and if you look to the right you'll see snooki over here using an air fryer snooki how we doing how's the poof it's doing great let me see the poof let's see it oh my god i never thought i'd see it in person oh my god what you making for breakfast huh i'm making some potatoes you know i had them diced up some spicy jalapeno chicken and sausage you like sausage yeah how much a lot especially the spicy kind okay all right all right you don't need to be wiggling it like that on camera you don't need to be wiggling like that on camera this is where it ends right here guys he does this every morning oh my god here it comes oh my god what's going on infinite fam welcome back to another video if you guys are new to channel make sure you guys hit that subscribe button turn on your post notification bell leave a positive comment down below for a chance to get a what right guys want to shout out in the next video that is right guys so we've been hiding a couple of things from you well i've been hiding a couple of things yeah one of them is because of you what think about it okay i guess the other one is completely on me so this is half and half right so i don't want to get nothing in the comment section talking about it's only me this is half and half right here so today we have a couple things we're gonna be doing today we're gonna vlog it out a little bit we gotta go to shop right yay no you don't oh no that's right it's for tomorrow all guys today we need to get it together i thought we were supposed to go to shop right today but our pickup order is for tomorrow so that just made me a lot more happier yeah so we're actually going to go to the mall today i say i have to shop it's i say at this time because you always i don't have to shop yes you do guys i'm literally going there i'm picking up like four white t-shirts and like four black t-shirts because you know that's all i wear that's all i wear it's just plain clothes black and white he has to shop i'm going in there and i'm in and out but i know you're gonna see something in that store and you're gonna go crazy just watch just watch no i'm not name but i've never heard of a girl that's gonna go into the mall and just simply walk out without buying nothing i always do that if i can't find anything that i don't like i walk in i walk right out such a liar i don't know obviously i'm gonna try it on i can't say you're serious i just keep looking at the rules all right well listen i'm trying that thing you know for your layers to have more volume and stuff so i'm trying to see if it'll work for me i'll try it later too oh it's leaning my rollers all right guys so i'm gonna go show you one of the things that i've been hiding from you and then we're gonna save the other thing for like the end of the video don't fast forward watch the whole vlog all right i know don't don't be fast forward i know if you fast forward i'm gonna show you the thing right now that i've been hiding from you guys this is one of the things i've been hiding from you this is my current baby all right and we didn't make a video on it for a specific reason but i'll get into that in a moment i just want you guys to see it real quick so this is a bmw m340 you guys already know how i am when it comes to my bmw's and my cars so we got the cinnamon interior looks more like an orange on camera i don't know why but it's like a really nice cinnamon peanut butter color but very nice touchscreen display over there very quick sounds really good stock i love it is what the back looks like pretty much basic simple and then this is what the rear looks like shout out to my guy flawless always hooking me up always getting me the best deal possible if you guys need a car at least or finance please hit a flawless phone number is right there guys hit them up if you need anything but yeah guys this has been my baby for the past couple days that's one of the things i've been hiding from you guys is that car a lot of you guys have been hitting me up especially on instagram talking about all that you get a new bmw did you get a new car you guys didn't make a video on it and that is because that is only a temporary car my guy over at flawless he was able to hook something up where i'm able to drive that temporary car for a couple of months before the car that my dream car is what i'm getting in a couple of months it's currently being built and it has to get shipped over here and all that so that's what all this is really about when the new car comes in my dream car then we will make a video on it but as for now that is the temporary baby i'm in love with it babe should we keep it look the current car like the temporary car i like it a lot actually it looks like a spaceship inside at night i consider taking it but it's it weren't so aggressive i would have but it's just super aggressive it's aggressive i love it so much i love being though you guys already know how i am with my cars yeah so that was one of the things we've been hiding from you guys well me specifically and there's the backstory on it so when the dream car comes in we'll be sure to make a video on it as for now back to the vlog made it to the mall babe we need a game plan which is what you know how much we both hate the mall okay and the mall for some reason is always packed doesn't matter the day of the week some people just don't work and that's on them that's whatever but we need a game plan okay we got to be in and out all right so i'm going in and out but here we go try to be as quick as possible didn't you say you wasn't gonna get none i didn't say that but i know you're gonna see something in a store and you're gonna go crazy just watch just watch no i'm not this gosh in the beginning you oh my god what is the point of going to the mall if you're not going to buy anything i am so tired of him complaining he doesn't want me to get anything so i'm here i'm here for t-shirts and i just want to get in and out okay that's on you what are you gonna get because you said you wasn't gonna get none no i didn't i said i'm gonna rewind the clip no i said if i find something that i like then of course i'm gonna try it on i said that but if i find something i like obviously we'll try it on we don't i'm gonna rewind yeah go ahead and rewind that clip and don't be editing no parts out either i don't know part out i don't know all right so we're gonna be in and out anyway i'm going to take my time and get whatever i like guys i feel like we're gonna be here for like two hours but anyway we're gonna see you ready yes let's do it oh my goodness might as well take the whole thing all of it all of it look at this ridiculous what these are the best shirts oh my goodness guys if you want to know gifts to get israel get him all these shirts from uniclo you can't go wrong these are like the best shirts are they're only nine dollars each yeah that's not bad the best the quality is both are soft and they're just the best do you want to tell them how i went into zara and i got nothing yeah i was so happy and look at you no we don't we don't see you see how he talks on ms easy no we don't talk about that man we don't talk about that in a minute now we're in abracame right yeah we're in abracame tell them what happened at zara yo guys i went inside zara and everything was a horrendous mess there was stuff beat out everywhere so i'm like you know what i'm just gonna walk in and walk right out i hate when they can't like keep everything clean and neat i just went shop so it just sucks because it's like a really nice and like elegant store but it's always a mess in there at least the one that we go to is always a mess i know and then on top of that like it's expensive stuff like zara's not cheap product i don't want to be wearing stuff that was stepped on and stuff like that so i definitely didn't want to go in there hopefully you got better luck up in here yeah hopefully we'll see well it looks like we're off to a good start in this store huh well i have to try them on first honestly because it always looks good on the outside but then we try them on it's like i think i want to get two jeans for myself too i'm in need of some jeans well we're already here so yeah i see that i see that you got some trying on and do how many jeans you got there i think i have like six six no you don't one two three you got three three or four five oh my god can i just say how you look really beautiful today well thank you i made an effort so i made an effort let's give this class a scrum to the umpschess giving very uh new york uh bougie vibes you look classy yeah i was gonna say you do look bougie so fast forward about two hours i'm going to take my time and get whatever i like guys i feel like we're gonna be here for like two hours we couldn't record much in there one because the music we don't want copyright issues and two we had a bunch of bags in our hands so we really didn't have a extra hand for like the camera yeah but we finished how long were we in there for about two hours right i don't know because we got here like 130 so it's like three yeah about like you know so about two hours yeah um we ended up in footlocker don't know how we ended up in there you ended up trying to get some converses they didn't have your size i recommend going on stock x it's just hard because i have small feet and every time i go somewhere i can never find my size and i haven't bought converses in so long so i really don't know my actual size you know what they say about small feet right but well i don't know i was just wondering if you know i was gonna say because i don't got a peter so all right guys so we also did grab some food at the food court so right now we're about to head home eat a meal up real quick then we'll get to the point of that last thing that we were hiding from you guys so we'll see you guys then okay so you want to tell them how you proposed to me what a lot of you guys see you a lot of you guys have been asking about this ring right here saying oh my god did you guys notice the ring i know i'm not the only one who saw the ring they did get married they made video on it you want to tell them what happened nana wants to make a guest appearance do you want to tell them nana you don't know so pretty much every year for i'm taking for i see his birthday he does not stop asking questions as to what gifts i am getting him it's your fault because you always bring it up first yeah because like i'm excited i'm the type of person that like i had to learn to keep secrets for birthdays but in reality i just want to share everything but i'm just gonna take it back a little bit last year i got isaia a ring from gucci and i got him a ring his mom and i were going back and forth with sizes and she told me she thought it was one size i knew that his fingers are too big for it was like a size seven and a half or eight long story short and that are fitting him way too small what was the seven and a half or eight your the gucci ring no that was an eight who are you crying at need to gardener alone thank you turns out it was way too small on him he couldn't even fit it on his pinky if you try so we had to return it and it was