Karl Popper, Science, & Pseudoscience: Crash Course Philosophy #8
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 сер 2024
- The early 1900s was an amazing time for Western science, as Albert Einstein was developing his theories of relativity and psychology was born, as Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis took over the scientific mainstream. Karl Popper observed these developments firsthand and came to draw a distinction between what he referred to as science and pseudoscience, which might best be summarized as science disconfirms, while pseudoscience confirms. While the way we describe these disciplines has changed in the intervening years, Popper’s ideas speak to the heart of how we arrive at knowledge.
--
Wanted: Santa Clause by Kevin Dooley www.flickr.com..., licensed under CC BY 2.0: creativecommon...
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer copyright Rankin/Bass Productions & DreamWorks Classics
Other images and video via VideoBlocks or Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0: creativecommon...
--
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
www.squarespace...
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashc. .
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
"Always remain open to the idea that your beliefs might be wrong is the best way to get closer to the truth"
I dislike this gapless editing. It sounds frantic.
I agree, and I also disagree because it implies that we aren't going to get to the truth and that if we did we should leave room for doubting the truth.
Alexander12Roth Yea that argument is self defeating because the belief that a belief might be wrong could be wrong, thus ruining it royally. Clouser calls it self-referential incoherency
Problem is he don"t apply it to himself and his belief in Popper theory.
Because believing something does not make it true. You must be willing to test again and continue to accumulate evidence or refute your belief, is the point. With new information you must be willing to adjust - if no information comes to change your belief than you can continue to believe it, it is the closest to true you have come.
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."
What a brilliant quote by Popper.
"he was one of those rare philosophers who actually managed to hit on an idea so right that we don’t even really argue about it anymore"
This is probably the most badass line you can give to a philosopher.
This is some fantastic insight into the scientific method. Freud would be so pissed off if we knew we're calling his life's work pseudo-scientific.
LOL
+Rebecca Ohno Hi. I'm did a lot of Psychoanalysis in the first two years of my (fully accredited- not whack a doodle) Psychology degree and Freud wasn't coked off his face in any way (although he certainly took cocaine early on he absolutely was not snorting for life). He researched its anaesthetic effects early in his career for eye surgeries and disavowed it completely when a close friend died from cocaine addiction. He stopped using hypnosis very early on too as he found it unnecessary. I never ever heard mention of massage so you'll have to cite that for me. Anyway the whole point of psychoanalysis as I understand it is that eventually, as an individual human being experiencing conscious reality and assigning meaning to it, you must at some level accept that there is a purely subjective personal experience involved and what your unique experiences in life have done to you makes your set of meanings different to anyone else's. This is not an inner world of Aristotlean logic where A=A. A can also equal not A. A can equal A and B and C at the same time. You can both love and hate your mother for example; the song "Happy Birthday to you" might be the saddest thing you've ever heard because your Granny died while blowing out her candles. The word "love" will mean different things to different people- for some people "love" might mean aggression, violence and pain because of a traumatic childhood with abusive parents. Yes, it isn't a hard science like chemistry but it is used a great deal in psychotherapy and retains the respect of the psychology community.
On the downside though that also makes it completely unfalsifiable and absolutely not a hard science.
That's just my two cents.
Only because he was hugged way too much as a child.
All the logical positivists would be pissed af
+Gary Mohan - Thanks for sharing your takeaway of the field :)) I love the comment section of CrashCourse Philosophy!
It feels like Freud managed to make strides in psychology by throwing so many ideas at the wall that a few of them were bound to stick.
"Always remaining open to the idea that your current beliefs might be wrong is the best way to get closer to the truth" such a beautiful line.
I LOVE that you did an entire episode on karl popper. No one considers him in these discussions of scientific demarcation anymore, and if they do it's like a foot note. He was able to link modus tollens (on a lot of ways the implication that most closely defines logical form itself) to the scientific method. His critical rationalism is, in my opinion, the foundation of an epistemic pyramid. Thank you crash course!
I feel like UA-cam 'Conspiracy theorists' need this video
Giselle O.O you, i like you
I feel like religious people all over the world need this video
a feminist has. my opinions have not changed lol
conspiracy in what exactly?obviously you have doubt about something you heard or learned, inform me on what aspect seems so unbelievable to you and the 47+ others that agree as well Giselle?
+Giselle O.O Lost
I love watching crashcourse at 5 am during a terrible insomnia attack.. Thanks for making my night suck less
+Bull Rider MotoVlogs this video came just after my inmsonia attack ended, what a bummer
Thank Zeus! I'm not the only one.
"The world is filthy with the evidence of Santa."
This is one of the most important CC philosophy videos.
I might be wrong - said no one on the internet ever, sadly.
Yeah, and you could seriously go on and on about that.
You wouldn't know if that's absolute because the internet is big, and you can't read every single person's comment or work on the internet.
+Kyle Dolor And that.
i have, multiple times
+Kyle Dolor I completely agree with you and I know Popper would be proud of ya ;-)
"explained in terms of penis envy"
Good old Sigmund Freud.
That saucy dog
+SubscribeToSyndicate saucy dog? Did you mean wet pen- I am not even gonna go there...
We're discussing Sigmund Freud, you're allowed to go there just this once.
daedra40 No, I didn't. How Freudian of you.
@@DragoniteSpam there is a joke that refutes the concept of "penis envy" which involves a young boy and girl playing "doctor". The boy is boasting that he has a penis and the girl doesn't but she simply replies that she has a vagina and with one of these she can get as many penises as she desires.
