Cry1Ac gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which codes for a protein that’s toxic to many insect pests.

      There are other examples. Will leave you to it.

    9. yes those are news reports not scientific studies. the word super bug is in quotes because they know its not ACTUALLY a super bug it is a normal bug doing what bugs do and that is evolve. there is nothing super about it.

      once again someone being conned by sensationalism in the media.

  144. This guy is a classic example of truth mixed with lies,,He starts out sounding like he knows a thing or two,,then starts bellowing about 9/11...he says.."Who crashed the planes into the buildings?" he's some kind of all knowing God or something. How much do you really need to see about 9/11 to know without any shadow of a doubt that 9/11 was an inside job? Explaine building 7...just explain building 7..go ahead,,explain building 7..I want to punch this guy square in his face!!....What are we???..STUPID???

  145. This guy has no clue. Anyone with one (critical thought?) can clearly see this. Think about it.

    Epicurus and the like, you sound just like this guy. We see you miles away lol.

    1. lol why doesnt he have a clue? why not present your arguments? or do you have any?

  146. I'm surprised this doc is getting such a heavy reaction. I thought I was

    I think Brian, perhaps was a litte too Bold in his presentation, but I believe he did say that the video was just an introduction to his other videos that went into more detail.

    1. brandon, this is the typical response you get when peoples BELIEFS are offended.

      these people all hold unjustifiable beliefs and they are feeling cognitive dissonance.

  147. sigh

    1. @learn_her
      With all due respect, and without any explanation, I assume there are already lots of people like him already teaching your kids.
      Check out the world wide literacy rating and see how the U.S rates.

    2. I've looked at literacy rates and I don't quite see your point there.

    3. US has a literacy rate of about 98 - 99%

    4. Yes, the official government stats always say 99%. But as a grad student in applied linguistics I've actually done some research in this area. Most countries, including the U.S., exaggerate their rates of literacy, and, as well, sometimes even modify the definition of "literacy" to boost the numbers. It's difficult to say what the real stats are for the U.S. Some argue that it is as low as the mid 80s, others say low to mid 90s. It depends on who's calculating (and why they're calculating) and which definition they decide to use. If the U.S. included the 12 to 18 million illegal aliens who permanently reside in this country, then the stats would, of course, be much lower -- especially if you break it down to 'adult' literacy. I once heard a professor proclaim that if we were to define literacy as being able to write a short, coherent, and grammatically correct paragraph, then the literacy rate might be around 40%. lol

    5. i dont think including a group of people there illegally would be useful for determining the quality of literacy education in the country so that doesnt really matter to me but the rest of what you said are very good points.

      thanks for pointing all that out.

    6. I deal with this issue every working day. I work in ABE Adult Basic Education where I teach predominantly undocumented workers English. I have devoted years of my life to improving literacy among these hard working folks. If it doesn't matter to people it should.

      But I can tell you that when someone has been treated like a living tractor or factory part for most of their adult life literacy and critical thinking fall on the side. This is because many employers don't want my students to learn more English or develop a critical eye about how the world is run. They want them to fall in line.

      But I will keep on teaching because papers or not, I want an Earth with more literate people, more people with critical thinking, and more people asking the big questions.

    7. excellent. i applaud you greatly for that.

    8. There are some, but as a teacher in various places on the east coast of the USA I can tell you that critical thinking is not pursued as often as I would like it to be.

      It's interesting that this started a whole discussion on literacy. I have worked for the past four years of my life to improve literacy among undocumented workers and their children in the USA. Literacy and critical thinking bring power- they are both very hard to teach.

      Thanks for being nice in your comment! Sometimes I get nervous about posting on here because people are so mean.

    9. @learn_her
      Thank you for your response! Some who post on here are a little quick to jump at times, (myself included) but please don't let that ever deter you from posting.
      If there were more people like you in the U.S it could realize it's potential to be the most humanitarian as well as the most powerful nation on the planet.
      Education is the great leveler, it creates equality where there was none before.xx

  148. I find myself compelled to debunk one inaccurate thing in this documentary, just like it says I should :)

    Fish oil is presented as being one of the crack pot medicine at the beginning, in fact is it's rich in vitamin D which you can only get from fish fat or the sun. In northern countries (i'm in Iceland) it's used during winter when the sun only shines for a few hours a day.

    But i understand why some might think its a bunch of rubbish, if you live closer to the equator then you get enough sunlight during "winter" and thus vitamin D, so in that case, fish oil will not do much for you.

    1. @eysispeisi:

      Before you post, get your facts straight, people might believe you and you might harm health.

      You are probably talking about "cod liver oil" be careful with that, has high levels of "Vitamin A" to much is harmful.

      Omega 3 is very, very beneficial to cardiovascular health and is a brain food, the brain and all cardiovascular-systems thrives on it, in fact the body requires omega 3, can be found in fatty fish and fish oil supplements, very little Vit. D or A in that, if a person needs Vit D, take "Vitamin D3 Cholecalciferol" Do not!! take to much D3 either!! and have your D3 levels checked before taking!

  149. WTC7 you have been found lacking

    1. I agree. How about we start with the grammar: the first letter of a sentence is always a capital one.

    2. Next time we will be talking about the use of punctuation marks, like commas and periods. One also notices the need to tackle the ability to finalize the sentence, but that would be dealt with at a more advanced level of the course.

  150. I am shocked!! if you where to present this to the BBC, or any noted professor ( without religious bias ) it would be rejected outright! this kind of amalgamation of FACT and conjecture gave rise to the Nazi party. How dare you abuse the legacy of great learned men to support your propaganda!!