like this whole big ordeal he ended up not being able to get a ring that year so i just decided this year let's give him a little taste of his birthday and let's give him a black ring it looked exactly the same as that one i personally feel like this one is more sleek and versatile for a fraction of the price yeah for a fraction of the price so he ended up picking something with the money that i spent on the ring like you bought a whole bunch of things with the one item i don't remember that was last year that i don't even remember what i did yesterday yeah well i got him that and trust me i'll be surprising him with some stuff for his actual birthday that you guys will see you see how she intensifies the other gift like it's this big thing and i keep trying to guess and she tells me if you find it in the house i'll let you have it or whatever the case is i started searching the house just to find out that it's at my mom's house and but she had me searching for like a good half hour no because he was just like is it here i'm like i don't know is it he's like is it at my mom's i don't know so basically the story with the ring is she got it she gave it to me for my birthday now as to why i'm wearing it on this hand and on this finger it is because i am simply matching her energy the ring that i gave her years back she has it on i used to have it on this finger i'm wearing on that where is your ring why is it not on the other finger because i switch it when i fidget my hands i switch it from this one and it got stuck so i didn't switch it back but i'm only switching it all the time you can't fit on that it's gonna stay on this one i don't care if it don't fit on this finger it's gonna stay on this one now because i was matching the energy putting on this one the whole time maybe they look like we were married now it's gonna be on this one i don't care if it cuts off the circulation on this finger either well how about i moved over here because i'm waiting for the real one don't you're gonna get that all right but i'm not gonna tell you like i said i'm waiting put pressure on him put they're doing enough of that they always asking me when i'm gonna do that don't worry about it i'm good to it it's on my to-do list all right anyway that is the story behind the ring that is another thing we've been hiding from you guys you guys noticed a bunch of times and i feel like we just had to tell you guys because nobody didn't get married but we might as well be married at this point no you need to make it official i will okay jeez louise well with all that being said guys that is the end of today's video if you guys enjoyed today's vlog make sure you guys smash that thumbs up button comment down below what you guys thought it is time for today's post notification shout out today's post notification shout out goes out to tibries azores shout out to you thank you so much for your love and support if you guys want to post notification shout out all you guys got to do is like comment share and subscribe turn your post notification bells off so you know whenever we post a new video you know what all that being said guys we'll catch you in the next video i'm working on it


And the Abbot and Costello program brought to you by Camel, the cigarette that's first in the service.  Welcome to the music of Freddie Ritch and his orchestra, the songs of Connie Haynes, tonight's guest Mr. Alan Latt and starring Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. Rich, what do you mean? Ooh, I'm a millionaire. Calm down Costello, what's this all yelling all about?  Well, it's true Abbott, my uncle Oscar just died and left me all his money in his will.  Yeah, because who's what? Beneficiary, beneficiary is the man who gets the money. Beneficiary ain't gonna get none of this money. My uncle left the door to me Abbott, how did Beneficiary get into this deal? I'll take him to court, I'll sue him. Costello will you be quiet, beneficiary means that you are your uncle's heir. My uncle's what? Your uncle's heir, heir, H-E-I-R. My uncle didn't have any H-E-I-R, he was ball headed. All right. All he had was a mustache. So what? Well, my uncle was very proud of that mustache. Every morning he used to cover it with toothpaste. So why did he cover his mustache with toothpaste? Well, so he could just his wife's toothpaste. Toothpaste, I mean toothpaste, why'd he do that? You have your S teeth in happiness. Yes, yes, I brought him along. Ladies and gentlemen, we will start back again. Why did he cover his mustache? With toothpaste. Toothpaste. Now, let's have it. Go ahead. Why did he cover his mustache with toothpaste? Yes.   For one thing, how do you know your uncle left this money? Oh, I just got this telegraph from my uncle's lawyer. I'm going to read it. Go ahead and read it. Dear Lou Costello, your uncle Oscar has just died and left you a million. Thanks for your past favors. How do you like that, Abbott? I'm rich. I'm going to take everybody out and buy him a multi-milk. A multi-milk? Yeah, because I'm a multi-millionaire. Oh. Don't be crazy. By the way, Costello, you never told me about your uncle Oscar. Where did your uncle live, Costello? Oh, he lived in England. Everybody know my uncle Oscar in England.  Shillings? No pants? Sure he had pants. What do you think of that? Walk around in his underwear? Oh, never mind. Forget your uncle's underwear, please.  Now, look, Costello, now that you've inherited a million, million dollars, what are you going to do with all that money? Well, I'm going to use half of the money to buy bonds. That's what everybody should do. That's swell. And then with the other half, I'm going to buy a radio station. You're going to buy a radio station? Yeah. You don't know anything about radio? Well, you don't even know who discovered electricity. I do too. Mrs. Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity. Mrs. Benjamin Franklin. You mean Benjamin Franklin? No. Mrs. Benjamin Franklin. One day she and her husband had an argument and she said, Benjamin, go fly a kite. Oh, all right. That's enough, Costello.  Well, hello, fellas. Oh, it's Ken Niles.  He looks like the cat that just swallowed a mouse.  A running around loose. All right. Costello just got some good news, Ken. His uncle left him a million dollars and he is going to buy a radio station. And what's more, Niles?    Well, I've been hammering away for years to be a head announcer.  Quiet, Costello. Niles is right. An announcer must have an education. You can't even read or write. Well, maybe not, but I spell. You certainly do. I spell it. OK. Spell at Mississippi. State of River. River. River. River. River. Huh? River. River? Yeah. All right, BER. River. Come on, Costello. Don't try to crawl out of it. Spell Mississippi. OK. Mississippi. Yes. M-I-P. What's the ping for? I was dotting the I's. Oh, this is the silliest thing I ever heard of. Why, Costello, my lovely wife would make a better announcer than you would. Your lovely wife? That old umbrella had her face lifted so many times, Mark Costello.  They started to lift it, but when they saw what was underneath, they dropped it again. You must excuse Costello today, Mrs. Niles. He's all excited. He just inherited a million dollars, and he's buying himself a radio station. Oh, that sounds just like in the stingy, fat, sleut of crats. He wouldn't think of buying anything for his friends. I wouldn't say that, Mrs. Niles.  Oh, I don't expect to be here for 100 years. That's all right. Well, you're going. You can take it with you. Now, wait a minute, Costello. The nicest present you could give Mrs. Niles is a chance to try out for that announcing job on your new station. Now, why not have a little contest to see who is the fastest reader? That's right, Costello. After all, it's speed that counts in announcing, and my lovely wife and I challenge you to a contest. Now, that's fair enough. All right, Mrs. Niles, you will be number one. Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Rabbit. I should certainly do my best to win this contest fairly and conduct myself as a lady. Splendid, Mrs. Niles. Now, Ken, you're number two. Thank you very much, Bud. Now, I certainly can do my best to win this contest fairly and conduct myself as a gentleman. Good, good. And now, Costello, you will be number three. Thank you, Mr. Rabbit, because I don't know how to think as much about my programs as my announcer, too. I didn't understand what you said, Costello. Well, did you hear what the other said? Yes. All right, now let's go. You will each recite Mary Had a Little Lamb.  When you hear the bell, you stop. And don't forget to take a great, big, deep breath. All ready now? Mary Had a Little Lamb. No, no, no. Wait a minute. I'll call out the names. Not you. No, not you. All right. Mrs. Niles. Mary Had a Little Lamb. Please smile so. Now, everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go and follow her to school one day. Ken Niles. Mary Had a Little Lamb. Please smile so. Now, everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go and follow her to school one day. Which was that? Lou Costello. Mrs. Niles. I didn't understand yet. Mrs. Niles. Now, everywhere that Mary went, Ken Niles? Mary Had a Little Lamb. Please smile so. Now, everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go and follow her to school one day. Lou Costello. Mrs. Niles. Mary Had a Little Lamb. Please smile so. Now, everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go and follow her to school one day. Lou Costello. bases to Japan is Dutch harbor on Unalaska Island in the Aleutians. To Americans at Dutch harbor, to United States bases and outposts throughout the world, go camel cigarettes. Buy the million. Buy the ton. For camels are first with men in all the services according to actual sales records. And of course, fresh camels in the Aleutians mean fresh camels for you too.  Today, more people want camels, both at home and overseas. More people want the fresh cigarette, the cigarette with more flavor. So remember, if your store is sold out, camel cigarettes are worth asking for again. AMELS. Camel cigarettes. Camel standard of costlier tobaccos is the same. For soldier, for civilian, anywhere in the world. Connie Haynes sings the California novelty tune, San Fernando Valley. Oh, I'm packing my grip and I'm leaving today cause I'm taking a trip to California way. I'm gonna stay at my home, I'll forget my sin, I'll be making new friends where the West begins. And the sun, I've decided where you're truly and it's the San Fernando Valley for me. When my lonely journey home hit in the trail to the cow country, you can afford my mate. AP Crinklemeyer of Crinklemeyer and Ingersoll. Where's Ingersoll? He's doing time. Speaking of buying a program on your station, I'm in the cracker business. You look like the crummy type. Mr. Costello, take it easy. You need the business. Yes, Mr. Costello. You see, I'm a very successful man. I manufacture crinklemeyer's crispy, crunchy, crackly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly. I make biscuits. And you do it the hard way too. Quiet, Costello. What kind of a program did you wish to put on, Mr. Crinklemeyer? I want a program that will sell crinklemeyer's crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly, crinkly. You want to sell biscuits? Young man, you took the words right out of my mouth. You mean I took the biscuits right out of your pen? That's it, young man. You make the cracks and I'll make the crackers. Ha, ha, ha. How? Ha, ha, ha. And now I'd like to have you meet a young chap who's going to help put on my program. Meet my announcer, Oliver Storty. Howdy-a-dy. Howdy-a-dy. Howdy-a-dy. Howdy-a-dy. Hello. This guy's a radio announcer? Well, I suppose you like your own announcers, but I thought you might like to put one moron.  