I love how "*pseudo science*" is written in comic sans xD
I'm not sure why, but this entire episode made me so incredibly happy! While I'm sure I'm not the only one, I feel like I've come to the conclusions and thought experiments that a lot of these old philosophers did on my own. But there have been so many light bulbs going off in my head during this series!
This course is 1000 times more awesome than I thought it would be! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Let me rephrase that: You don't prove your hypotheses right, you *fail* to prove them wrong.
+Victor Kyrg technically you prove them right by failing to prove them wrong, if you fail to prove them wrong multiple times, it becomes accepted until someone else proves it wrong, but lots of people dont like letting go of faulty ideas even after theyve been proven wrong.
+WeAreGRID Actually Victor Kyrg is on the right track. You can never truly disprove something in science because everything, statistically is possible. If you took as stats class, H0 and Ha is basically the mathematical representation of this. You do not accept the H0, you either fail to reject or you reject the H0.
+WeAreGRID Proof exists for some branches of mathematics, but in the sciences we have the "theory" - it's not quite the same thing.
+Rand Huso Maths is a pure science, completely removed from ostensive reality. It's fully analytical, in Kantian terms (though Kant himself claimed it to be synthetical). It's one big tautology: a network of definitions, fully a priori. Hence proof exists.
If we define 2 as the double of 1, and 4 as the double of 2, then it follows that 4 is the quadruple of 1. This is irrefutable, because it all depends on definitions made beforehand.
The being white of all swans does not: no matter how many white swans you come across, there is always the possibility that somewhere exists a black swan ready to prove your hypothesis wrong. Hence: finding more white swans does not prove you right about it, it merely adds to the not-being-disproven quality of it.
Victor Kyrg
Science n. "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Mathematics isn't the study of the natural world. It's just a tool. And it's only some branches of mathematics that have "proofs". For many of the more enjoyable mathematical disciplines (many of which use complex numbers) there's theories. The "theory of residues", for instance. Two of my degrees are in mathematics, the others are in sciences. I see them as very different things.
When you talk about the "white swans" example the text box mentions DEDUCTION... but in philosophy this example is actually used to show the riskiness of INDUCTION.
spot on
Yep!
Deduction would be "all swans are white, therefore this black swan must actually be white"
Induction would be "all the swans I see are white, therefore the next swan I see will be white"
Deduction is about explain the present in terms of the known (the really believed).
Induction is about predicting the future in terms of the past.
Google:
Deduction: the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle.
Induction: the inference of a general law from particular instances.
Pseudo-science is in comic sans, Ahahaha. Nice.
Your videos are amazing. I am a student at University and I have been watching these since my foundation year. I am now currently on my masters. When ever I am struggling to understand a topic, your videos are the first I come too!
Using the scientific method, and the knowledge I obtained from this video, I can reasonably assume that you have had a bigger influence on my intelligence then all other forms of education I have recieved. I went to disprove this theory by visiting my UA-cam history and have found that I have watched at least 90(+/-5%) of Crash Course, 75%(+/-10%) of SciShow, and
than*
What you mean Santa isn't real?
You look like John Green, almost like you could be his brother
I am just surprised that a bunch of oblivious idiots didn't reply to you..
Lol. HE IS HIS BROTHER! 😂
It was bound to happen eventually.. people don't read threads at all usually. Unless he's just joking.
Gerry Michael Really?
+Siberius Wolf It's funny how you wondered why there isn't any oblivious idiots replying to this clearly sarcastic comment, than all of the sudden, the idiot crashed in.
...wait santa isn't real?
Lili Rose McKay hello queen
Noooooo!
Of course it’s real! My parents taught me this when I was a child. Besides, I saw the real Santa this Christmas on TV. Do you really need more evidence?!
lol damn it i was gonna say the same thing
If Santa isn't real, then who keeps putting presents under my christmas tree every christmas? Btw, I live alone.
I can't wait for the flame war next episode
Yep it's gonna be L-I-T
Im just as hype as you
Exactly what I thought when he said God.
+Ben Cobbs I can't wait! 🍿
I HAD THIS ESSAY DUE A WEEK AGO.... perfect timing -_-
Rekt
+Christian Tomagan , a cautionary tale! The moral: never sign up for a course that hasn't been covered by the Green brothers yet.
+EyeLean5280 Crash Course: homework completion for lazy people with good timing? :)
+Christian Tomagan MURPHY
No philosophy course is complete without studying David hume 's work
vwazp reason?
i think he came closest to proving the weakness of basic logic itself
knowing it would better than to think.
that depends on your interpretation of the word "know"
Hello World Hume created the problem of induction and the is ought dichotomy. Astounding stuff
scientific hypothesis: the next video will mention flying spaghetti monster
+DestinyQx
or a tea pot
0:48 Pseudo-science is the comic sans of knowledge
That is awfully accurate
I say crash you say course
Crash!
+Jackson Mugar course!
+Jackson Mugar COURSE!!
+Jackson Mugar Course!
DEAD FAMILY!
Not even a mention to philosophers like Feyerabend and Kuhn who argued quite successfully against Popper's falsificationism. Not even a nudge that a lot of people actually disagree with Popper on his idea of scientific method and demarcation criteria.
All of these videos are limited in how much dialectic they can abridge in even a run of videos. Perhaps you can summarize Feyerabend & Kuhn's cases for we the open-minded public.
MRCKify
I know that there is no space for dialectic. But I dont think it was prudent or honest to say that Popper 'got it right' when his view is considered outdated. John always mentions in his history videos that different point of views are viable but in this video there was no such mention.
