guy_named_matt

but.... why is that? if scientific papers were written well (and i'm implicating the science publishing guidelines + accepted culture of scientific writing in that, not just individual authors), shouldn't they self-contain their context to the level that they are comprehensible? note, i'm not talking about spin - that doesn't belong. but if basic comprehension of the paper requires reading secondary sources, isn't that a fundamental problem in how scientific papers are written? (i'm asking this as a person with a phd and post-doc, working as a data scientist now but i have read many many scientific papers). I'll note - older papers (1960's, 1970's, etc.), do seem to include more color and more explanation. some modern papers do too. but many are dry and kind of incomprehensible.

I feel that the Business Insider title is really misleading and counterproductive; because Derek Muller is not 'a youtuber' -- he's a serious physics educator, with a PhD in physics education research, and with probably the best youtube channel (or any channel, in any medium) in the world for explaining physics content; which has been running for a decade; and with nods from multiple famous physicists IN THIS VERY VIDEO saying that he is the best that there is. So the claim that 'A youtuber bet a physicist and won' just makes it seem that experts are wrong, whereas in reality, this was expert vs. expert. That being said, physics is such that if 'some youtuber' bet a physicist, and was right... physicists would concede.