Let the boy read something for us, Castella. Go ahead. Let him read something. Oh, yeah, I'm marvelous. Wonderful. Simply marvelous.  Good evening, everybody. Hello. This is Oliver Storty's bringing you the Crinklemire Cracker program from Ha, Ha, Ha, Hollywood. Ladies and gentlemen, you have just been listening to a coast-to-coast hiccup. A hiccup business elsewhere. Listen, that's no way to run a radio station. You're chasing all the customers away. Look who it is, that famous killer. Uh, Custas.  I'm Castello. Oh, yeah, huh? Listen, fatty, I understand you just inherited a million dollars. It's all right. You got me. Go ahead. Take my money. Pull out your gun. Go ahead.  Go on.  Go ahead. Hey, wait a minute. What are you talking about? I don't even carry a gun. Oh, gun is too noisy, eh? You got a knife. Mm-hmm. Got a knife, eh? I got a clean underwear.  Castello, Alan Laird doesn't want to kill you? If he does, I'll have a talk to him again.  I hope you're left to be 150 years old.  I'll trip over my beard, fall into the street, get run over by a truck. Then you'll want to take me to a hospital. Oh, no, no, no. He wants you to be healthy so you can go to work. Oh, fine, fine. I've never met a guy before. An old man, me, 150 years old, he wants me to go to work. What does he care? Okay, okay. Don't go to work. Oh, no, he won't let me work. He wants me to starve now. No, no, no. Wait a minute, please. No one wants you to starve to death. No, eat steaks. Eat big, juicy steaks. How do you like that? 150 years old, not a tooth in my head? He wants me to eat steaks. Listen, Castello, if it'll make you happy, I'll carry you around in my arms.  Castello, quiet. Stop all this nonsense and arguing with Alan Laird. Give the man a chance to talk, please. That's right, Castello. I merely heard that you were starting a radio station. I came over for a job. You want a job at my station? Well, what would you do? Well, I always wanted to be one of those fellows who steps up to the microphone and says, Man, a new shaving cream has hit the market. It is called a reversal. Reversal does the way with shaving of any kind. It makes the whiskers grow inside your mouth.  Remember reversal. Spelled backwards, it reads, reads, uh, Azurva. Which makes it harder to remember. See, Castello, this Alan Laird is pretty good. Yes, not bad for a Laird. Hey, listen, but I think his voice is a little... ...away from the microphone, Alan. What, you mean like this? No, no, you're still too close. Step back a little farther. Oh, you are. Well, open up those French windows and step out on that balcony. ...and left the daring young man as flat as a pressed pleat. And it can be worse in your cigarette. If wartime flatness is spoiling your smoking, get camels for more flavor. Yes, if you're looking for a cigarette that won't go flat, no matter how many you smoke, get camels for more flavor. Expert blending of costlier tobaccos gives camel cigarettes that extra flavor. It helps them to hold up, keep from going flat, no matter how many you smoke. Double check that for yourself in your taste and throat, your T-zone proving ground for camel's rich extra flavor and smooth extra mildness.  C-A-M-T-L-S. Camel cigarettes, they're first in the service. They've got what it takes. Come in. Well, hello, boys. How's the radio business? Hey, Evan, it's Alan Ladd. What are you doing back here, Alan? I feel like I got rid of you when you fill up the buckling. Didn't you get hurt? No. Fortunately, I was wearing my light fall suit. Ha, ha, ha. You need me around here, Castello. Your audience is crying for new blood. And in a minute, they're gonna get it. Your blood! Not right, Castello. Why don't you listen to Alan? He may have some good program ideas to improve your station. Well, certainly, Castello. I've written lots of dandy programs. Why don't we try out a few of them? For example, those all-night records shows are very popular. You fellas help me out and we'll try one right now, huh? Well, what are we waiting for? Let's listen to the music. Good evening, record fans everywhere. This is Happy Alan Ladd bringing you the oldest all-night record program on the air. Broadcasting since 1896. 24 years before radio. Now, that's enough talking. We start off our uninterrupted dance music with a recording of Mexicali Rose, played by Freddie Snitch and his Los Angeles River washouts. Here it is. Mexicali Rose. This number is being played for Fred and Mabel. Cecil and Rodney. Becky, Fanny, Pauline. The boys at Schmetnik's Pool Hall. The shut-ins at Alcatraz and Poopsy. I know you all want to dance. So back to the music. What's up with the white toothbrush? When you smile, does your tooth stand out like a limer being in a barrel of tar? Then try Dr. Feinbuster's toothpaste. The only 10-empty-two. Just send in your tooth. And I want to interrupt the music for a moment to tell you that you're dancing to Mexicali Rose. Slicko shellac on your floor. Simple, simple test. Put two drops of slicko shellac on your floor and rub gently for two days. Then put two more for three days. And finally, two more drops and rub for two more days. You have just been dancing to Mexicali Rose. Good night. Say, Alan, that was great. Yeah, they were, Alan. Got any more of those kind of programs? Well, I've got a great story for your daytime program. It's all about a young girl and her problems. You want to hear it? That sounds good, Costello. Freddie Rich. Let's have the theme music. The makers of Gro-Fuzz Hairtonic present another episode in the true life story of Blossom Think. Girl's street cleaner. At first. At first, listen to what a satisfied user has to say about Gro-Fuzz. Go ahead, Mr. Schnook. My wife was disappointed in me because I didn't have any hair on my chest. So I bought a bottle of Gro-Fuzz. And now after one application, you should see the hair on my chest. I don't wear a shirt anymore. And now back to Blossom Think. Girl's street cleaner. It seems like only yesterday that poor Blossom drank potato bug spray, thinking it was orange picot. But don't worry, folks, Blossom's all right now. The police gave her the third degree and pumped it out of her. In the meantime, Blossom's friend Harvey went to the general store to meet Squire Prindle to inquire about Larry, who had received the tragic letter from Mrs. Phil Potts' nephew, Eustace, who had told her of the split up between Bernice and Fitzroy. Now, while this was happening, the butcher's son, Herman, spied Charlie and Julius, leaving Mrs. Greystone's house with Myrtle and Phoebe, and quickly rang the far alarm. Naturally. Blossom was a little confused by all this. And so am I. But, as we look in upon Blossom this morning, she and her husband are having breast breakfast. Who? Blossom speaks. Oh, good morning, John Darling. What do you want for breakfast? Dear, I'd like some coffee. But you should have milk. But I'd much rather have a coffee, dear. But you should have milk. I'd rather have coffee. No, milk. No, no, coffee. Milk! Coffee!  Try it tonight. If you're not completely satisfied, please don't complain. You've only got one bottle. We got a million of them. Castello, that's the greatest radio story I've ever heard. You're right, Abbott. Hey, look, Alan, I'll buy the whole works from you. Okay, okay, Castello. That'll be $10,000. Cash on the barrel head. And I'm just a barrel head that's got the money. Now, Alan, just listen to this telegram. I want to show you that I really got a lot of dough. Now, get it. Dear Luke Castello, your Uncle Oscar has just died and left you a million. Thanks for your past favors. Hey, wait a minute. Let me see that telegram. Okay. Oh, I thought so. You read it wrong. Oh, no. You haven't got a million dollars. You haven't got a cent. What do you mean? Here, I'll read this telegram for you. Dear Luke Castello, your Uncle Oscar has just died and left you. A million thanks for past favors. Castello, did you hear that? Did I hear that? What's wrong with that telegram? What's that?  Ah, get out of here. Abbot and Castello will be back in just a moment. Thanks to the angst of the week. Tonight, we salute 23-year-old Marine Captain Harold Siegel of New York City, one of two Corsair pilots who attacked the formation of 40 Japanese planes. First, he shot Zero's tail off, and then his companion, following through with four Japs firing at him, he dove and blew up another, continuing on down to smash a third. Now under fire from about 10 enemy fighters, Captain Siegel's plane was shot to pieces, but he stuck with it and plunged into the water. Next morning, he was rescued by a destroyer. In your honor, Marine Captain Harold Siegel, the makers of camels are sending to our Marines in the Pacific 300,000 camel cigarettes. Each of the four camel radio shows honors a yank of the week, 300,000 camel cigarettes overseas, a total of more than a million camels sent free each week. In this country, the traveling camel caravans have thanked audiences of more than three and a half million yanks with free shows and free camels. Camel broadcasts go out to the United States four times a week, a short wave to our men overseas and to South America. Listen tomorrow to Gary Moore and Jimmy Durante. Saturday to Bob Hawke in Thanks to the Yanks. Monday to Blondie. And next Thursday to Aberdeen Costello with our guests, Cary Grant and Don Barkley. Hello, Costello. We'd better start getting ready for next week's program. You know, we're going to have Cary Grant and his friend Don Barkley as our guests. Cary Grant, you mean the big movie star? That's right, Costello. You know, Cary just returned from the South Pacific where he entertained the soldiers. Yeah, I understand he made a lot of money on that trip. Oh, don't be silly. The army doesn't pay him for that. He made the money off the jabs. He had a great record. What do you mean? That night he'd hide behind a tree with a baseball bat and built the jabs over their heads. How could Cary make money that way? Easy. When the jabs came to it, sell them a roadmap. Good night, folks. Good night, buddy. We turn to an end next week for another great Aberdeen Costello show with our special guests, Cary Grant and Don Barkley. Alan Ladd appeared tonight through the courtesy of Paramount Pictures, producers of the Miracle of Morgan's Creek. And remember, get camels for more flavor. If you're looking for a cigarette that won't go flat no matter how many you smoke, get camels for more flavor. This is Ken Niles wishing you a very pleasant good night from Hollywood.