    1. Godwin's Law.

      As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

  151. People REALLY dont get this doc. Its not about whether Omega 3-6-9 is or is not good for you. Apply critical thinking here! YES you need healthy fatty acids! And NO, you dont have to take them in pill form. You should have a balanced and healthy diet, which naturally has enough healthy fatty acids, and if you do, you wont need to dose on those capsules.

    Brian is not telling you what is wrong and right, he wants you to make your own CRITICAL decision. It's very clear that all the folks that are complaining about this doc clearly feel personally attacked in their little pet believes and myths. You COULD enjoy your life with all this nonsense, but your life would be better without.

    If you are actually offended by this doc, or think it's clearly don't know what critical thinking is. This is anything BUT preachy, it teaches you to make your OWN decision.....

    1. well said.

  152. Don't quit that day job Brian, nice attempt but I think you should apply more critical thinking when explaining whatever it is you are attempting to debunk or make example of. Many of the comparisons were way off base as the subjects do in fact have grey or unfounded science backing them as fact and the scientific record represents this in truth. Fluoridation for example has no definitive science backing it's advantage oral health and in factual science is a very dangerous toxin. As for 9/11 references you again should apply actual critical thinking to the scientific and factual evidence made available wherein you will find no definitive true scientific data or logical explanations supporting many of the major events surrounding the day however you eliminate the "official" presentation as mysticism in the true critical thinking analysis as the process dictates only truth, fact, and scientific data analysis results be accepted when drawing conclusion so back to the drawing board on this one also.
    Sorry but the whole thing does come off as a bit preachy and you obviously never cracked a scientific journal to research sodium fluoride (calcium fluoride or naturally occurring fluoride would be more logical than the industrial toxin used) before simply trashing those who have and are concerned.
    My critical thinking analysis is concluding you either are a tool pundit or a simple sociopath with tendency's of grandiose superiority and domination disorder.

    1. @John Palermo.

      You sound like your rambling man! And clearly, you are a conspirator, or at least a 9/11 doubter. The fact that you close with a strange and obscure example for what is supposed to be an argument against this doc. I have to say, you are NOT thinking critically sir. You are rambling.

    2. Determining the truth and validity of an argument is often strange to those who fail to comprehend subtle* nuances of fact, and where such facts may lead them. I have been out of the Phil game for 20+ years but I feel Dunning is a very sold C student.

      *there is really nothing subtle about it. It is more the difference between common sense and good sense, and Brian Dunning's sense is tremendously common.

    3. Mr John Palermo, methinks you have experience with determining the validity of argument, no? Well done. At this time you have said it far better than anyone. Mr Dunning does leave far too much out to be considered someone who is using critical thinking to determine validity. Spot on

    4. Thanks Cap ;) I do take critical thinking very seriously and since applying it to my everyday life and tossing out the pointless emotion of things (who's right/wrong, winner/loser, better) I have been very content, like never before. Knowledge is it's own reward and when it's empirical the mind could not be more pleased no matter how the knowledge came to be or who actually processed it. Amazing how we sheep have been filled with such bizarre handicapping of the mind so that most of us go through our whole lives believing more in team faith or childish denial as the catalysts for our thinking skills. Unfortunately most, myself previously included, will never see that the junk they preach as fact or correct and even reality itself is so polluted with emotional motives that even a highly educated former college level teacher such as my mother can sit before me supposedly engaging in a serious discussion and say on the issue of peak oil and energy collapse that I am totally way off base (if not crazy) in applying the math of the matter as fact when her "it's America, well figure it out" view is said with all seriousness. I have few friends left and it's very hard to meet people that you don't quickly offend with the honesty of it all but still it is a much better life in the know opposed to blinders and bull****.
      I read a number of your posts and I salute you cap, keep the bastards thinking and don't let em quit until that nirvana point of truth is reached.
      The world is strangely full of debate and I can not imagine this is the way nature designed it. There is obviously a cook saboteur in the kitchen and routing the bastard out should be humanity's 1st priority.

  153. this doc is fool of bolony

  154. He mentions chiropractic therapy as a pseudo science so analyze this:
    'Macquarie University in Sydney (NSW) has a three year Bachelor of Chiropractic Science which provides the basis for entry into a two year Master of Chiropractic'.
    The guy needs better research assistants for starters, as I am sure it's not too different in the U.S.A.

  155. I like this guy.

  156. i'm pretty sure he showed bottles of omega-3 supplements because, as he puts it,

    [g]enerally speaking, healthy people gain no benefit from supplementation; taking pills when you don't need them amounts to what doctors call a "wallet extraction".

    --speaking of, why are there so many people who complain about so-called "Big Pharma" being comprised of greedy monsters who want nothing but to give people expensive poisons, while conveniently neglecting to mention that so-called "natural cures" are pretty much never given away for free? how are peddlers of "woo" *less* greedy if they're also clearly taking money from people while promising to cure?

    anyway, what i like about brian and his ilk is that he/they tend to note that they are not making claims that we should believe because *they* say we should. generally speaking, they tell you to go check the science yourself, and to reach your own conclusions; and as a person who likes to go back to basics when researching something, i really respect that point of view.

  157. This is misinformation

  158. This guy would make a great pharmaceutical company rep, or a white house spokesperson. He would also make a great parrot.
    Anyone who has ever had a major back problem solved via professional chiropractic treatment and totally avoided expensive and dangerous 'spinal fusion' and other surgery in the process may believe he would make a fine id**t as well.
    Australian chiropractors are five year university trained, and are government registered and government regulated health professionals.
    Perhaps it's different in the US, but whoever scripted this doc had better do their research a little better next time.

