0:01 Hey everyone, so some of you may have seen the video I put out a few days ago debunking the electric universe. Needless to say, it pissed off a few people, most notably, this guy. Ben Davidson. He made sure to let me know how pissed off he was by email. He doesn’t seem to understand that I was debunking the preposterous fantasy led by Wal Thornhill and pals, who themselves refer to it as the “electric universe,” a phrase that is everywhere on various websites, including the URL itself.
Could the earth’s weakening magnetic field “kill tens to hundreds of millions of people in the next few decades,” as the YouTuberBen Davidson (Suspicious0bservers) claims? No, says the solar physicist behind the YouTube channel, Space Weather.
In the video, “DEATH by COSMIC RAYS?,” the expert, Space Weather, debunks Ben Davidson’s (Suspicious0bservers’) outlandish claim about how the weakening of the earth’s magnetic field, “could kill tens to hundreds of millions of people in the next few decades.”
A partial transcription of some of the more important takeaways from this video can be found at the end of this blog, and I encourage readers to watch the video in its entirety for more information. But first…
It’s going to take some time to breakdown and go through the entirety of the scientific Gish Gallop that Ben Davidson uses throughout the video, “Discussion with Suspicious Observers.” For now, I feel it’s important to point out Ben Davidson’s use of motivated reasoning to reduce the unpleasant effects he experiences from the cognitive dissonance that arises whenever an expert disagrees with him.
In a previous blog article, I mentioned that Ben Davidson has a disclaimer (published in all capital letters) on the “About” section of his website that says, “I OFTEN INTERJECT MY OPINIONS ABOUT THE TOPICS PRESENTED ON THE CHANNEL AND ON THIS SITE, AND I ATTEMPT TO CLEARLY COMMUNICATE WHEN THAT IS THE CASE” (Davidson 2018). I went on to point out that this is:
I find it’s helpful to read the things that people say in order to read between the lines and discern the real meaning behind the words they’re using, because some people sure do say a whole lot! It’s important to note that not everything that someone says is true, even when they say that it is; this is especially true when the person making the claims has no relevant education or expertise to back up the assertions/interpretations they’re making.
My previous blog article pointed out the illegitimacy of Ben Davidson’s (Suspicious0bservers) claims of having a “peer-reviewed publication” to his name. This was done by emphasizing the criticisms made by the solar physicist behind the YouTube channel, Space Weather, about how “what Ben has done is he’s given his paper to a poor journal with no quality peers and as a result ended up with poor results and bad research” (Space Weather 2017).
This blog post is going to expand that focus to a couple of Ben Davidson’s other claims. But first, it’s important to sledge-hammer this nail on the head: there is a big difference between publishing a paper in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and publishing one in a predatory journal that is meant to mimic the peer-review process; the latter of which is pseudoscience that anyone can do, while the former is what constitutes evidence for the scientific claims made by experts.
Hello everybody, I apologize for the long absence, however, a lot has happened over the past several months!
Anyway, today’s blog post is a slow-burn introduction to two YouTube channels that are polar opposites of one another: one promotes science and the other monetizes pseudoscience.
The first channel is called, Space Weather, and it’s owned and operated by a man who has degrees in physics as well as 30+ years of experience working as a space weather forecaster. He created his YouTube channel with the purpose of correcting misinformation and making a public record to show that some of the pseudoscience circulating on social media is being challenged with real science.