Dejoram is a science communicator. He got his university education and his first scientific experience at Max Planck Institute. He will give you now a crash course for beginners to have the best insight into the scientific method and to distinguish science from rubbish. Dejoram, the stage is yours. Hi, nice to have you here. My name is Joeram Schwarzmann and I'm a plant biologist and today I want to talk about science. I have worked in research for many years, first during my diploma thesis and then during my doctoral research. I work both in universities and at a Max Planck Institute so I got pretty good insights into the way these structures work. After my PhD, I left the research career to instead talk about science, which is also what I'm about to do today. I am working now in science communication, both as a job and in my spare time when I write about molecular plant research online. Today I will only mention plant science a tiny bit because the topic is a different one. Today, though, we are talking about science literacy. So basically how does the scientific system work? How do you read scientific information and which information can you trust? Science. It's kind of a big topic. Before we start, it's time for some disclaimers. I am a plant biologist. I know stuff about STEM research, that is science, technology, engineering and mathematics, but there's so much more other science out there. Social science and humanities share many core concepts with natural sciences, but have also many approaches that are unique to them. I don't know a lot about the way these work, so please forgive me if I stick close to what I know, which is STEM research. Talking about science is also much less precise than doing the science. For pretty much everything that I'll bring up today, there is an example where it is completely different. So if in your country, field of research or experience something is different, we're probably both right about whatever we're talking. With that out of the way, let's look at the things that make science science. There are three parts of science that are connected. The first one is the scientific system. This is the way science is done. Next up we have people who do the science. The scientific term for them is researchers. We want to look at how you become a researcher, how researchers introduce biases and how they pick their volcanic layer to do evil science. Finally, there are publications. This is the front end of science, the stuff we look at most of the time when we look at science. There are several different kinds and not all of them are equally trustworthy. Let's begin with the scientific system. We just don't do science. We do science systematically. Since the first people try to understand the world around them, we have developed a complex system for science. At the core of that is the scientific method. The scientific method gives us structure and tools to do science. Without it, we end up in the realm of guesswork, anecdotes and false conclusions. Here are some of my favorite things that were believed before the scientific method became standard. Gentlemen could not transmit disease. Mice are created from grain and cloth. Blood is exclusively produced by the liver. Heart-shaped plants are good for the heart. But thanks to the scientific method, we have a system that allows us to make confident judgment on our observations. Let's use an example. This year aged me significantly and so as a newly formed old person, I have pansies on my balcony. I have blue ones and yellow ones and in summer I can see bees buzz around the flowers. I have a feeling though that they like the yellow ones better. That right there is an observation. I now think to myself I wonder if they prefer the yellow flowers over the blue ones based on the color. This is my hypothesis. The point of a hypothesis is to test it so I can accept or reject it later. So I come up with a test. I count all bees that land on yellow flowers and on blue flowers within a weekend. That is my experiment. So I sit there all weekend with one of these clicky things in each hand and count the bees on the flowers. Every time a bee lands on a flower, I click, click, click, click, click. It's the most fun I had all summer. In the end I look at my numbers. These are my results. I saw 64 bees on the yellow flowers and 27 on the blue flowers. Based on my experiment I conclude that bees prefer yellow pansies over blue ones. I can now return and accept my hypothesis. Bees do prefer yellow flowers over blue ones. Based on that experiment I made a new observation and can now make a new hypothesis. Do other insects follow the same behavior? And so I sit there again next weekend counting all hoverflies on my pansies. Happy days. The scientists in the audience are probably screaming by now. I am too, but on the inside. My little experiment and the conclusions I did were flawed. First up, I didn't do any controls apart from yellow versus blue. What about time? Do the days or seasons matter? Maybe I picked up the one time period when bees actually do prefer yellow, but on most other days they like blue better. And then I didn't control for position. Maybe the blue ones get less sunlight and are less warm and so a good control would have been to swap the pots around. I also said I wanted to test color. Another good control would have been to put up a cardboard cut out of a flower in blue and yellow and see whether it is the color or maybe another factor that attracts the bees. And then I only counted once. I put the two data points into an online statistical calculator and when I had calculated it told me I had internet connectivity problems. So I busted on my old textbook about statistics and as it turns out you need repetitions of your experiment to do statistics. And without statistics you can't be sure of anything. If you want to know whether what you measure is random or truly different between your two conditions you do a statistical test that tells you with what probability your result could be random. That is called a p-value. You want that number to be low. In biology we are happy with a chance of 1 in 20, so 5% that the difference we observe between two measurements happened by chance. In high energy particle physics that chance of seeing a random effect is 1 in 3.5 million or 0.0003%. So without statistics you can never be sure whether you observe something important or just two numbers that look different. A good way to do science is to do an experiment a couple of times. Three at least and then repeat it with controls again at least three times. With a bigger data set I could actually make an observation that holds significance. So why do I tell you all of this? You want to know how to understand science not how to do it yourself. Well as it turns out controls and repetitions are also a critical point to check when you read about scientific results. Often enough cool findings are based on experiments that didn't control for certain things or that are based on very low numbers of repetitions. You have to be careful with conclusions from these experiments as they might be wrong. So when you read about science look for science that they followed the scientific method like a clearly stated hypothesis, experiments with proper controls and enough repetitions to do solid statistics. It seems like an obvious improvement for the scientific system to just do more repetitions. Well there's a problem with that. Often experiments require the researchers to break things. Maybe just because you take the things out of their environment and into your lab maybe because you can only study it when it's broken and as it turns out not all things can be broken easily. Let me introduce you to my scale of how easy it is to break the thing you study. All the way to the left you have things like particle physics. It's easy to break particles. All you need is a big ring and some spare electrons you put in there really really fast. Once you have these two basic things you can break millions of particles and measure what happens so you can calculate really good statistics on them. Then you have other areas of physics. In material science the only thing that stops you from testing how hard a rock is is the price of your rock. Again that makes us quite confident in the material properties of things. Now we enter the realm of biology. Biology is less precise because living things are not all the same. If you take two bacterial cells of the same species these might still be slightly different in their genome but luckily we can break millions of bacteria and other microbes without running into ethical dilemmas. We even ask researchers to become better at killing microbes. So doing more of the experiment is easier when working with microbes. It gets harder though with bigger and more complex organisms. Want to break plants in a greenhouse or in a field? As long as you have the space you can break thousands of them for science and no one minds. How about animals like fish and mice and monkeys? There it gets much more complicated very quickly. While we are happy to kill thousands of pigs every day for sausages we feel much less comfortable doing the same for science and it's not a bad thing when we try to reduce harm to animals. So while you absolutely can do repetitions and controls and animal testing you usually are limited by the number of animals you can break for science.  If you thought it was hard doing lots of repetitions and controls in animals try doing that in humans. You can't grow a human on a corn sugar based diet just to see what would happen.  So with anything that involves science and humans we have to have very clever experiment designed to control for all the things that we can't control. The other way to do science on humans of course is to be a genetic life form and disc operating system. What this scale tells us is how careful we have to be with conclusions from any of these research areas. We have to apply a much higher skepticism when looking at single studies on human food than when we study how hard a rock is. If I'm interested in stuff on the right end of the spectrum I'd rather see a couple of studies pointing at a conclusion. Whereas the further I get to the left hand side the more I trust single studies. That still doesn't mean that there can't be mistakes in particle physics but I hope you get the idea. Back to the scientific method. Because it is circular it is never done and so is science. We can always uncover more details look at related things and refine our understanding. There's no field where we could ever say okay let's pack up we know now everything good job everyone the science has been completely done. Everything in science can be potentially overturned. Nothing is set in stone. However, and it's a big however, it's not likely that this happens for most things. Most things have been shown so often that the chance that we will find out that water actually boils at 250 degrees centigrade at sea level and normal pressure is close to zero. But if researchers would be able to show that strange behavior of water it is in the nature of science to include that result in our understanding. Even if that breaks some other ideas that we have about the world. That is what sets science apart from dogma. New evidence is not frowned upon and rejected but welcomed and integrated into our current understanding of the world. Enough about the scientific system. Let's talk about scientists. You might be surprised to hear but most researchers are actually people. Other people who are not researchers tend to forget that especially when they talk about the science that the researchers do. That goes both ways. There are some that believe in the absolute objective truth of science, ignoring all influence researchers have on the data. And there are others to say that science is lying about things like vaccinations, climate change or infectious diseases. Both groups are wrong.  