In any case, here are the basics of Kuhn and Feyerabend :)
Kuhn and Feyerabend both argue that scientific progress is not a rational process. Kuhn argues that most scientists work within an established paradigm and never question the fundamentals until the fundamentals are in crisis and a new paradigm is established.
Feyerabend is completely anarchical, believes that there is no point articulating a scientific method because for every rule we set, even the most basic, there is always an expetion from the history of science which defies it.
If you are interested in more, you should check out Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn and Against Method by Feyerabend
I just posted a comment basically saying the exact same thing right before seeing your comment. It's quite dishonest of Hank to make it sound like Popper's theories were so right that they seem self-evident. He's almost universally rejected by philosophers of science today, as far as I understand.
Dre Jay He certainly is rejected in my Uni's philosophy department and we have some world class philosophers of science
+Nakas Dougen so what is the problem with falsification as the standard of determining science from non-science?
Holy crap. I think I need to erect a statue to Karl Popper in my yard. All of that is the modern definition of scientific knowledge.
erect
*Sir Karl Popper.
No I'm not lying, he was knighted.
I can only imagine that the comments on next weeks video will be full of thoughtful and new conversation. Conversations that are completely rational based, and everyone is willing to admitted that the other side has a point.
Not. If only.
+The Leaf Thinker hope so. sadly the internet is a cruel place most of the time.
Yes, oh well.
Next episode is gonna be awesome! *salivates*
By far one of the best episodes of this series.
Yep, thanks to Popper.
Would have loved to see some connection made between this and the work of Thomas Kuhn and WVO Quine. For instance, Popper's idea was that you cannot prove anything only disprove it. However Quine (and to a lesser extent Duhem) showed that you can't actually disprove anything either. Rather you have a system of beliefs that are interconnected that color your interpretation of data (there is no neutral observer). You will change tertiary beliefs to protect secondary ones, and secondary ones to protect primary beliefs (eg the explanation of retrograde motion to avoid heliocentricity). Eventually the system becomes too untenable and must be abandoned. Thomas Kuhn labeled this a paradigm shift. Since then you have two primary methods of observational science. Popper's null hypothesis (one you try to disprove) and independent confirmation/verification. All valid scientific theories must not only be falsifiable, but they must be testable and the tests reproducible.
However, not all theories can be scientific, as Quine would go on to point out against the Logical Positivist movement of which he was a central figure until his publication of "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," arguably the most important philosophical work of the twentieth century.
+treymedley Agree! Maybe they could bring it up in a future video. I was also interested to hear more about Quine and Duhem, but I think it would have made the video too long.
+treymedley They might bring it up in future videos. But in general, this whole course will only ever be able to introduce people to some starting points of thinking (which is better than nothing), but leave a lot of room and necessity for personal further study.
+treymedley It's certainly understandable for a series like this to skip the more difficult reads (like Wittgenstein or Quine). It is a shame later thinkers like Kuhn (or Lakatos and Feyerabend) weren't mentioned as a way to show how we've moved past Popper in the last century or so.
I can see next week's flame wars on the horizon already...
+Roy Bellafire I know
+Roy Bellafire I love the smell of napalm in the morning...
we want the physics now
pls
+Correctrix Without philosophy there would be no "real science".
1st episode of physics is out tomorrow (31st)
Just realised today is the 29th ahahha anyway it comes out 31st March
+司此雷 THURSDAY. ALMOST THERE!
-Nicole
god bless you Hank for saving me at 2am by making sense of my university final exam topic I take in 10 hours
Beautiful, thank you! I keep trying to show my science colleagues how they are falling prey to pseudoscience due to their beliefs as well but they are blind to see it. They are so busy confirming, that they truly think they are critically investigating. They are having a really difficult time seeing that they are doing this. They think random isolated facts about their beliefs is evidence.
Reminds of the saying "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
+Adrian Duran Edison?
+charlidog2 Yep
Fantastic episode, looking forward to a calm, civilized discussion next week on the topic of God!
+Christian Hansen Unfortunately, this isn't how the internet usually works.
Someone will eventually call religious people idiots. Even if it could be a debatable point, he won't back up his claims. A religious person will reply saying he can believe whatever he wants, which is true but doesn't address the initial claim. Therefore, someone will make a comment about Hitler or the Nazis and there's shit everywhere.
+Mathieu C I for one am curious to see how Godwin's law will show itself.
***** Has to be different people though. We'll see that next week.
The intro tune is sooo good, it calms me everytime i listen it and makes me excited for philosophical learnings ahead!
I have an academic / scientific background and philosophy is one of my dearest hobbies, but I have to say that Popper's much celebrated philosophy of science diverges increasingly of both the practice of actual research scientists as well as my ideas on the topic.
Using established theories / methods etc. and extending them in regions where they have not been explicitly tested and seeking to confirm the starting hypothesis is the bread and butter of most experimental scientific efforts. Often the initial results do not agree with expectations and the preferred method is to consider what might have gone wrong and to investigate a tweaked theory that is consistent with the data. Typically the initial hypotheses, if not confirmed, never make it into the publications, usually the method and interpretation that seem consistent are the ones written about (usually for good reasons). These are not poor practices, but the standard way in which science progresses.
So, Popper's observations do not always apply at the level of data collection and interpretation, but are rather inherent in a layer where they lurk beneath the surface. An example of this might be most analytical science (analytical chemistry).
+Jason93609
I am really trying to grasp what you are on about. First you are a proponent of what I call the lab-coat fallacy, so dubbed by me in disrespect of one John Pendelton who dons a white lab-coat to prop up his credentials.