  159. I KNEW it would be a cesspool of 9/11 conspiracy theorists just crying.

  160. Did watch this doc. but after a few minutes had to force myself, life is to short to watch suck up docs like this made for the sheeple about cavemen with boxcutters duping the strongest and most military advanced nation on the planet.

    Flying 4 planes at will in the most defended airspace in the world and demolishing 3 buildings in one day, making a round 14ft hole with a 180 feet wingspan plane in the pentagon and crash landing a plane without any visible sign of wreckage or bodies in some field.

    1. and the guy's question lacked critical thinking when he kept asking "who crashed the planes into the building?" ....its like asking a guy:

      "who killed the iraqi civilian" ..."President ordered an attack on Iraq"
      "yeah but who killed the iraqi civilian" ...."Bush wanted to help his friends"
      "yeah but who killed the iraqi civilian" etc etc to force a guy to answer "the marine with gun" which is so stupid cos he was ordered to....
      the same way you need to ask " who asked the pilots to crash into the building"

    2. in_SANE I found that disturbing, he is trying to make a point in very sloppy way. Damn, my old Phil Professor would've tore him a new one instantly. If you are gonna argue with a Phil Prof you better be sharp and this Dunning guy is pretty much a limp d*ck.

    3. *facepalm*

    4. Achems_Razor, stop making sense. There is a very strong social component to what is acceptable and many get very defensive if their belief is challenged. I am with you on questioning all aspects while most just blindly accept what they're told.

    5. That's right. That is why the two of you dislike this video. As a matter of fact Dunning predicted that this was how you would react when confronted by opposition to your views.

    6. Right, I just do not go along with the herd mentality, just because a wolf ate one of the flock the danger has passed and the sheeple can go about their business contentedly chewing the grass like it never happened.

    7. exactly

    8. Jack1952, I welcome critical thinking and I encourage critical thinking. The problem is that Dunning isn't really thinking critically at all. Denial is not thinking critically. I remember my PHIL 120 class. I didn't study for the first test. It was 80 questions and I got 30 wrong! It was a tricky test, but the best in our class of 44 students got 27 wrong. End of semester only three of us got an A. Thinking critically is not easy and most people just accept what they are told. The key is to QUESTION EVERYTHING. This is not popularity contest. Sorry, but do your self a favor and try to question all your preconceptions.

    9. what is he in denial about?

    10. Epicurus,the very basis of his attempt at teaching is to support a controversial conspiracy theory that is accepted as settled truth by those in power with little evidence in support but plenty of unanswered questions. That alone is cause for concern.

    11. I am under the impression that you believe that since I do not feel that 9/11 was an inside job that I did not examine and analyze those events in an objective and critical manner. This is completely untrue. I simply do not believe that anyone has met the burden of proof when accusing the American government of planning those attacks. To imply brain washing and a follow the crowd mentality is a cheap way out of a complex argument and is a method that does not offer evidence and is only an attempt to discredit those with whom you disagree.

      Leaving 9/11 aside, I will use another example to demonstrate
      the gist of what Dunning is saying in this video and how I try to apply the same reasoning when I try to understand any ideas. I grew up on a farm where we raised beef cattle. Every spring there would be a calving and new group of young calves to add to our herd. One of the scourges these calves suffered from was a deadly disease called the scours. It manifested itself as extreme diarrhea and death would come quite quickly. We would treat this illness with a large spoon of cinnamon directly into the mouth of each sick calf. Unless they were extremely weakened, those treated would recover and within the week this epidemic would disappear. I have been involved in this treatment numerous times and I believe that it is effective and would recommend it to any farmer who is facing this problem and all else fails. But, I would be operating in the realm of pseudoscience. Why would I say this? The answer is simple. Despite my positive experiences, it is still anecdotal evidence. Until this treatment is studied in a lab using all the standard tests that science uses and I don't believe that it has, it really does fail under the scrutiny of critical thinking...even if I believe that it works. The scientific method demands documented evidence before it can be judged medical science. That is the method that Dunning is advocating in this doc. If he call my cinnamon treatment unscientific he is correct and I'm sure that is what he would say. I have no problem with that.

    12. @ Jack1952,

      I am sincerely curious. If the treatment worked, at least at the initial stages of the cattle illness, and if it worked on numerous occasions, I am puzzled as to why would you call it a "pseudo-science" (understanding that it is not a lab science but a cure that has been passed through some generations with positive results). I mean, the science works on more or less same grounds - if something proves effective in a number of trials it is scientifically proved. It doesn't have to be a lab. The meds we are using today are not 100% effective either, but work on a high percentage of subjects. Why would anyone not trust the results that obviously bring positive results just because there is no scientific stamp on it? If you yourself don't, than perhaps you are contadicting your own self by recommending it to other farmers as a cure if anything else fails.

    13. @ WTC7

      You pose a question that gets to the heart of the matter. Why would you assume that my family or I would be a reliable source? We could be suffering from confirmation bias and when a calf dies we explain it by saying we didn't get to it soon enough. We could be misdiagnosing the illness at times. We have no charts detailing success or failure rates and all the other items that a comprehensive study would have. There is no way of confirming whether my claim it true or I am deluding myself into believing I have found a miracle cure. All I can present is anecdotal evidence which may or may not be accurate.

      The scientific method gives us a standardized methodology in which claims can be tested and then confirmed or rejected. There may be conflicting conclusions but eventually a clearer picture will present itself by comparing methods used and results. It is a place to go where there is less chance of bias. Notice that I said less chance and not no chance of bias. Nothing is perfect. Believing someone just because he appears sincere is not a safe method in deciding whether he is correct in his assertions. The scientific method is a way to help all of us make wiser decisions.