They are also not conspiring to bring harm to society in search for personal gain. Trust me. I know people who work in pesticide research. They're as miserable as any other researcher. Researchers are people and so they have thoughts and ideas and wishes and biases and faults and good intentions. Most people don't want to do bad things and inflict harm on others and so do researchers. They aim to do good things and make lives of people better. The problem with researchers being people is that they are also flawed. We all have cognitive biases that shape the way we perceive and think about the world. And in science there's a whole list of biases that affect the way we gather data and draw conclusions from it. But luckily there are ways to deal with most biases. We have to be aware of them, address them and change our behavior to avoid them. What we can't do is deny their impact on research. Another issue is diversity. Whenever you put a group of similar people together they will only come up with ideas that fit within their group. That's why it is a problem when only white men are dominating research leadership positions. Hold on, some of you might shout. These men are men of science. They are objective. They use the scientific method. We don't need diversity. We need smart people. To which I answer... Here is a story for you. For more than 150 years researchers believe that only male birds are singing. It fits the simple idea that male birds do all the mating rituals and stuff so they must be the singers. Just like in humans female birds were believed to just sit and listen while the men shout at each other. In the last 20 years this idea was debunked. New research found that also female birds sing. So how did we miss that for so long? Another study on the studies found that during these 20 years that overturned the dogma of male singing birds the researchers changed. Suddenly more women took part in research and research happened in more parts of the world. Previously mostly men in US, Canada, England and Germany were studying singing birds in their countries. As a result they subconsciously introduced their own biases and ideas into the work and so we believe for a long time that female birds keep their beaks shut. Only when the group of researchers diversified we got new and better results. The male researchers didn't ignore the female song birds out of bad faith. The men were shaped by their environment but they didn't want to do bad things. They just happened to oversee something that someone with a different background would pick up on. What does this tell us about science? It tells us that science is influenced consciously or subconsciously by internal biases. When we talk about scientific results we need to take that into account. Especially in studies regarding human behavior we have to be very careful about experiment design, framing and interpretation of results. If you read about science it makes bold claims about the way we should work, interact or communicate in society. That science is prone to be shaped by bias and you should be very careful when drawing conclusions from it. I personally would rather wait for several studies pointing in a similar direction before I draw major conclusions. I'll link to a story about a publication about the influence of female mentors on career success that was criticized for a couple of these biases. If we want to understand science better we also have to look at how someone becomes a scientist and I mean that in a sense of professional career. Technically everybody is a scientist as soon as they test a hypothesis observe the outcome and repeat but unfortunately most of us are not paid for the tiny experiments during our day-to-day life. If you want to become a scientist you usually start by entering academia. Academia is the world of universities, colleges and research institutes. There is a lot of science done outside of academia like in research and development in the industry or by individuals taking part in DIY science. As these groups rarely enter the spotlight of public attention I will ignore them today. Sorry. So this is a typical STEM career path. You begin as a bachelor or master student. You work for something between three months and a year and then woohoo you get a degree. From here you can leave, go into the industry, be a scientific researcher at a university or you continue your education. If you continue you're most likely to do a PhD but before you can select one of the exciting options on a form when you order your food you have to do research. For three to six years depending on why you do your PhD you work on a project and most likely will not have a great time. You finish with your degree and some publications. A lot of people leave now but if you stay in research you'll become a postdoc. The word postdoc comes from the words dog as in doctorate and post as in you have to post a lot of applications led us to get a job. Postdocs do more research often on broader topics. They supervise PhD students and are usually pretty knowledgeable about their research field. They work and write papers until one of two things happen. The German Wissenschaft Zeitvertrags Gesetz bites them in the butt and they get no more contract or they move on to become a group leader or professor. Being a professor is great. You have a permanent research position, you get to supervise and you get to talk to many cool other researchers. You probably know a lot by now not only about your field but also many other fields in your part of science as you constantly go to conferences because they have good food and also people are talking about science. Downside is you're probably not doing any experiments at yourself anymore. You have postdocs and PhD students who do that for you. If you want to go into science please have a look at this. What looks like terrible city planning is actually terrible career planning as less than one percent of PhDs will ever reach the level of professor also known as the only stable job in science. That's also what happened to me I left academia after my PhD. So what do we learn from all of this? Different stages of a research career correlate with different levels of expertise. If you read statements from a master's student or a professor you can get an estimate for how much they know about their field and in turn for how solid their science is. Of course this is just a rule of thumb. I've met both very knowledgeable master students and professors who knew nothing apart from their own small world. So whenever you read statements from researchers independent of their career stage you should also wonder whether they represent a scientific consensus. Any individual scientist might have a particular hot take about something they care about but in general they agree with their colleagues. When reading about science that relates to policies or public debates it is a good idea to explore whether this particular researcher is representing their own opinion or the one of their peers. Don't ask the researcher directly though every single one of them will say that of course they represent a majority opinion. The difference between science and screwing around is writing it down as Adam Savage once said. Science without publications is pretty useless because if you keep all that knowledge to yourself well congrats you are very smart now but that doesn't really help anyone but you. Any researcher's goal therefore is to get their findings publicly known so that others can extend the work and create scientific progress. So let's go back to my amazing B research. I did the whole experiment again with proper controls this time and now I want to tell people about it.  So instead I do what most researchers would do and go to a scientific conference. That's where researchers hang out have a lot of coffee and sit and listen to talks from other researchers. Conferences are usually the first place that new information becomes public. Well public is a bit of a stretch usually the talks are not regularly recorded or made accessible to anyone who wasn't there at the time. So while the information is pretty trustworthy it remains fairly inaccessible to others. After my conference talk the next step is to write up all the details of my experiment and the results in a scientific paper. Before I send this to an editor or at a scientific journal I could publish it myself as a preprint. These preprints are drafts of finished papers that are available to read for anyone. They're great because they provide easy access to information that is otherwise often behind paywalls. They're not so great because they have not yet been peer reviewed. If a preprint hasn't also been published with peer review you have to be careful with what you read as it is essentially only the point of view of the authors. Peer review only happens when you submit your paper to a journal. Journals are a whole thing and there have been some great talks in the past about why many of them are problematic. Let's ignore for a second how these massive enterprises collect money from everyone they get in contact with and let's focus instead on what they're doing for the academic system. I send in my paper an editor sees if it's any good and then sends my paper to two to three reviewers. These are other researchers that then critically check everything I did and eventually recommend accepting or rejecting my paper. If it is accepted the paper will be published. I pay a fee and the paper will be available online often behind the paywall unless I pay some more cash. At this point I'd like to have a look at how a scientific paper works. There are five important parts to any paper. The title, the author list, the abstract, the figures and the text. The title is a summary of the main findings and unlike in popular media it is much more descriptive where a newspaper leaves out the most important information to get people to read the article. The information is right there in the title of the study. In my case that could be honeybees, apis, malefara show selective preference for flower color in viola tricolor. You see everything is right there. The organisms I worked with and the main result I found. Below the title stands the author list. As you might have guessed the author list is a list of authors. Depending on the field the paper is from the list can be ordered alphabetically or according to relative contribution. If it is contribution then you usually find the first author to have done all the work or the middle authors to have contributed some smaller parts and the last author to have paid for the whole thing. The last author is usually a group leader or professor. A good way to learn more about research group and their work is to search for the last author's name. The abstract is a summary of the findings. Read this to get a general idea of what the researchers did and what they found. It is very dense in information but it is usually written in a way that also researchers from other fields can understand at least some of it. The figures are pretty to look at and hold the key findings in most papers and the text has the full story with all the details all the jargon and all the references that the research is built on. You probably won't read the text unless you care a lot so stick to title abstract and authors to get a quick understanding of what's going on. Scientific papers reflect a