Science "works" when scientists bother to actually try to replicate claims, no matter how bizarre they may be. And as this video and my comment shows, that's not happening in a number of scientific fields. Which is really, really bad for human knowledge and society in general, as billions of dollars and countless work-hours get wasted since researchers base future research on what turn out to be unreliable past claims.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" flies in the face of everything the scientific method espouses. Evidence is evidence. It is not supposed to matter who finds the evidence. Someone who is famous in the field should not be given more benefit of the doubt than someone who is not, yet that is exactly what happened in Shectman's case. He was removed from his lab and an actual expert in the field, Linus Pauling, verbally abused him for literally decades.

That's not how science is supposed to work at all. If someone finds evidence of something that contradicts current theory, you're supposed to look at their methodology for flaws. If you can't find any flaws, then the scientific method demands you attempt to replicate the experiment to validate it. You're not supposed to dismiss evidence out of hand because the person who found it isn't a leading expert in the field. In Shectman's case, other labs replicated his results and the "experts" still wouldn't budge... to this day in fact Pauling refuses to admit he was wrong.

Conversely, there are too many papers out there now with shoddy methodology that shouldn't even be published, yet because the author is a name in the field they somehow make it into top-tier journals and get cited constantly despite the dubious nature of the research. Again, that's not how science is supposed to work.

"Spurious bullshit," as you called it, is not being weeded out. Rather it is being foisted on others as "fact" because Dr. XYZ who is renowned in the field did the experiment and no one looked closely enough at it or bothered to try to replicate it. The spurious bullshit should be getting weeded out by actual scientific testing (like the studies in the video that were found to be unreliable) and not by mob mentality.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

You all do realize that this isn't a truly original routine?
Famous quote from a long ago baseball hero:
"You better cut the pizza in four pieces because I'm not hungry enough to eat six."
Yogi Berra
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/y/yogiberra141844.html

This is interesting, because these ladies are famous (in Japan) Japanese comedians but I don't think they will actually be doing the voice-overs when the film comes to Japan (won't be out here for months). On the YouTube page for this video, it explains that these ladies are members of the Japanese Ghostbusters' "branch office," implying an international franchise.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Almost-Famous-Tiny-Dancer

Almost Famous - Tiny Dancer has been added as a related post - related requested by CrushBug.

I'm sure there have been any number of legal precedents set. Doesn't change the fact that the major point of the second amendment was not self-defense.

Besides, it's an anachronism. You can have all the guns you want, but you ain't defending shit if your (or another) government decides to go full Hitler.

Look, you're already not allowed bombs or RPGs or missiles or whatever, so your right to bear "arms" has been infringed.

Aside from the raving Alex Jones style lunatics, everyone already agrees that there are limits on the weapons available to civilians. So the second amendment isn't inviolate. It's just a question of degrees.

Besides, pretty sure the constitution has been changed before (14th and 21st most famously).

But again, I'm just glad I don't live in a country where people genuinely believe that they need a gun for home defense.

The freeze frame at 2:12 says:

*the number changes depending on which source you're reading from, but it's roughly around that

Also, did you know:
"Britain" comes from the latin: "Britanus Denticus" - which translates as "realm of ecellent teeth and outstanding dentists". We have excellent dentistry in Britain. It's right up there with our world-famous cuisine and love of public speaking.

Shall we get back to the video?

the "brain" itself will be ~$30K min. you need lenses, batteries/power supplies, drives to record to, viewfinders, cables, etc. on top of that. a steadicam rig will cost $50K+ too. the famous zeiss lens kubrick used (borrowed from NASA) cost over $23M (adjusted for inflation).

professional cameras are expensive. alexa and red are super cheap in comparison to traditional film camera set ups.

Let's play youtubers who act like god damn retarded monkeys, and still manage to be very popular, famous and have a bunch of fans. On the other hand, the fans are usually little kids, so....

I Googled it. Apparently it's "a thing".

My Super Sweet 16


Back before she was famous... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2mP3CIb22I

Its "military marching". I was in some of the best military marching bands in high school and in college. Here's an example of the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band routine. We learned a new routine each week during football season.

Shows the 4-way cross that they are famous for. Basically putting 4 people in the same spot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSgTX1Uz1Tk

You still can...they are called 'Chūshingura' .
'The Loyal 47 Ronin' is one version you can watch for free with subtitles, it can be found on YT in 2 parts, part one is at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9lG7G6t4E

Many are just named 'Chūshingura', including the most famous one, made in 1962 named "Chūshingura: Hana no Maki, Yuki no Maki" There are many versions. None of the Japanese made versions have dragons or witches, as far as I know. I'm almost certain they are ALL better than "47 Ronin", but I haven't seen them all...I just know it's true.

Sadly, it happens to most of the actors that get tied to long term sequels. Only a few manage to break out of it, usually because they take other roles similar to the ones they had, they were already famous before the role, or they are just really good actors.

I mean, think about the original Star Wars trilogy, other than Harrison Ford the rest of the cast kind of disappeared; although I guess you could give Mark Hamill a nod for his voice acting work later on.