Good Science videos?

Disclaimer: This thread is not Soylent-related.

Does anyone have any good science-related videos or science-related channels that they frequent? Preferably not lectures, but short, descriptive videos.


One of my favorite channels that I subscribe to on YouTube is Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell. As an example of his style, here is his latest video entitled “Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever – CRISPR”:


A few of my other favorite channel subscriptions that excite me when I see new vids published in my feed are Smarter Every Day, PBS SpaceTime, and and TED-Ed.


Scishow (5-15m videos on any science topic), Veritasium (mostly physics), MinutePhysics (short animated physics videos). Periodic Videos is totally awesome! it’s run by a chemistry professor. Sixty Symbols does 5-20m interviews with physics professors. Concordance is criminally underviewed, he does very level-headed and evidence-based analysis of medical/bio science. Healthcare Triage is also run by a smart evidence-based guy, make sure you see his videos on different countries’ healthcare systems.

Crash Course produces very good educational videos on most things you’ll see in a school syllabus, I know Bill Nye did it first but I think it’s even more powerful when it’s free on youtube. Their history offering is enormous, it’s more like Online Courses than Crash Courses.

CoolHardLogic has two great/hilarious series worth seeing, Testing Homeopathy and Testing Geocentrism. He mocks them while using the opportunity to teach about astronomy and astrophysics.

CGP Grey typically doesn’t do science but his video on split-brain patients was fascinating.

Vi Hart does math videos for the most part but my favorite is her excellent video essay thing on music, which helped me play piano better.

This is unrelated but I’ll never skip an opportunity to link GoldVision’s 25 games of Christmas series.

Since you asked for non-lectures I’ll stop there :slight_smile:


Comment: This thread is Soylent related. Soylent was created according to scientific principles, and discussions about its effectiveness are based on scientific principles. People who use Soylent are generally not superstitious and are generally interested in science.

The thread about Presidential candidates, on the other hand, is not related to Soylent. My protests about that thread were ignored because nobody gave a shit about its irrelevance or my opinion.

1 Like

That’s pretty much my list.

Though i also have Physics Girl, Practical Engineering, EngineerGuy, Computerphile, Numberphile, which are all pretty self explanatory, and Zogg from Betelgeuse which gives a fun outside overview of humanity though it’s no longer producing any new episodes.

Also Epic Rap Battles of History which isn’t science, but a pretty fun take on history.


geneven, I personally didn’t respond in the other thread because I didn’t want it to turn into a back-and-forth argument.

Also, I don’t necessarily think that it matters if it is related to Soylent directly. I am not sure why that is a requirement. Perhaps @Conor could add an “Off-Topic” forum in the future?

Furthermore, I think that other thread was at least as related to Soylent as this one. Soylent was created in the US in a very pro-innovation environment. Generally speaking, the government matters because of a host of reasons related to doing business, but the way it was framed (“who is the most pro-innovation?”) was related even moreso.

Edit: I really don’t want this thread to devolve either. Apologies for feeling baited into a response. :weary:


Thanks! :thumbsup:
Several of those I already subscribe to (Crash Course and Veritasium are great!) but several were new to me.

1 Like

Just to add one I forgot: My favorite new channel is "What’s Inside"
It is not especially science-focused or high-production (just a dad and his son cutting stuff open to see what is inside) but I like it.


I’ll add one more: ASAP Science.


Lol it isn’t. You can post whatever you want. There’s something off topic every few days and the world hasn’t ended yet. If only one person is complaining, you can be pretty confident it’s not an issue. As far as science channels, I would add:

CGP Grey, ColdFusion, DNews, Engineering Explained, Fermilab, FW: Thinking, Geography Now, Harvard University, HowStuffWorks, IEEE Spectrum, IntelligenceSquared Debates, Life Noggin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mental Floss, MinuteEarth, MIT Technology Review, NASA Jet Propulsion, NatGeoWild, National Geographic, Nucleus Medical Media (great medical animations), PatentYogi, RoadShow, Science Magazine, SciShow Space, Smithsonian Channel, SpaceRip, Stanford, TechCrunch, TechQuickie, The Daily Conversation, The Economist, US Department of the Interior, Vsauce, Vsauce2, Wired, World Science Festival

You didn’t specify what area of science so this is a combination of geography, political science, math, physics, ecology, academia, trivia, history, futurism - the list goes on.

All these channels mostly put out short videos. With Harvard/Stanford/MIT you’ll be lucky to get a video even 1 minute long sometimes. IntelligenceSquared Debates has summaries and excerpt videos from full debates so that’s nice. All the channels listed above this post are great too. Happy sciencing, friend!


If you guys will use it I can.


I don’t see a need. The rare off-topic stuff is not flooding out Soylent stuff.


I like Veritasium and MinutePhysics.
Also Kurzgesagt

Other channels tend to ramble a lot in a way that I can’t stand.

1 Like

I’m adding Brian Dunnings’ InFact series on YouTube. There’s about 25 episodes about common myths, a lot of them science related. Here’s one about organic food

Here’s the full playlist:


Obligatory Vsauce mention.


Well, nothing personal, but to me the whole concept of who’s the most pro-innovative candidate is quite bogus anyway. I suppose Charles Manson was very innovative in his time, but that doesn’t make him a great man.

There are these tv channels where they talk about political subjects all the time, FOX, CNN, MSNBC. I find that I get more than I need there. I don’t see why we need to devote whole threads to such topics here.

So how do you judge innovativeness? A flashing sign appears? How do you replicate your judgment scientifically? If two people disagree about how innovative someone is, how do you resolve the disagreement?

You do know that Dale Carnegie wasn’t a novelist, and that Andrew Carnegie is a different person, I hope.

1 Like