      This is what Brian Dunning is doing. He may not be likable and just because we may not like what he has to say about some subjects does not mean the meat of his message is invalid. I have reservations about his stance of nuclear energy but I will not reject what he says about the newest generation of nuclear facilities until I have studied them farther.

      I hope that helps in your understanding of what I wrote.

    14. Jack1952, I do see your point, and thank you for the clarification.

    15. Bin Laden and his group were not living in caves at the time of the attacks. That came later when they went into hiding from American forces who where looking for him in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was a member of the 2nd richest family in Saudi Arabia, was educated, had a great deal of military experience and had contacts all around the world. He was not a Neanderthal grunt as suggested by the caveman quip.

      Plane hijackings, up until this time, usually involved a small group of hijackers, who had weapons or implied that they had weapons. Flight crews were advised to use the "common strategy" tactic. This meant that they were to comply with the hijackers, land the aircraft and let the authorities handle it from there and to encourage the passengers to do the same. This would make it easy for 4 or 5 motivated individuals armed with boxcutters, claiming to have explosives, to hijack a passenger plane.

      American defense strategy at the time was aimed at preventing attack from foreign invaders who would be using military craft and/or missiles which would logically arrive from outside sources. It would be unlikely to include a plan to do battle with domestically owned passenger airliners.

      The wings of the aircraft would likely have sheared off and folded back into the main body of the plane, following it into the Pentagon. It would not have left the cut out imprint of a plane like in a cartoon. You have already stated that 4 planes were flying at will. Why would they use two of them to fly into the twin towers but not use a third to fly into the Pentagon?

      Plane crashes involve pilots who are doing everything in their power to avoid the crash. If the crash is inevitable, they then try to minimize the force of the crash in order to save as many lives as possible. The hijacking pilots of the fourth plane had every intention of crashing the plane at some point. There was no attempt at a soft crash landing. They would have flown at breakneck speed into the ground causing damage to the plane that would not be seen at an unintentional crash. Again, you have already stated that there was a fourth plane involved. Why fake a crash landing when you have in your possession a plane that is supposed to do just that?

      I have read this caveman piece (or similar) before and I know it is not yours.

      I am not sheeple but "baaaa" anyways, if it makes you feel better.

    16. The reason I have said there were 4 planes is they tried to portray a plane flew in the Pentag0n, you should know that. How do you know as you say wings would of "likely sheared off and folded". You are just fishing.

    17. the wings are much thinner and weaker than the main part of the plane. as the plane impacts the weak wings would fold back.

      again they would not punch a hole in the wall like a cartoon punch-out.

    18. I know would not be a cartoon punch out, no condescending please Epic.

      The wings may be a bit weaker but they hold a lot of fuel, therefore are stronger than you think, and still would be a lot of collateral damage by the wings, would not be an almost perfect 14ft diameter round hole, wings folded? no, probably wing tips would of sheared off bounced back onto the lawn in that case.

      Look at some of the vids, computers, desks, chairs, plainly visible around edge of the hole.

      And where are the planes motors? and don't say they evaporated, again check around edges of the hole, everything then would of evaporated.

    19. @Jack 1952:

      Anyway, I do not want to be further drawn into this discussion. Seems to be a re-hash of all that has been said before by many parties.

    20. excellent refutation

    21. the 9/11 attacks were impossible.there's no chance that could happen .it's are insulting your own intelligence even thinking it "could" happen. only collusion at serious high levels made this happen.

  161. The ideas of the guy are awesome, appreciable....his explanations and justifications are a disaster!!! He lost credibility by lack of proper details thereby sounding as stupid as people he was trying to talk about!

  162. Omg! This *Finally!* Is A good Doc, I would sooo love to `Slap` it around the face of a huge mass of the population these days!

    ...U.S flew planes into its OWN financial Infrastructures!? ...*Slap*.. NO!..

    ...Oh You saw a UFO or believe you were abducted by Aliens!?..*Slap.. NO!..

    ...Your Horoscope, read from some local rag, was Correct and Is real in any way, shape or form... *Slap*... No!

    ...The Big Bang and Darwins` Evolution of Species did not happen, But a sea being parted for people to walk through and Someone raised from the dead after 3 days did!?.. *Slap* ... NO!....NO!....NO!....NO!....NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. I did see something in the night sky a few years ago that is totally inexplicable. A friend, who also witnessed this phenomena, excitedly pointed out to me that, finally, skeptic that I am, I would have to admit that aliens are visiting our planet. I smiled and quite calmly told him that, no, I still don't know that they are visiting earth. All I can say is that I have seen something that I cannot explain. To say anything beyond that is pure conjecture and is meaningless. He even called it the smoking gun and then exclaimed "What else could it be?" For him and people like him, "I don't know" is an answer they absolutely hate but the plain truth is "I...don't...know". And neither does he.

  163. I like how he has so much faith in the FDA, as if the Feds care about our health..ha.

  164. "Good Science doesn't suppress good science"... Tell that to Tesla..Guy is ignorant about many of his topics..

    1. GOOD SCIENCE doesnt suppress good science.

      sometimes industry will though.

  165. lol its funny watching people get upset because he tells you that what you believe is also organic foods and 9/11 being a conspiracy.

    lol poor people.

  166. Hmmm, he wore a lab coat, showed a degree from an unheard of school, and science hasn't done any research on the health benefits of documentaries. This guy's a fraud!

    1. he did that on purpose to show the methods used by pseudoscience.

  167. At the end he says that they haven't found any dragons. Of course they have, it's just once they find them they are no longer call them dragons. I have suffered from a lot of back and neck pain for many years, after doing yoga I no longer suffer. Anecdotal I know but I think he is using too much of a broad brush.