peer-reviewed opinion of one or few research groups. If you are interested in a broader topic like what insects like to pollinate what flower you should read review papers. These are peer-reviewed summaries of a much broader scope often weighing multiple points of view against each other. Review papers are a great resource that avoids some of the biased individual research groups might have about their topic. So my research is reviewed and published. I can go back now and start counting butterflies but this is not where the publishing of scientific results ends. My institute might think that my B counting is not even bad it is actually amazing and so they will issue a press release. Press releases often emphasize the positive parts of a study while putting them into context of something that's relevant to most people. Something like bees remain attracted to yellow flowers despite the climate crisis. The facts on a press release are usually correct but shortcomings of a study that I mentioned in the paper are often missing from the press release. Because my B study is really cool and because the PR department of my institute did a great job journalists pick up on the story. The first ones are often journals with a focus on science like scientific American or Spektrum der Wissenschaft. Most of the time science journalists do a great job in finding more sources and putting the results into context. They often ask other experts for their opinion and they break down the scientific language into simpler words. Science journalism is the source I recommend to most people when they want to learn about a field that they are not experts in. Because my B story is freaking good mainstream journalists are also reporting on it. They are often pressed for time and write for a much broader audience so they just report the basic findings. Often putting even more emphasis on why people should care. Usually climate change, personal health or now Covid. Mainstream press coverage is rarely as detailed as the previous reporting and has the strongest tendency to accidentally misrepresent facts or add framing that researchers wouldn't use. Oh and then there is your weird uncle who posts a link to the article on their Facebook with a blurb of text that says the opposite of what the study actually did. As you might imagine, the process of getting scientific information out to the public quickly becomes a game of telephone. What is clearly written in the paper is framed positively in the press release and gets watered down even more once it reaches mainstream press. So for you, as someone who wants to understand the science, it is a good idea to be more careful the further you get away from the original source material. While specific scientific journalism usually does a good job in breaking down the facts without distortion, this same can't be said for popular media. If you come across an interesting story, try to find another version of it in a different outlet, preferably one that is more catered to an audience with scientific interest. Of course, you can jump straight to the original paper, but understanding the scientific jargon can be hard and misunderstanding the message is easy. So it can do more harm than good. We see that ham now with hobbies who are not epidemiologists, who are not people who study epidemics, who are making up their own pandemic modeling. They are cherry picking bits of information from scientific papers without understanding the bigger picture and context and then post their own charts on Twitter. It's cool if you want to play with data in your free time. And it's a fun way to learn more about the topic. But it can also be very misleading and harmful while dealing with a pandemic if expert studies have to fight for attention with non expert Excel graphs. It pays off to think twice about whether you're actually helping by publishing your own take on a scientific question. Before we end, I want to give you some practical advice on how to assess the credibility of a story and how to understand the science better. This is not an in depth guide to fact checking. I want you to get a sort of gut feeling about science. When I read scientific information, these are the questions that come to my mind. First up, I want to ask yourself, is this plausible and does this follow the scientific consensus? If both answers are no, then you should carefully check the sources. More often than not, these results are outliers that somebody exaggerated to get news coverage or someone is actively reframing scientific information for their own goals. To get a feeling about scientific consensus on things, it is a good idea to look for joint statements from research communities. Whenever an issue that is linked to current research comes up for public debate, there is usually a joint statement laying down the scientific opinion signed by dozens or even hundreds of researchers, like for example from scientists for future. Then whenever you see a big number, you should look for context. When you read statements like, we grow sugar beet on an area of over 400,000 hectare. You should immediately ask yourself, who is we? Is it Germany, Europe, the world? What is the time frame? Is that per year? Is that a lot? How much is that compared to other crops? Context matters a lot and often big numbers are used to impress you. In this case, 400,000 hectare is the yearly area that Germany grows sugar beet on. Weed, for example, is grown on over 3 million hectare per year in Germany. Context matters and so whenever you see a number, look for a frame of reference. If the article doesn't give you one, either go and look for yourself or ignore the number for your decision making based on the article. Numbers only work with framing so be aware of it. I want you to think briefly about how you felt when I gave you that number of 400,000 hectare. Chances are that you felt a sort of feeling of unease because it's really hard to imagine such a large number. An interesting exercise is to create your own frame of reference. Collect a couple of numbers like total agricultural area of your country, the current spending budget of your municipality, the average yearly income or the unemployment rate in relative and absolute numbers. Keep the list somewhere accessible and use it whenever you come across a big number that is hard to grasp. Are 100,000 Euro a lot of money in context of public spending? How important are 5,000 jobs in context of population and unemployment? Such a list can diffuse the occasional scary big number in news articles and it can also help you to make your point better. Speaking of framing, always be aware who the sender of the information is. News outlets rarely have a specific scientific agenda, but NGOs do. If so, the oil company will provide a leaflet where they cite scary numbers and present research that they funded that finds that oil drilling is actually good for the environment, but they won't disclose who they work with for the study, we all would laugh at that information. But if we read a leaflet from an environmental NGO in Munich that is structurally identical but with a narrative about glyphosate and beer that fits our own perception of the world, we are more likely to accept the information in the leaflet. In my opinion, both sources are problematic and I would not use any of them to build my own opinion. Good journalists put links to the sources in or under the article and it is a good idea to check them. Often, however, you have to look for the paper yourself, based on hints in the text like author names, institutions and general topics. And then paywalls often block access to the information that you're looking for. You can try pages like ResearchGate for legal access to PDFs. Many researchers also use SIHUB, but as the site provides illegal access to publicly funded research, I won't recommend doing so. When you have the paper in front of you, you can either read it completely, which is kind of hard, or just read the abstract, which might be easier. The easiest is to look for science journalism articles about the paper. Twitter is actually great to find those, as many researchers are on Twitter and like to share articles about their own research. They also like to discuss research on Twitter, so if the story is controversial, chances are you'll find some science accounts calling that out. While Twitter is terrible in many regards, it is a great tool to engage with the scientific community. You can also do a basic check up yourself. Where was the paper published and is it a known journal? Who are the people doing the research and what are their affiliations? How did they do their experiment? Checking for controls and repetitions in the experiment is hard, if you don't know the topic, but if you do know the topic, go for it. In the end, fact checking takes time and energy. It's very likely that you won't do it very often, but especially when something comes up that really interests you and you want to tell people about it, you should do a basic fact check on the science. The world would be a lot better if you'd only share information that you checked yourself for plausibility. You can also help to reduce the need for rigorous fact checking. Simply do not spread any science stories that seem too good to be true and that you didn't check yourself or find an incredible source. Misinformation and bad science reporting spread because we don't care enough and because they are very, very attractive. If we break that pattern, we can give reliable scientific information the attention that it deserves. But don't worry, most of the science reporting you'll find online is actually pretty good. There is no need to be extremely careful with every article you find. Still, I think it is better to have a natural alertness to badly reported science than to trust just anything that is posted under a catchy headline. There is no harm in double checking the facts because either you correct a mistake or you reinforce correct information in your mind. So, how do I assess whether a source that I like is actually good? When I come across a new outlet, I try to find some articles in an area that I know stuff about. For me, that's plant science. I then read what they're writing about plants. If that sounds plausible, I am tempted to also trust when they write about things like physics or climate change where I have much less expertise. This way, I have my own personal list of good and not-so-good outlets. If somebody on Twitter links to an article from the not-so-good list, I know that I have to take that information with a large quantity of salt and if I want to learn more, I look for a different source to back up any claims I find. It is tedious, but so is science. With a bit of practice, you can internalize the skepticism and navigate science information with much more confidence. I hope I could help you with that a little bit. So, that was my attempt to help you to understand science better. I'd be glad if you'd leave me feedback or direct any of your questions towards me on Twitter. That's at Science Joram. There will be sources for the things I talked about that are available somewhere around this video or on my website, Joram.schwarzmann.de. Thank you for your attention. Goodbye. There, Joram. Thank you for your talk. Very entertaining and informative as well, as I might say. We have a few questions from here at the commerce. It would be, where's the signal, Andrew? I need my questions from the internet. All of them are from the internet. I would go through the questions and you can elaborate on some of the points from your talk. So, the first question. Very good. The first question is, is there a