You claim an academic/scientific background? What does that mean? And why do you think this important unless you have non like Pendleton and think it impresses people to suggest that you do. If you were someone with an academic title you probably don't feel the need to mention it but should go by argument, so I assume, out of experience, that you have non. Or probably something basic like a bachelors degree and feel ashamed to say so.
That philosophy is a hobby of yours doesn't make you an authority either. What is the point of mentioning it unless it is to prop up your credentials? Maybe you read philosophers all day and totally fail to grasp what they mean.. so what does an interest in philosophy say?
You claim it diverts from actual current research, can you proof such?
In fact, wondering I asked a friend of mine who has been a researcher for fifteen years with a doctor's degree for the AMC in the Netherlands and has been a researcher with the HIV research department(a specialty with the AMC) and who is currently a manager for a private firm in charge of one of the departments that tests medicines. One of them..
I have yet to get a hold of him, which will be in the next month, but actually I already know from his live time partner that it isn't as easy as is suggested. In fact your argument is totally vapid because it demonstrate to have no knowledge of research at all. Popper's central thesis is what guides research but on the details it is different. My friends department has just one task: to proof the research wrong. One of the methods is using a placebo control group. If at any point the placebo group reports an equal or more improvement than the other group that got the medicine, the medicine has been proven to be wrong. So it is very much like Popper states. That research doesn't seem to follow Poppers theory is your lack of vision. You stare at the details and say: oh look here: they don't try to proof a theory to be wrong when gathering data... Thus Popper is wrong.
In actuality it is that in general Poppers theory is followed, yet some departments are just for information gathering, hence they do no have to proof things wrong but merely concentrate on getting the data right. Just like forensics doesn't have to proof themselves wrong in a court case. That is for the court case to decide. You so mix up stuff.
Merit Coba
What a pointless tirade.
The only reason for mentioning my position as an active researcher is simply to note that I have direct experience of popper being irrelevant to most research, including almost all analytical research.
I would be interested in any resource that supports your case.
www.quora.com/Are-Karl-Poppers-views-on-science-still-relevant
I speak from direct personal experience, so my case stands on its own merit. Popper has clearly has had an effect, but his theories are not the end all and be all of philosophy of science. And most of his thinking doesn't apply to a lot of how science is practiced, it sort of lurks in the background. Also there are cases where falsificationism, in particular, doesn't fit in very comfortably - I can bring concrete examples if you wish.
But, in short, I would say that applying established ideas to new systems is one of the main way new scientific discoveries are made.
Reading back, I think I was a bit to confrontational and you were right to point that out. I am sorry about that. As I am no researcher I cannot talk from personal experience, but only ask a friend of mine who is involved in research. I met him quite by accident yesterday morning. It was only a brief meeting we had, but he said something along the lines that in general the falsifiability is practiced, but that it depended in the details and what kind of research whether it is directly practiced.
However it seems to hold true overall. In some cases it seems even that falsifiability is not practiced because it doesn't apply, but merely because it isn't being done. The thing is that is might be done is what matters.
When does Crash Course Literature 2 come out?
Summer
*3
+academicned6 who said that????
919copacabana We have already a season 2
+Athena Nguyen John is too busy with all his movies ;)
I'm very excited for the next episode, as I'm a Christian who was led to philosophy from some of my studies of theology.
Should be an interesting episode! I commend you for "going there", despite the ocean of criticism you'll wade through.
I've loved the course, thanks for doing it!
+Josiah Robinson I'm with you, I am a christian as well and I'd rather have a balanced and challenged faith rather than one that is shut off to criticism that becomes bigoted and harsh.
+Steffen Vriend Absolutely. Not only will philosophy help solidify my own faith, but help me learn to share with others more thoughtfully. Philosophy is proving to be beneficial to much of my faith.
+Josiah Robinson "solidify my own faith" ... Is that not going in to the upcoming video with a preconceived notion? The pseudoscientific method, as this video explains, because you are seeking to verify your beliefs rather than be skeptical and pick it apart... Just though this was worth mentioning. Would you honestly say you are going into the next video open to the idea your beliefs might be picked apart and leave your in more doubt?
+Bananaman I was not referring to the next video, I was referring to philosophy as a whole. It allows me to think critically about my faith in a way I wouldn't otherwise. Would you not say that philosophy solidifies one's understanding of what is being examined?
I am learning about philosophy so I can challenge and critique the views I currently hold. Is that not what every philosopher has done?
If the evidence was substantial enough I would be persuaded abandon my faith, but I do not think anyone would rest their entire belief system on a single video.
I can say I am approaching with as open mind of a mind as any. I will examine my worldview as critically as possible. That's one of the goals of philosophy after all.
Watched eight videos in a row and then succumbed to despair when I realized that this was the most current video. I wanna binge!
Man i watched so many videos on this and this video saved my life, i hope. I feel like i understand it now. Thanks.
God next episode? I'll go pack my popcorn!
Better bring a beer, too.
millenniumdragn Sorry, under-age... not that I would want to risk poisoning my mind anyway.
3:19 lol I thought he turned Italian for a second... "So, you look-a-da-swan!"
"You have to be open to the idea that your beliefs might be false, because that's the only way that holding onto them can really mean anything." quoted.
The meaning of these two words is literally a tool for the integration or rejection of ideas. This tool has helped me a lot.
Thank you.
do an episode on the philosophy of science and david hume
without knowing this was my exact approach to religion, and why I gave it up. Really enjoying this course it resonates with how I think very well.
I just realized the importance verification and validation in Computer Science after watching this. Very interesting. Thanks for yet another revelation. Looking forward for the next one.
