This YouTuber reminds me of another who is linked here frequently — Sabine Hossenfelder. Why is that? They both seem to work with a high degree of independence from their mainstream fields? They are both very intelligent and talented while also having few official credentials to verify their credibility?
I don’t mean to impugn either YouTuber, but I’ve been burned too many times by equating “wow this is cool material” with “this is correct”. I’m almost ashamed to admit that my desire to root for the underdog biases me in their favour precisely because they are outspoken, with disastrous outcomes. Well known examples of this which I’ve seen — although much more serious than arrows and stars! — include Andrew Wakefield (MMR maverick, much lauded as a “whistleblower”, later shown to be a hoaxer) and David Irving (maverick second world war historian, much lauded, later shown to be an anti-Semitic white supremacist.)
The keyhole stuff is objectively cool but how do I know the historical takes aren’t just “fake news” for nerds?
I don’t mean to impugn either YouTuber, but I’ve been burned too many times by equating “wow this is cool material” with “this is correct”. I’m almost ashamed to admit that my desire to root for the underdog biases me in their favour precisely because they are outspoken, with disastrous outcomes. Well known examples of this which I’ve seen — although much more serious than arrows and stars! — include Andrew Wakefield (MMR maverick, much lauded as a “whistleblower”, later shown to be a hoaxer) and David Irving (maverick second world war historian, much lauded, later shown to be an anti-Semitic white supremacist.)
The keyhole stuff is objectively cool but how do I know the historical takes aren’t just “fake news” for nerds?