difference between reviewed articles and meta studies? To my knowledge, there isn't really a categorical difference in terms of peer review, meta studies, so studies that integrate, especially in the medical field, you find that often they integrate a lot of studies and then summarize the findings again and try to put them in context of one another, which are incredibly useful studies for medical conclusion making. Because, as I said in the talk, it's often very hard to do, for example, dietary studies and you want to have large numbers and you get that by combining several studies together. And usually these meta studies are also peer reviewed. So, instead of actually doing the research and going and doing whatever experiments you want to do on humans, you instead collect all of the evidence others did. And then you integrate it again, draw new conclusions from that and compare them and weigh them and say, okay, this study had these shortcomings, but we can take this part from this study and put it in context with this part from this other study. And because you make so much additional conclusion making on that, you then submit it again to a journal and it's again peer reviewed and then other researchers look at it and say, and yeah, pretty much give their expertise on it and say whether or not it made sense what you concluded from all of these things. So, a meta study when it's published in a scientific journal is also peer reviewed and also a very good credible source. And I would even say often meta studies are the studies that you really want to look for if you have a very specific scientific question that you as a sort of non-expert want to have answered because very often the individual studies, they are very focused on a specific detail of a bigger research question. But if you want to know, I don't know, dietary fiber very good for me. There's probably not a single study that will have the answer, but there will be many studies that together point towards the answer. And the meta study is a place where you can find that answer. Very good. Sounds like something to reinforce the research. Maybe a follow up question or it is a follow up question. Is there anything you can say in this regards about the reproducibility crisis in many fields such as medicine? Yeah, that's a very good point. I mean, that's something that I didn't mention at all in the talk because for pretty much like complexity reasons because when you go into reproducibility, you run into all kinds of sort of complex additional problems. Because yeah, it is true that we often struggle with reproducing often. I actually don't have the numbers how often we fail, but there's this reproducibility crisis that's often mentioned that is this idea that when researchers take a paper that has whatever they studied and then other researchers try to recreate the study and usually in a paper there's also a material and method section that details all of the things that they did. It's pretty much the instructions of the experiment and the results of the experiment are both in the same paper usually. And when they try to sort of re-cook the recipe that somebody else did, there is a chance that they don't find the same thing. And we see that more and more often, especially with like complex research questions. And that brings us to the idea that reproduction or reproducibility is an issue and that maybe we can't trust science as much or we have to be more careful. And it is true that we have to be more careful, but I wouldn't go as far and to be like in general like sort of distrustful of research. And that's why I'm also saying like in the medical field, you always want to have multiple studies pointing at something. You always want to have multiple lines of evidence because if one group finds something and another group can't find it like reproduce it, you end up in a place where you can't really say, does this work now? Like who did the mistake? The first group or the second group? Because also when you're reproducing a study, you can make mistakes or there can be factors that the initial research study didn't document in a way that it can be reproduced because they didn't care to write down the supply of some chemicals. And the chemicals were very important for the success of the experiment. And things like that happen. And so you don't know when you just have the initial study in the reproduction study and they have different outcome. But if you have then multiple studies that all look in a similar area and out of 10 studies, eight or seven points to a certain direction, you can then be more certain that this direction points towards the truth. In science, it's really hard to say like, okay, this is now the objective truth. This is now, we found now the definitive answer to the question that we're looking at and especially in the medical field. So yeah, so that's a very long way of saying it's complicated. Reproduction or reproducibility studies, they are very important. But it doesn't, I wouldn't be too worried or too, what's the word here? Like I wouldn't be too worried that the lack of reproducibility breaks the entire scientific method because it's usually more complex and more issues at hand than just a simple recooking of another person's study. Yes, speaking of more publishing. So this is the follow up to the follow up. The internet asks, how can we deal with the publish or perish culture? Oh yeah, if I knew that I would write very smart blog posts and trying to convince people about that. I think personally, we need to rethink where we do the funding because that's in the end where it comes down to another issue that I really didn't go into much detail in the talk because also very complex. So science funding is usually defined by a decision making process. At one point, somebody decides who gets the money. And to get the money, they need to qualify to decide, like there is 10 research groups or 100 research groups that write a ground and say like, hey, we need money because we want to do research. And they have to figure out what they have to decide. Like who gets it because they can't give money to everyone because we spend money in budgets on different things than just science. So the next best thing that they came up with was the idea to use papers, the number of papers that you have to sort of get the measurement or the quality of papers that you have to get the measurement of whether you are deserving of the money. And you can see how that's problematic. It means that people who are early in their research career who don't have a lot of papers, they have a lower chance at getting the money. And that leads to this publisher-perish idea that if you don't publish your results and if you don't publish them in a very well-respected journal, then the funding agencies won't give you money. And so you perish and you can't really pursue your research career. And it's really a hard problem to solve because the decision about the funding is very much detached from the scientific world, from academia. There's multiple levels of abstraction between the people who in the end make the budgets and decide who gets the money and the people who are actually using the money. I would wish for a funding agency to look less at papers and maybe come up with different qualifiers. Maybe also something like general scientific practice. Maybe they could do audits of some sort of labs. I mean, there's a ton of factors that influence good research that are not mentioned in papers like work ethics, work culture, how much teaching you do, which can be very important but is sort of detrimental to get more funding because when you do teaching you don't do research and then you don't get papers and then you don't get money. So yeah, I don't have a very good solution to the question, what we can do. I would like to see more diverse funding also of smaller research groups. I would like to see more funding for negative results which is another thing that we don't really value. So if you do an experiment and it doesn't work, you can't publish it, you don't get paper, you don't get money and so on. So there are many factors that need to change, many things that we need to touch to actually get away from publish or perish. Yeah, another question that is closely connected to that is why are there so few stable jobs in science? Yeah, that's the Wissenschaft Zeitvertrags Gesetz, something that I forgot when we got it. I think in the late 90s or early 2000s that's at least a very German specific answer that defined, that this Gizetz, this law put it into law, that you have a limited time span that you can work in research. You can only work in research for I think 12 years and there's some like footnotes and stuff around it, but there's a fixed time limit that you can work in research on limited term contracts. But your funding, whenever you get research funding, it's always for a limited time. You always get research funding for three years, six years, if you're lucky. So you never have permanent money in a research group. Sometimes you have that in universities, but overall you don't have permanent money and so if you don't have permanent money, you can't have permanent contracts. And therefore there aren't really stable jobs. And then with professorships or some group leader positions then it changes because group leaders and professorships, they are more easily planned. And therefore in universities and research institutes, they sort of make a long-term budget and say okay, we will have 15 research groups. So we have money in the long-term for 15 group leaders. But whoever is hired underneath these group leaders, this has much more fluctuation and is based on sort of short-term money. And so there's no stable jobs there. At least that's in Germany. I know that for example in the UK and in France, they have earlier permanent position jobs. They have lecturers for example in the UK, where you can without being a full professor that has like its own backpack of stuff that has to be done, you can already work at a university in the long-term in a permanent contract. So it's a very, it's a problem that we see across the world, but Germany has its own very specific problems introduced here that make it very unattractive to stay long-term in research in Germany. It's true, I concur. So the coming to the people who do science mostly for fun and less for profit, this question is can you write and publish a paper without a formal degree in the sciences, assuming the research methods are sufficiently good? Yes, I think technically it is possible. It comes with some problems. Like first of all, it's not free. First of all, when you submit your paper to a journal, you pay money for it. I don't know exactly, but it ranges, I think a safe assumption is between $1,000 and $5,000, depending on the journal way you submit to. And then very often there's like some formal problems that I've been recently co-authoring a paper and I'm not actively doing research anymore. I did something in my spare time, helped a friend of mine who's still doing research with some like basic stuff, but he was so nice to put me on the paper and then there's a form where it says like institute affiliation and I don't have an institute affiliation in that sense. So as I'm just a middle author in this paper, I was published there or hopefully if it gets accepted, I will be there as an independent researcher. But it might be that a journal has their own internal rules where they say we only accept people from institutions. So it's not really inherent in the scientific system that you have to be at an institution, but there are these doors, there are these pathways that are locked because somebody has to put in a form somewhere that what institution you affiliate with. And I know that some people who do like DIY science, so they do outside of academia that they need to have in academia partners that help them with the publishing and also to get access to certain things. I mean, in computer science, you don't need specific chemicals, but if you do anything like chemical engineering or biology or anything, often you only get access to the supplies when you are an academic institution. So I know that many people have sort of these partnerships, corporations with academia that allow them to actually do the research and then publish it as well because otherwise if you're just doing it from your own bedroom, there might be a lot of barriers in your way that might be very hard to overcome. But I think if you're really, really dedicated, you can overcome them. Coming to the elephant in said bedroom, what can we do against the spread of false facts? 