Fantastic video! Perhaps my favorite of the series so far. I really loved the quotes in this one - took screenshots of them. :) Thanks for your hard work to make a fantastic collection of videos!
This episode should've include Lakatos and Kuhn; that would give the whole explanation about Science's Theories and their refutation, falsation, etc. Anyway, I love CC!!
Nice suggestions- helps people like myself even hear such names for the first time :P
Popper was a great thinker, truly. It would behoove any rational debunker-type to closely study his ideas. The philosophically unsophisticated can be made to look like fools, even if they are defending sound points.
I LOVED this episode. It was exactly what I needed to hear.
Thank you, CrashCourse!
I will always always always be thankful for this channel because they have videos for nearly every topic.
Oh, gosh. I can already smell the flamewars.
I have grabbed my sword and shield and will patiently await the coming flame war! Oh, how wonderful it will be!
And take my axe too!
+daedra40 and my bow!
I love this so much. I feel overjoyed. I had a basic understanding of philosophy but not on an academic level. but this, this makes me feel as if im not just crazy, or that I just over think things. I fucking love knowledge.
On this subject, I wish you would've also brought up Kuhn and Feyerabend's answer to Popper
GOD! We're coming for youuuuuu!
+Björn Kihlberg So, after this episode, every atheist should work hard to prove God's existence, and every theist should work to disprove His existence. So you are a theist, right? :D
+Björn Kihlberg Hahahaha xD! We're gonna get uuu goooddd
Ptaku93 No, it relies on theists to prove God’s existence, they are making the assertion therefore they must prove it. Atheist merely say “yeah I’m not gonna believe in something without proof”. It wasn’t incumbent upon other scientists that didn’t believe in Einstein’s theories to prove it, it was incumbent upon Einstein to give sufficient evidence(by trying to disprove it)
Binge-watching ❤ Awesome series!
Predictive power: what makes science so useful and the closest we can get to determining truth
I really enjoy listening to this person speak. He's a good choice for videos like this. He has a good voice and presence.
This video should be shown to every high school kid ever.
Wow, next episode is going to be flame-war-tastic.
This whole series is beautiful. Thank you for putting it together.
The best video of the playlist! It gave so much goosebumbs
I'm very excited about tackling the subject of God in Crash Course but I feel some trepidation about the inevitable flame war in next week's comment section.
That said, keep doing what you're doing, Crash Course, I will approach the next lesson with an open mind! :)
Oooooh, you're gonna piss a lot of people off next week.
*grabs popcorn*
+Alex Stein Yeaaahh. My mouth salivated at that ending.. What have you guys started?
This 10mins video has taught me more than what i have learned in the last 2 years of my life. Thanks @CrashCourse
Popper's ideas on the distinction between science and pseudo-science have been almost universally rejected actually, there are two main arguments so far as I remember:
1) Scientists in real life rarely act to disconfirm their theories, when asked what his reaction would be if the study of the eclipse (Hank talks about) showed his theory to be wrong about Einstein said: "Then I would feel sorry for the dear lord, the theory is correct anyway." Also Newton's theory of gravitation gave rise to predictions of a planet which does not exist, but rather than finding this a damning inditement of his theory the scientific community continued to search for the planet despite years of not finding it, until relativity explained the disagreement.
2) When we test a theory we actually test the theory and the background assumptions made about the theory, so when one tests a theory about some new particle we actually test the theory and a network of other premises and assumptions, such as the theories we have about the mass of other particles, or the nature of energy etc. Which is to say that no theory is actually disconfirmable, it is also true that most scientists are more willing to give up commitment to background assumptions than to their new and elegent theory which they have (usually) spent years developing.
It may be true that Popper elucidates the difference between certain kinds of statements, but his criterion has been widely rejected for being too vauge to actually help demarcate science from non-science.
Counter argument:
1) Critical rationalism
is not about the reality of scientific methods. It's about the nature of the scientific methods. The science that Einstein is engaged in is and exposed to can be refute from counterexample. In fact, your example of looking for the planet is a great example. We are talking about the induction against deduction as Popper notice the tendency for the scientific methods to be conducted to induct their theory rather than trying to deduct it.
2) This is valid, however it is also irrelevant. We know the limit of deduction because the axioms we have is not axioms at all. We just work within the framework of our observable space. What he described as pseudo-science is fields of research that build upon induction, conducting experiments to support the existence of the field itself rather than to examine the validity of the thesis.
Philosophy is not necessary a useful tool, it's more of a compass guiding the behaviour of us who engage in activities. I agree with you that pseudo science is a heavy handed term. Even popular pseudo science like astrology is valid to me as long as those who carry out their research is conducted with deduction in mind.
Hank, bring some eastern philosophy and middle eastern philosophy in future episodes!
+Kumail This isn't a comment on you, but on philosophy in general- I think separating them like that makes Eastern or Middle Eastern philosophy seem "different", when in reality they are all just the same pursuit of knowledge which happen to take place on another part of the globe which we have arbitrarily decided is separate.
Mr Rakan well said! :)
+Mr Rakan I do consider them to be different, much the same as "Lord of the Rings" and "Narnia" are different. Or perhaps "Sci-fi" and "Fantasy" would be a better metaphor, since they also slowly inform each other.
At around 500 BC (give or take a couple hundred years) Socrates, Sidhartha, and Confusious all appeared. Each of their philosophies were in the context of the local social envoronment (religion, social heirarchies, etc.) Before that there was a slow percalation of ideas between the areas, ditto for afterwards. Regardless, they are different lines of philosophy that intermingle and seperate at diffent times, but generally stay distinct. As such it is easier to build a narrative of "this-happened-then-this-happened" by following a single liniage.