    I do agree that we should be careful about what we believe. Common sense does go a long way.

  168. i like how he at 31 mins or so is all like: "maybe gravity is the earth expanding and pushing against our feet" implying that its a stupid idea and then: "leave that stuff to the Einsteins" when Einstein actually suggested that what we percieve as gravity is the earth expanding outward and pushing against our feet.

    1. Right. What we PERCEIVE ! Not what is true. Can't think of a more self-defeating argument.

    2. So gravity is a lie?

    3. Step out a 30th floor window and find out.

    4. can you quote for me where Einstein said that gravity is the earth expanding pushing against our feet??

  169. This guy could use a colon cleanse

  170. I just made a drink with the juicer, apples,carrots,celery, and ginger root. I can feel my 7 chakras balancing.

    lol. Its a pretty good drink actually, even though it sounds terrible.

    1. High in vitamins, with ginger to increase circulation. Fantastic. Sounds pretty good to me.

  171. This documentary was made with good intentions by stressing that critical thinking is an important process to discover and obtain the truth about complex things such as healing. My criticism on this film is focused on one example that was made such as healing based on Ancient Wisdom. On Ancient Wisdom, the presenter is wrong to say that Science knows more than Ancient Wisdom. For it is true that in ancient times there were many myths, superstitions and beliefs that were not supported by a process such as the scientific method of obtaining knowledge about complex things such as the human body, but none the less some remedies and cures were well documented and provided patients with results. An example of this type of healing was from the Tibetan medicine practices in ancient Asia. Tibetan medicine has been proven to work when you combine knowledge of the physical body and knowledge of the spiritual body. Without the both, the remedies do not work. Thus, it is a mistake to belittle Ancient Wisdom simply because it can not be completely explained by Science. So, I would give a 5 over 10 on this documentary and a tip of advice to the presenter. Science is not the complete answer to healing.

    1. Yeah, and don't use critical thinking on science. Just trust what the Einsteins say. One such genius used math to figure out that our universe is a holographic image being spewed out of a black hole.

    2. John Garcia, I will agree but only because I've seen s*** that has made reconsider the fantasy of objective reality. Sorry can't go into details. The old standard of scientific method is great but it can't solve the measurement problem. And the schism in physics that is still unresolved today. Or at least until all the old believers in objective reality paradigm die off.

    3. what the f*** is the "spiritual body"?

      try to explain it. give a definition of spiritual.

  172. if you (maker) think your better than anyone else analyze your video and apply some of your critical thinking in regards to your psychological development. look at the micro expressions you exhibit disgust when mentioning any "pseudo science" and the people involved with it.

    1. it is impossible to be a materialist and account for the accumulation of the worlds's knowledge. therefore you have hung onto obsolete elitist data that does not include the entire framework of reality
    2. to grasp on the consensus view of one disciple and blindly believe what it does , then behave in the manner you have renders you just as guilty as the people you hate so much you are a phony a coward but mostly disgrace to the discipline you so called represent.
    gotta love how all these people act like they know so much about science almost like they are a scientist, but wait is it sciences' job to account for the entire picture of reality? or apply a reductionist perspective instead. each scientist is familiar only in a small box view of reality

  173. It is curious that WTC7 and guest have the same thoughts written the same way with the same punctuation.

    1. That is perhaps WTC7 posted twice by mistake and then technology took over by reading her as a guest.

      And what do you think, lakhotason, probably a conspiracy at work, huh?

    2. Nah. Just a dumbass click mistake which I too make on a regular basis.

  174. May I suggest, Vlatko, that this be removed from the science section? It is a disgrace to the real-science documentaries here.

  175. Started to watch until he began to redundantly include everything he doesn't think is 100% legit. Don't waste your time.

  176. This looked interesting and scientifically valid. I raised one eyebrow at his casual debunking of the critiscism against vaccinations!! I raised the other eyebrow at his '911 Red Herring' bullshit. Stopped watching completely when he stated 'Real science never debunks real science'..........Fred Leuchter RIP!! Also, he never looks at the camera, his eyes are always and obviously on the cue cards. Thought about hanging around to find out just what pseudoscience package he was selling but decided that the guy was not worth the time and effort!! This guy is a pure pseudoscientist!!!! LOLOL. As Shakespeare would have put it....'Hoist by his own petard'!!!

    1. yup of course.

      so what is the evidence supporting vaccines being dangerous?

      and im not even going to ask about 9/11, i dont know how many times you people need to be corrected on that. im done with it.

      and you praising a holocaust denier whose entire report has been debunked is just disgusting.

  177. hahahaaaaa, had a good laugh!! He's off his head, bless him....

  178. Insult to intelligence

    1. why? because it says 9/11 conspiracy theories are wow. you are acting exactly how he explains one would react.

    2. @ epicurus,

      "why? because it says 9/11 conspiracy theories are wow. you are acting exactly how he explains one would react."

      The answer to your question is that I find it insulting because it's imbecilic, made for the walmart-type-customer level of critical mind and intelligence. That's why I am not surprised by your reaction either. Anything else?

    3. you do realize that when you make claims like that they ought to be backed up with some evidence or reason. you cant just make assertions without supporting them.

      just admit you dont like it because it says 9/11 was not a conspiracy.

    4. Give me substantial evidence that "energy fields are meaningless". This is what this guy without any scientific credentials claims. Then I will back up my reasoning with evidence.

    5. give me substantial evidence that fairies dont create energy fields.

      you are asking for substantial evidence against a proposition that is not supported by any evidence.

      you are doing logic backwards, the POSITIVE CLAIM is the one with the burden of proof.

    6. @ Epicurus,

      "give me substantial evidence that fairies don't create energy fields."