5G corona vaccines. So they get a lot of likes and are spread like a disease themselves and it's very hard to counter, especially in person encounters, these arguments because apparently a lot of people don't are not that familiar with the scientific method. What's your take on that? Yeah, it's difficult. And I've read over the years now many different approaches ranging from not actually talking about facts because often somebody who has a very predefined opinion on something, they know a lot of false facts that they have on their mind and you as somebody talking to them often don't have all of the correct facts in your mind.  So just arguing on the facts is very hard because people who follow these false ideas they often they're very quick in making turns and they like throw a thing at you one after the other and so it's really hard to just be like but actually debunking fact one and then debunking the next wrong fact. So I've seen a paper where people try to do this sort of on a argumentative standpoint. They say, look, you're drawing false conclusions. You say, because A, therefore B, but these two things aren't linked in a causal way.  But also that is difficult and usually people who are really devout followers of false facts, they are also not followers of reason. So any reason based argument will just not work for them because they will deny it. I think what really helps is a lot of small scale action in terms of making scientific data, so making science more accessible and I mean I'm a science communicator so I'm heavily biased. I'm saying like we need more science communication. We need more low level science communication. We need to have it freely accessible because all of the stuff that you read with the false facts, this is all freely available on Facebook and so on. So we need to have a similar low entry level for the correct facts, so for the real facts. And this is also, it's hard to do, I mean in the science communication field there's also a lot of debate how we do that, should we do that over more presence on social media, should we simplify more or are we then actually oversimplifying like where is the balance, how do we walk this line. So there's a lot of discussion and still ongoing learning about that but I think in the end it's that what we need. We need people to be able to find correct facts just as easily and understandable as they find the fake news and the fakes. We need science to be communicated clearly as a student Cheryl on Facebook. As an image I don't want to repeat all of the wrong claims but something that says something very wrong but very persuasive, we need to be as persuasive with the correct facts. And I know that many people are doing that by now especially on places like Instagram, you find more and more people on TikTok, you find more and more people doing very high quality, low level and I mean that on a sort of jargon level, not on a sort of intellectual level. So very low barrier science communication and I think this helps a lot. This helps more than very complicated sort of pages debunking false facts. I mean we also need these, we also need these as references but if we really want to combat the spread of fake news we need to just be as accessible with the truth.  I think a main part of this is practice, just try to look for something that would break the story, just not for every story that you read, that's a lot of work but from time to time pick a story where you're like oh this is very exciting and try to learn as much as you can about that one story and by doing that also learn about the process how you drew the conclusions and then compare your final images after you did all the research to the thing that you read in the beginning and see where there are things that are not coming together and where there are things that are the same and then based on that practice and I know that's a lot of work so that's sort of the high impact way of doing that by just practicing and just actively doing the checkups but the other way you can do this is find people whose opinion you trust on topics and follow them on podcasts and social media on YouTube or wherever and like especially in the beginning when you don't know them well be very critical about them it's easy to fall into like a sort of trap here and following somebody who actually doesn't know their stuff but there are some people I mean in this community here I'm not saying anything new if I say if you follow people like Mincorrect like the Torch incorrect they are great for a very I actually can't really pin down which scientific area because in their podcast they're touching so many different things and they have a very high level understanding of how science works so places like this are a good start to get a healthy dose of skepticism another rule of thumb that I can give is like usually stories are not as exciting when you get down to the to the nitty gritty details like I'm a big fan of CRISPR for example but I don't believe that we can cure all diseases just now because we have CRISPR like there's very limited things we can do with it and we can do much more with it than what we could do when we didn't have it but I'm not going around and thinking now we can create life at will because we have CRISPR or we can fight any disease at will because we have CRISPR so that's a general good rule of thumb is just calm down look what's really in there and see how much or tone it just down like 20% and then take that level of excitement with you instead of going around and being scared or overly excited about a new technology and you think that's been found because we rarely do these massive jumps that we can that we need to start to worry or get over excited about something very good so very last question which tools did you use to create these NAS drawings oh a lot of people won't like me for saying this because this will sound like a product promo but there is I used an iPad I used an iPad with a pencil and I used an app to draw the things on there called Affinity Designer because that works very well then also cross-device so that's how I created all of the drawings and I put them all together in Apple Motion and exported the whole thing in Apple Final Cut so this is now the show like a sales pitch for all of these products but I can say like for me they work very well but there's pretty much alternatives for everything along the way if I'm I mean I can say because I'm also doing a lot of science communication with drawings for the Plants and Pepev projects that I'm part of and I can say an iPad with a pencil and Affinity Designer gets you very far for high quality drawings with a very easy access because I'm no way an artist I'm very bad at this stuff but I can hide all my shortcomings because I have an undo function in my iPad and because everything's in a vector drawing I can delete every stroke that I made even if I realize like an hour later that this should not be there I can reposition it and delete it so vector files and a pencil and an undo function were my best friends in the creating of this video very good there you are thank you very much for your talk and your very extensive Q&A I think a lot of people are very happy with your work and are actually saying in the pad that you should continue to communicate science to the public that's very good because that's my job it's good that the people like that thank you very much so a round of applause and some very final announcements for this session there will be the Herod News Show in the break so stay tuned for that and I would say if there are no further no we don't have any more time sadly but I guess people know how to connect to you and contact the Yoram if you want to know anything more


When should you start? When should you start? Listen, there is no perfect time to start You've heard a million times before but there is no perfect time to start the way the human brain works It goes I'll wait until this happens so I can start I'll wait until the situation is a little bit better so I can start Which I've done sound is the world is very dynamic things are always changing shifting You're never gonna have these ideal circumstances The best thing you could ever do Is just jump in Don't don't don't tip your toes in the word just jump right in get into it learn how to swim while you're there Reminds me of when I actually started this channel. I Had the idea of doing something online a blog or something of some sort for a while and I kept waiting I kept waiting Waiting for the right time to add the right equipment until I knew how to write better for the blog Until I had enough money to fund the hosting but then I realized that I was just burning my wheels I was getting nowhere into one day.  Let's start that day I Got everything sorted out and just wrote my first article and just put out there That's the same with everything going to gym. There is no perfect time Just start just go to gym If you're a virgin, there is no perfect time. Just just jump right in there find out yourself There is no perfect time guys. You need to have the courage to hop in And once you hop in you realize that it's not as bad as you thought it would be that's when you start making a progress when you actually start because Most people a lot of people they have ideas in the head of things they want to do But these things never get realized and that's a sad thing So start now. There is no perfect time. The perfect time is when you actually do start. That is the perfect time And I hope you guys like that video like comment and subscribe to my good stuff. Peace. Oh Yeah, I forgot to mention guys that if you have any questions or queries my emails in the description box if you send me a good question, I will make a video about it and You can remain anonymous if you're embarrassed We're all trying to help each other here reach that self-actualization. So send me those questions guys.  That's it and you get notifications as soon as the videos are up. Peace


And in sports news, an Argentine prosecutor has begun hearing evidence on Monday, involving seven people accused of contributing to Diego Maradona's death. Maradona, the revered former Boca Juniors and the police star who had alcohol and drug addictions for many years, died last November 25 from heart failure at the age of 60 after undergoing brain surgery earlier that month. A medical board formally appointed to investigate Maradona's death concluded that several members of the star's medical team acted in an inappropriate, deficient and reckless manner and said he was not properly monitored before he died. Monday's pre-trial hearing had been delayed by an increase in coronavirus infections in Argentina.