If I was to build a comprehensive cover of philosophy I would follow "Western" philosophy until... maybe 1950? Then switch to "Eastern" philosophy weaving the two together since that happened much more often. Then I would discuss the modern syntheized views... then I would go back and show where the two informed each other, as opposed to when they came up with the same conclusions.
*****
Confusion philosophy is particularly interesting in that it puts an emphasis on upholding the preconceived Ideal. If you find yourself in a role, you need to conform to the ideal of that role. This is great for governmental office... not so great for "husband" "wife" etc. To a confusion you should be a good wife no matter how terrible your husband is. Fuck that. If your husband is beating you leave his ass (though I don't know if that was an option at the time).
It also is really interesting when you consider transgender people, and even moreso for genderqueer. If you are born male do you try to conform to the man role and be the best man you can be? Or if you find being a woman would be more comfortable do you then conform to the ideal femanine role? If you switch between them do you need to alternate from one end of the spectrum to the other? If you identify as neither do you avoid all outwardly gendered actions?
Though to be fair, it is out of date.
Deborah Meltrozo That's not true at all. All humans want the same things. The want safety, comfort, love, choice, justice. They want to be happy, and the ways to be happy are always similair. "Culture" is a myth- there is no such thing as different cultures and the lines we draw between them are meaningless as they change so easily. Moreover the supposed differences we see are purely based on economic and practical situations rather than traditional ideas from the area, and if you put richer communities- say, the people of London- in the same situation as poorer communities - say, the people of Mozambique- they will start to develop similar social situations in a small period of a few generations. Their priorities being different have nothing to do with what nation they've been prescribed, and although different people cite older customs and events from the past to justify their norms, in reality their interpretation of it changes radically depending on how it makes their lives convenient. It's the first thing you learn in sociology.
I don't know why this was the first thing I thought of watching this video, but there it is:
Any kind of conspiracy theory is unscientific, since the one thing that unites those is the search for proof to confirm them.
Right?
As someone who has studied natural science in college as an underclassmen and has a degree in social science, I found there to be no discernible difference between the underlying methods of chemistry and economics with the use of logic, reason, and mathematics to make predictions that usually are accurate in predicting the future and can be disproven. Most old papers in both of these fields are still useful, as a result of their rigor, and many basic models used in both of these fields are still used. Even experimentation is used in both fields. It makes as much sense to divide science on this line based on how much humans are involved as it does to divide it based on scale, as much illogic as to say that astronomy can't be a science because it is so big while chemistry and quantum physics obviously would count under this equally absurd notion. The real difference is in whether the science can 1. make accurate predictions for the future and 2. once ideas are established they generally stick for the long run. This tells us whether the methods used by professionals are valid and whether they should be listened to. Using this method we find that economics, astronomy, political science, biology, sociology, and chemistry (among many others) are without a doubt sciences because the ideas established by these fields usually stick for the long run. Fields like psychology and psychiatry use so many fallacies (eg small sample sizes, sample bias, etc.) that is hard to call them sciences and they are pseudosciences given the inability of their theories to stick in the long run, frequently due to an invalid use of mathematics (particularly statistics), and indeed most old theories in these pseudosciences over 50 years old have been discarded as hookum.
Finally a good video. It saved my life, goodness! Thank you :)
how did it save your life?
I wonder if Alvin Plantinga will show up next week! I'm currently taking a university course about his arguments for religion and God.
I learnt about Popper in sociology while we were learning about what makes a science and science as an ideology in secular society. It was really interesting and as a christian that is in love with science I found his explanation of what makes a science clear and practical. However, when it came to applying this philosophy onto sociology and whether it should be considered a science was when a whole centuries worth of worms popped out of the can. But, anyway I really enjoy learning through my faith, science and philosophy. They explain the world that I view in such contrasting yet complimentary ways in my opinion. Science really doesn't bother me because I learnt that all ideologies are tools used by humanity to do whatever we want, plus to have my faith be wavered by science shows how weak the foundations of my faith in Jesus Christ is. Philosophy caters to my curiosity and allows me to form questions about life, the world and meaning which I take up to God and pray for wisdom and humbleness as I seek the answers to these questions. All 3 of these things, the most important to me is my faith, has helped me as a philosopher and a scientist so much. I am able to have a non binary view thanks to my approach and my faith continues to grow as I study YHWH's creation. I learn about human relationship, personal development and love through my faith. Science allows me to chase knowledge of the world through falsification and objectivity. Philosophy trains my tongue and thoughts in formulating decisive critiques in an arguement as well as analysing the language I use in an arguement; it feeds my never ending curiousity that science does not fulfill whole heartedly. I'm thankful to God that I am able to balance all of these and continue to serve dutifully and spread love and kindness while on my path for the truth. Thanks for reading have a great day
***** It's fine, I just don't do it by myself and I see no point demeaning others for what they choose to believe in. I follow Jesus' example and he never discriminated against anyone for anything. Everything I learn about the world and myself I turn to God and directly ask how is this so, I do not understand this, please help me. Questions like this I feel brought a new dimension of my relationship with God. It's an amazing feeling to just reach complete appreciation and willingness to learn and debate on all sides.
This quote puts my position on all this very well:
" My love for science doesn’t preclude my faith. For me, science is another language we use to talk about the same miracles faith talks about." - Kala(sense8)
T.uYI -KANA Thank you for your mindfull and kind words of wisdom.
I'm enjoying this series so much! Congrats on getting picked up by PBS :D Can't wait to finish this series. :D
Extraordinarily well couched. Thanks for posting!