      I wouldn't dream of doing that as I don't know whether fairies exist or not and, although I don't believe they do, I can't be sure that they don't.

      "you are asking for substantial evidence against a proposition that is not supported by any evidence."

      Hard evidence of the existence of energy fields may not exist yet, but with so much relevant research, by serious scientists mind you, in quantum domain (like zero point energy field, or the Higgs field) it is laughable to state that the "energy fields are meaningless" as the maker of this documentary wants us to believe. A person with no scientific credentials wants us to disregard the cutting edge scientific exploration because he claims energy fields are nonsense? By placing such an important issue together with the cheap profiteering on human naivety of some shady characters through selling
      questionable products? Is that your idea of critical thinking too?

      I will tell you this Epicurus, had you lived at the appropriate time you would be convincing people with the same zeal as you are doing now that the Earth was flat. Because that was the accepted knowledge of the times. I draw this conclusion from your absolutely uncritical defense of this shite documentary. I admit, he has a point in some aspects, particularly when warning people not to unquestionably fall prey to whatever cr'p someone tries to sell them. But I would expect more critical thinking from someone who is to become a scholar than what you have displayed here.

      I do hope that you will come out of this difficult time for you with new strength. I am truly sorry for your terrible loss. My sincere condolences.

    7. @WTC7,

      It is not about the existence of energy fields or not. It is about applying critical thinking when a charlatan offers you a "healing" using his, yours, or any energy field.

      The guy was specific about that and spot on. "Almost every pseudo-scientific claim uses the word "energy" (life force, chi, negative energy, positive energy, the body's energy field - all meaningless nonsense), which sounds plausible simply because they throw in sounding word - energy."

      It is non sequitur and it simply doesn't matter if science have or will discover energy fields. True scientist will never back up a charlatan who "heals" with energy. Not today, or in near future.

    8. With all due respect, Vlatko, the guy said quote - enery fields are meaningless - unquote. You probably noticed that I don't have much respect for charlatans, but we are discussing the lecture on critical mind. If science talks about energy fields, it is not up to this guy to proclaim it meaningless, regardless how some charlatans may be using it.

    9. @WTC7,

      With all due respect too, but that is not what he exactly said. I've just re-watched that segment.

      I quoted the essence in my previous comment, but anyways the segment ends with (probably you're aiming there): "When you hear the word 'energy' used in a spiritual or paranormal sense substitute the phrase 'measurable work capability.' Does the usage still makes sense? There is a good reason why you don't hear medical doctors or pharmacists talking about 'energy fields' - it's meaningless".

      What he meant was: Run away when someone claims that he'll help you with the usage of "energy fields" - it's meaningless. It is meaningless when a person uses the word "energy" in spiritual or paranormal sense.

    10. @ Vlatko,

      Energy fields are not meaningless just because some people misuse it for shady business. They are a probability, even for science, and there is nothing meaningless about it. Nuclear energy has found its use as a means of mass destruction but it does not make the fission of the atom meaningless. Critical thinking is not denying.

    11. you know when he is talking about energy fields he is talking about those people who refer to changing your chi or chakras or standing at energy vortex areas like in new mexico etc.

      i think what you are referring to the narrator would have no problem excepting. those are not being sold to us in stores.

    12. Sorry, but I had to react to your words...

      you: ''I will tell you this Epicurus, had you lived at the appropriate time you would be convincing people with the same zeal as you are doing now that the Earth was flat.''

      now, I'm not being anyone's solicitor, but your deduction is way off.
      Now comes in a statement from the doc about good science not being against good science. There's nothing wrong in defending a scientific model as long as it is the best proven one, and standing against other which are mere conjectures.
      Science accepts, by it's definition, that it may be wrong, and challenges itself. You only need to PROVE it wrong, and again science wins. Vivid imagination and enough savvy to build hypotheses and form associations from one thing to another is an intelligent way of thinking, but definitely not critical.

    13. @ haynesh,

      Your opinion has been noted and I thank you for it.

  179. This doc is major disappointment. I suspected Brian Dunning was taught at a Christian University. Okay I was wrong, he isn't even a Philosopher or a Mathematician! He spent two years at Brigham Young University and UC Irving that alone leaves him less than credible to speak of logic and probability. If he were a philosopher I could probably trust his some of his ideas. Down goes his credibility as he tries to hawk his book.

    1. Good point Cap'n about the book. The thing that makes your point about the book is that he knows that he's " preaching to the choir" and those that disagree aren't going to buy it or the book.

    2. and UCLA.

      no you are right his credentials are a joke. but he isnt saying anything much different from Michael Shermer and his credentials are great.

    3. Epicurus, I find his quality of his "critical thinking" to be somewhat thin. It seems he believes that critical thinking is denial, rather than the questions that are likely to generate denial. To think critically is to question everything, and he doesn't question as deeply as I demand, instead he seems content to accept the story he is told but the authorities. Very strange... I agree that there are charlatans out there trying to separate us from our money but most of them aren't in hiding. They are in plain sight, like BP, Shell, Walmart, Coca Cola, Exxon, McDonalds, or Disney. The real game is a constant barrage of lies and distraction called advertising, aka propaganda. One very small thing I found as a red flag is the idea that herb St John's Wort is ineffective as an anti depressant. This was reported in a news article in the 1990s but if you were to read that whole article it also said Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloff were also equally ineffective. More importantly those brand name drugs were not named in the headline, but were buried about seven or eight paragraphs in. In contrast this herb St. John's Wort, which you can grow in your garden, was prominently named in the headline. He also liked to use the 9-11 disaster! This is ugliness that only a coward could appreciate. He coonveiniently forgets to mention that the three buildings fell at free fall speed and one wasn't hit by a plane. etc etc etc So what is the truth? If you looking for it in the MSM you will have to dig hard to find it because the truth is inconveinient to our economy, hence lies are propagated to keep the house of cards from collapsing. Brian Dunning comes up way short here I am thoroughly unimpressed. I expect a great deal more when someone claims to be thinking critically.