"Sigmund; the needle!"
"A little busy here . . ."
At least there's one mainstream youtube channel with the balls to go "god".
+Shrek Ogreton God is not a subject for scientific analysis, the existence of God can only be dealt with in any respectable manner within the bounds of metaphysics, specifically ontology. Santa, however, if he did exist would be a part of the natural world and thus his existence could be empirically falsified. The two are not interchangeable.
wii3willRule There's nothing beyond the realm of science, or which can't at least be benefitted by application of the scientific method. If god is proposed as the only objective constant, then there's no good reason science shouldn't be able to be used to discover it, since it's our best possible means of discerning objectivity.
Shrek Ogreton What you're demonstrating in your reply to me is what's called "scientism", the idea that science as a method can and should be universally applied and that it as a body of knowledge somehow constitutes the "truest" or most "valuable" knowledge. I can't blame you for holding this view, since modern culture basically made science the religion of the modern age, but it's a demonstrably false view to hold. For one, it's completely self-contradictory in its stronger forms (such as positivism) as the view itself cannot be empirically or scientifically demonstrated to be true, and is thus false by its own criteria (ironically enough it is a metaphysical worldview more so than anything related to science itself). Even science rests on non-scientific, philosophical principles and assumptions that cannot themselves be demonstrated true or false via the scientific method, we have to come to them through other means (mostly through philosophy and intuition).
Take the existence of causality, for example. Science assumes the validity of cause and effect, but this (as the philosopher David Hume famously pointed out) cannot be proven empirically, all we ever really observe is what he called "constant conjunction". Causation is an assumption we make about the natural world before we can even do any science at all and yet it is a subject that can only be dealt with outside of science, in the realm of philosophy (specifically metaphysics).
The topic of God is similar in that, being a supernatural being, his existence cannot be dealt with or analyzed using science, which bases itself on empiricism (on what we can observe). Rather, we have to use rational arguments (such as the cosmological argument in favor of his existence and the problem of evil against his existence) in order to come to any respectable position on the matter. That's why metaphysics (literally meaning "above physics") exists-- it deals with things about the nature of reality that science cannot.
Scientism is an old relic of a bygone time and the sooner we drop it, the better.
wii3willRule Plenty wrong with what you said, so I'll try to take things one at a time.
First I'll address you trying to demean science by saying it rests on philosophical principles and that it's based on assumptions. *Every* method used in attempt to discover truth is based on philosophical principles, and science only makes assumptions in the strictest sense of the word. I'll explain:
When it comes to what it's possible to *know*, there's really only one thing: that I exist as a conscious entity. I think therefore I am. Everything outside of that, including the senses which inform my consciousness, could be falsified, and must be *assumed* in the strictest sense of the word, having to do with our epistemological limits.
So we're tasked with developing a method of discerning objectivity to the best of our abilities. This is where science comes in. Science, as explained in this video, deals only in things which are testable, refutable, and falsifiable, to all observers under equivalent conditions. It systematically discredits unrepeatable personal experience and anecdotal evidence, so as to eliminate the possibility of bias and misapprehension. The only assumptions made by science are that the universe is logic-based and that everyones' senses aren't simultaneously and chronically misleading us.
Below _Cogito Ergo Sum_ and the scientific method on our pyramid of credible knowledge, we have unrepeatable personal experience, and below even that: anecdotal evidence. The former assumes I have not been under misapprehension in an extraordinary experience, which of course, is common, and the latter assumes the person we're receiving the information from is both being honest and not under misapprehension, all on top of the assumptions science makes.
Both of these last two methods of discerning truth are - as I stated before - systematically eliminated by science because of their unreliability, and are the only legs any religions have to stand on. In spite of this, the religious constantly try to either discredit science, or equate their unsubstantiated assertions with it.
It's also ironic that you use scientifically-discerned information to support your arguments, after deriding the scientific method just a moment earlier, in the case of the cosmological argument. It's a bad argument as it is (it's little more than a demonstration of confirmation bias), but then to claim it's supported by science is just plain wrong.
Shrek Ogreton "First I'll address you trying to demean science by saying it rests on philosophical principles and that it's based on assumptions."
I never was trying to "demean" science, I was simply stating the fact that there are valid ways of knowing, such as philosophy, that are outside the realm of science. Accepting the limits of a tool does not demean it.
"When it comes to what it's possible to know, there's really only one thing: that I exist as a conscious entity. I think therefore I am. Everything outside of that, including the senses which inform my consciousness, could be falsified, and must be assumed in the strictest sense of the word, having to do with our epistemological limits.
So we're tasked with developing a method of discerning objectivity to the best of our abilities. This is where science comes in. Science, as explained in this video, deals only in things which are testable, refutable, and falsifiable, to all observers under equivalent conditions. It systematically discredits unrepeatable personal experience and anecdotal evidence, so as to eliminate the possibility of bias and misapprehension. The only assumptions made by science are that the universe is logic-based and that everyones' senses aren't simultaneously and chronically misleading us."
Yes, but did it ever occur to you that there are other ways of getting to "objective" truth that do not involve the scientific method? Philosophy, and I stress this again, does not rely on the scientific method and I don't think anyone can plausibly argue that it doesn't arrive at truth, especially if you accept scientific truths (which, like I explained in my last comment, are all founded on a philosophical base). You're not doing a very good job at defending your scientism.
"Below Cogito Ergo Sum and the scientific method on our pyramid of credible knowledge, we have unrepeatable personal experience, and below even that: anecdotal evidence. The former assumes I have not been under misapprehension in an extraordinary experience, which of course, is common, and the latter assumes the person we're receiving the information from is both being honest and not under misapprehension, all on top of the assumptions science makes.
Both of these last two methods of discerning truth are - as I stated before - systematically eliminated by science because of their unreliability, and are the only legs any religions have to stand on. In spite of this, the religious constantly try to either discredit science, or equate their unsubstantiated assertions with it."
No, religious philosophers do not depend on "unrepeatable personal experience" or "anecdotal evidence" to support their claims. If you take the time to read some religious philosophy, you will discover that their evidence for the existence of God comes from rational arguments. The success or failure of these arguments is debatable of course, but to say that it merely stands on anecdotes and personal experience is demonstrably false.
"It's also ironic that you use scientifically-discerned information to support your arguments, after deriding the scientific method just a moment earlier, in the case of the cosmological argument. It's a bad argument as it is (it's little more than a demonstration of confirmation bias), but then to claim it's supported by science is just plain wrong."
What? I was never evaluating any of the arguments I listed, I merely gave it as one of the examples of the kind of evidence you would use to support the existence/nonexistence of God. I also gave the example of the problem of evil as the kind of evidence against God. I was only giving examples of proper argumentation, I was not saying that the cosmological argument was successful in proving God or that the problem of evil was successful in disproving God. If you had taken the time to reread the comment, I would not have to explain this to you.
How dare you question my existence!
+The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster face it, you're a pseudoscience. if you are to be real, then why is there a belief growing in the East about the Great Flying Ramen Monster.
i learned this the hard way my biology teacher made us read about a type of nematode worm (C.elegance) and then next day in the lab got us a similar looking new type of worm to observe, we explained most of the observations through our knowledge of C.elegance. most of us failed but we learned a very valuable lesson about the importance of the scientific method and how it can help eliminate the observer bias.
A great video for EVERY person to watch and understand why scientific theories are more valuable and pseudo-scientific ones.
Replace Santa with God. Now watch the video again.
Was thinking this through the whole thing! XD
Or wait until the next video where Hank will be covering God directly.
irrelevant comparison
+Crispy Bacon Except God doesn't leave you with presents under a tree on Christmas :P
+moon tiger where I live he does, well Jesus at least but they are one and the same according to the official believes
Oh boy, the next video's comment section is going to be surely insightful...
the best crash course I've seen so far. and there is stiff competition, I love astronomy, history and egale punching.
I wish I could give you thousands of up-thumbs. I've never heard anybody put this idea so succinctly before.
Many of you don't even understand what Hank is trying to tell you. He's telling you that th"e existence of God isn't a scientific question, Science and Religion shouldn't be mixed in a war of who has the biggest e-nis.
Amen.
+David Sbabo it is possible to fit god into science -- just that so far there is no contingent data upon which we could scientifically base a belief in god on. meanwhile, pretty much every argument for god's existence is non-scientific (untestable, irrefutable, non-falsifiable) and also most believers tend to be unwilling/unable to let go of their beliefs even when their reasons for believing have been disproved.
at a social level, yes, science and religion should not be mixed since it tends to merely cause saltiness (on both sides). but at a philosophical level, science is duty-bound to investigate the claims of religion, and religion could benefit from the rational debate by eliminating the erroneous beliefs (i.e. purifying the faith).
a faith that is unreasonable becomes problematic, since religion can wield tremendous power and influence over other believers. that is how terrible tragedies can be unleashed "in the name of god". scientific principles (and philosophical enquiry), empowers religious people to avoid simply being told what to believe and become little more than fanatics in the service of demagogues.
in short, both science and religion should be in common pursuit of Truth. summarily dismissing science as incapable of participating in the enquiry of god's existence does not do religion any good.
+Gregory Samuel Teo (alveolate) depends on the definition of you god you take
+Gregory Samuel Teo (alveolate)
Just as there is no contingent data upon which we could scientifically base a belief in the absence of God(s).
JayneCobb88 you do realise that line of argument means there is no contingent data to belief in the absence of ANY fantasy.
if religion resorts to saying "prove God doesn't exist", i automatically think they have admitted defeat. sorta like desperately throwing up a Hitler comparison.
Sadly, many in the Humanities and Social Sciences like to dispute falsifications. Same with psychology and philosophy, where positive anecdotes are basically seen as 100% certain. If you paid attention in the history of philosophy of science, you would know philosophers turned away from science in the 70s.
Never understood this in philosophy class, thank you so much Mr Green you are a TRUE teacher
My God!
Favorite episode so far!
Loved it!
right as he said "God" my brain just went "shit, is he actually going to talk about the validity of a god on the internet? yes, yes he is. oh fuck"
+Lily R Channel temperature.... rising....
Thinking about the possible existence of a higher being is a key part of philosophy, so it's not too surprising.
Roboterpunk Exactly!
God is going to be a fun comment section.
+Zach Ruhl I should probably stock up on popcorn now.
We'll see what "he" has to say in next weeks comment
+Chris Schiebelbein
I can already tell you now heretic: you still didn't sacrifice the 4 virgins I requested. I pretty pissed about about. If I don't get them by tomorrow, I'll send you to eternal purgatory.
I'm looking forward to a crash course on Philosophy of science (if it's possible) like that of Kuhn's, Popper's, Lakatos's, Hesse's, to name a few. Thanks for this one.
This is so much more clear than my professors explanation of poppers falsification and the difference between science and pseudo science. I wish you did more videos specifically on philosophers and their beliefs. We've discussed popper, kuhn, and lakatos so far in my course