  180. i don't like these kind of people they move their bodies a bit TOO much

  181. This was pretty good. But I found he generalized a bit too much, as a few of the points he dismissed have some value...

  182. Ok I removed the god

    1. I appreciate that Brandon. That is very courteous of you!

    2. That's alright Brandon. I've heard plenty of atheists use God in a phrase and God wasn't followed by speed!

  183. I note with amusement that an educational video explaining critical thinking and reasoning immediately raises arguments about 'god' or 'religon': if those who followed religion used critical thinking, they'd stop. Those who promote religion are using critical thinking; it serves their purposes and makes a lot of money.

    If those who 'worship' science were thinking critically, they'd see the absurdity of the scientific promotion that oxygen is the cause of global warming and freak weather conditions. They have adopted blindly science as a religion.

    Those who promote the 'appliance of science' in all it's jabberwocky, are using critical reasoning; it serves their purposes, depopulates, sterilises and destroys the ecosystem and makes a lot of money. Especially when these Carbon Taxes kick in and the smartmetres click off.

    Those running the scientific religion believe their god will triumph.

    I'm with nature, natural science and common sense which is contrary to the science of religion or the religion of science.

    Now, I'll watch the vid until the 'spin'.

    1. @DaftAida
      Some of your other comments, following other docs, have incited me to respond negatively , but on this one I have to say, that in my opinion, you have nailed it, well done.x

    2. You agree with DaftAida. That's interesting.

    3. What DaftAida is talking about is the application of science in business and technology. Scientific research may lead to discoveries that when applied may not be as beneficial as we would like. That does not invalidate the scientific method. It may invalidate the integrity of those who may use to their own advantage, without thought or care of any possible harm, the results of the use of the scientific method. This is the distinction that many people just can't seem to grasp.

  184. I thought this was a simple, clear albeit "dumbed down" doc, but it seems from many of the comments it has not been "dumbed down" enough. The Scientific method is not a method for divining "ultimate truth". It is a method for using logic and reason to explain the world around. In the final analysis science does NOT say Homeopathic medicine or any of the other examples put forth have no value beyond sugar calories. It says based on what we know there is no logical, empirical evidence for believing they do anything they are advertised for. The message is these claims are not supported by the scientific method. If you want to believe something other than that go for it, but dont expect everyone else to "drink the koolaid" just because you really get "excited" about something. I dont know if Jim Jones followers or the branch Davidians got thier reward in the end but it was a choice made outside of critical thinking through science. What you are saying is you choose to believe something because you want to believe it not because it makes the most "sense". That does not prove it wrong but I'll mix my own "Koolaid" and not try to force others to do the same.

  185. turns out all those cholestorol pills "real medicine" have been seeling us for years are going to give me dementia.

    also - He's telling fibs already and I've only watched 5 minutes.... There is lots of data that shows that emergency services are busier on full moon nights...thats been reported often in mainstream media. Just ask anyone who has worked in bars for years...full moon nights are a bit crazier

    1. @craigSpraggon

      Please, enlighten us...what is your SCIENTIFIC evidence to support your strange claims? Show me a SINGLE certified study that proves this, and i'll take my hat off to you sir!

    2. There is a documentary about the full moon theory on this site. If I remember correctly, hard data does not show any statistically significant differences, and the anecdotal evidence comes from suggestion and recollection bias.

  186. It was unfortunate he took the opportunity to sell his book.

  187. Really don't like how this guy lumped health food drinks and supplements in the same category as psychic readings homeopathic remedy's and conspiracy theorys ........ basically suggesting nutrition is a pseudo science and has no legitimacy

    1. I agree, that was my biggest problem as well with this one. BUT it is easy for a company to make a drink with a few ingredients and throw a few bogus claims on the label which really makes it hard for the lay person to really know what to believe.

  188. Forty-one minutes well-spent. Fantastic documentary in its simplistic, indisputable logic. For a weary, jaded soul searcher and cyber sojourner like myself, it is an exhilerating, revitalizing breath of fresh air. I simply loved it. Thanks to all who have made this possible.

  189. Good doc. Should be mandatory watch before watching anything else here. However, science will be forced to throw in the towel on a few of the psuedosciences he listed in the doc. That's just my opinion.

  190. I really hope that people don't take this man,seriously! It is more claptrap to hide the truth from us. Think about this one thing. Who makes money? The corporations do, they are driven by the bottom line, period. Do you really think that they would allow technologies out which would affect their profits margins? I say, NO! Science does have an ego, many a scientist have been laughed and cajoled at because they offer a different point of view contrary to the main stream beliefs of the established theories.
    This man has some things right like some of the pseudosciences but in all not to question anything around you is just foolishness. To blindly believe is just as foolhardy. If you believe your governments are not hiding a thing then your in for a world of hurt!

  191. Being critical - is being critical. It is simple, doubt everything. In my opinion this guy/doc misses the critical step of doubting his own idea of what being critical is. If you follow some guide for being critical, you are not critical. You are following someone's authority. There is no difference in following his approach or the bible. The scientific school and their interpretations are not as 100% as he claims. Especially when it comes to peoples daily lives.

    However, new agers need to wake the hell up lol.

    1. Quite possibly the stupidest comment I've yet read on this or other sites.

    2. Not really. Science isnt always 100%. I'm a pharmacist and I can say one year a drug study showed this. Should be solid right? These were good solid double blind studies. 5 years later another study trumped the old study showing the drug didn't do that and in fact caused this...yada yada. I see this all the time. Estrogen and progesterone therapy benefits and harms go back and forth all the time. How much tylenol is toxic too the liver changes over time. The real causitive factor of arthrosclerosis. Lipitor is the biggest selling drug in the world. Whats gonna happen when we find out cholesterol isn't the real cause. And Im supposed to take science on its word? please...

      But the psuedosciences are harmful as well and give false hope, but I think we all need to be a little more open minded at the same time as being critical minded.

      The guy said the psuedosciences should not be given equal time as traditional science? Im not sure I agree with that. That could be a huge mistake.

    3. There is a difference between being wrong despite trying your best to be right and being wrong because of not trying at all.

    4. @Brandon Costa,

      SIGH, you should find another profession! Science is ALWAYS evolving, always getting adjusted, but always with the same standard of quality, as soon as you leave that standard behind, you get pseudo-science and malarkey, which potentially can be a big health risk.

    5. SIGH...You are right we should leave our body in the hands of the evolving western
      MD to patient.."This should work or it may just kill you, just remember our science is evolving..Good luck and best wishes"

      @Craig..statins are supposed to target the liver's ability to make cholesterol, but Im yet to see a specific drug, so the potential for statins to inhibit brain's production of cholesterol probably exists. Most drugs have unknown functions, just look at any drug insert. A lot of them state"The exact mechanism is unknown but it's believed..."

      On the flip side, however, there is also some evidence that excess cholesterol has a negative effect on cognititive function. So its possible that both excess and lack of are both contributing factors.

    6. @Brandon

      "science is evolving..Good luck and God Speed"

      There's the problem right there.... you are using the G word, if you ARE a person of religious nature, I will never take anything you say seriously. And IF you are a religious person, please stay the HELL away from science, its not for you, its for people who like FACT instead of fiction.

    7. and you don't know what god speed means so I can't take u seriously. you have an angry bias, get a grip... please don't turn this into a god debate. It's just an expression, I should have said May The Force Be With You. Or are you into Star Trek?

    8. None actually, nor Lord of the Rings, I prefer literature.
      And I am familiar with the expression, i just find that most true atheists find that expression to be offensive, and would refrain from using it. So yes, I assumed, which isn't really scientific either, i'll give you that.

    9. I am NOT a religious person, i don't believe in any dogmas that religions history and stories have been trying to impose on the world for eons.
      That said, i still think religious people are interested in science because science lays on paper the result of reseach on the physical world that surrounds us and that should include every one.

      If someone thinks OR NOT that a lot of the mumbo jumbo of religions is mumbo jumbo and that same person thinks a GOD or a creator is above him/her, that person will still be interested in one or all of the many different science fields that exist.
      He is human, therefore curious.

      I personnally think God is in the making, has always been, the only thing we found for sure so far is the name. To understand what i mean, you would have to elliminate every single thing you ever heard about God, you would have to make those ideas and the image that forms in your mind when you hear the word God dissolve instantly.
      We are not ready for that today, we have never described it the right way, and hopefully we won't have to, it will one day become self explanatory.

      We will reinvent the word God, because the word God won't die until we all do, like it or not.
      I May be Wrong!


    10. very true

    11. "If you follow some guide for being critical, you are not critical. You are following someone's authority. There is no difference in following his approach or the bible."

      Yea, really.

    12. huh? I didnt say that. I was defending his other point that science is not always right.

    13. yep...he made no sense to me either

    14. It is impossible to deal with the world without relying on authorities. When you get sick or a machine breaks down, you simply don't have time to become a medical doctor or engineer yourself, understand it deeply and fix it. So the main point is about how to tell fake authorities from actual ones. The answer is by scrutinizing them over long periods of time, using some well-defined performance criteria. For this purpose the scientific method is the best tool we've developed yet.

  192. Must see for everyone not familiar with critical thinking.

  193. An intriguing experience might compile a comprehensive list of many scientists' ideas of "pseudoscience"; after one hundred years, some would have been proven "pseudo", and some would have been proven "science". Tools of measurement will evolve as the human experience evolves. At some point, "now" might be considered part of the "darker ages", and our tools of measurement and verification might be seen as crude, largely ineffective, and quite limited. Stay tuned...

  194. Lol.. its obvious why Big V put this one up.

    1. I can't wait to watch this one but i'll have to. I am saving it for tonight.
      Perhaps it's more obvious why someone would have suggested this doc to the big V. I figure the more angles the better, imagine how many angles the 11th dimension must have.

  195. A very effective doc on how to approach pseudo science claims. Nothing very earthshattering here but a very balanced, easy to follow treatment of the subject. I would love to see this or some version of it presented to school age children as soon as they are able to follow it(middle school age?)
    Notice this does not address the subject of personal faith as when people say "There be Dragons" it is only a problem when it imposed on others or presented as science.

  196. just think if this process catches on the comment section on many docs will certainly be shorter. but i don't see that happening anytime soon

  197. Herbal medicine is not pseudoscience, although many treatment have no basis.

  198. Alright I enjoyed the film...but did anyone else catch the burrito at the 2-minute mark? I'm all for thinking critically, but no matter how long I sit here and think about it I can't understand why there's a full 3-seconds of burrito w/sour cream.

    1. I think it is supposed to be an image of the Virgin Mary in the sour cream! lol

    2. LOL i think the sour cream was in the shape of somthing ....

  199. So much for Project 10:10:10 new age crap that it is.

  200. Great doc, thanks for posting!!! Quite an eye opener.

  201. LOVELY and well made!