Calling evolutionary psychology a science seems like a bit of a stretch. It's primarily built on presumptuous speculations rather than actual proven facts and nobody making the claims of this field was alive to actually observe what was happening or talk with the people who did the things they did.
This was interesting. Fit in with my idea that society is collectively codependent on organisational narcissism and professional gaslighting via the Milgram effect, be it science or politics, we need to be able to find, set and maintain the boundaries. Checks and balances are necessary and vital.
Human beings need knowledge that is sound, useful and the basis for greater things. Science offers this. As its natural companion we also need Art; fancy, beauty, irreverence, whimsy to humanise ourselves. Both Science and Art need protection from the dulled minds of those who try to place Mathematics above all. Mathematics is a purely abstract representation of reality - just as useful in the sand pit, through the kitchens, traffic flows and market stalls. Where it is just an aid, a secondary contributor, never to take point except within its own bubble.
Case in point is Theoretical Physics (TP). There has never been a single paper produced establishing the basics of TP as a Scientific study. It is and always was a purely Mathematical model. Mathematics being a purely abstract representation of reality. With the apparent acceptance of the theory they have since embarked on a supernatural pathway as 'proof of concept' involving computer-generated images (stained glass windows), descriptions of poorly understood phenomena described as 'Black' and 'Dark' with a ferocious capacity to kill everything (the god of the OT), a variety of prophets spouting contradictory claims (Hawking once described Black holes as capable of communicating with each other and exchanging material - what?) and even outright lies that can only be understood by the true believers (the recent time-dilation news followed by a picture of a Black Hole - complete with corona - (what?), the size of the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang, etc.) What drives them is the possibility of Time travel - presumably so they can get revenge on their parents/bullies/teachers/coaches... It is damaging to real Science and a waste of some serious talent.
@@happinesstan It is indeed. There is so much potential in the _sapiens_ genome that remains largely untapped and of course, a society as a seamless, pleasant resource may never be realised. #1 problem being the opposable thumb being grafted onto a carnivore. Whose idea was that! j/k I'm really struggling with a project, i.e. writing 'The Atheist's guide to Paradise'. Cheers.
I don't get why she is so against Popper. Since critical rationalism clearly includes the fallibility of science which is a very good "preventor" of the scientism she dislikes. Scientists as well as non scientist who adhere to popper when conducting or reading research always know this is only a slice of the truth, it may change, it's good for now, lets see what more science adds to that and so on.
Scientism is not bypassed by conceding the revisability thesis. Scientism presupposes the natural status of the classification of certain inquiries as scientific, and is complacent about the growing hegemony of scientific criteria in evaluation.
From what I understood, her gripe with Popper's take on falsifiability rests on the notion basic statements are essentially subjective. But that doesn't address the reliability of our current tools to discern the world around us. With all its flaws and room for fallibility, which tool(s) can we call more reliable than scientific methods for that purpose? Edit" Nevertheless, I feel like there's a LOT I need to read on after watching this.
@@tempestive1the reliability of our tools in no way implies the voracity of our conclusions. We can believe reasonable things that are impossible for us to disprove, but that doesn’t make them true, because there are infinite aspects to things that can affect truth and all of our tools rely on finite perceptions. Questions like “what is a cup? When does a cup stop being a cup? If we break it, does it stop being a cup? Is it impossible for us to perceive the exact same things and still not perceive reality? Can we prove that every time we see something that when another person sees it, that our method is 100% absolutely reliable?” Even if we both agreed that there was a cup in front of us, that doesn’t make it true, because it’s not impossible that we’re either mistaken, or crazy, or that there’s some aspect of reality that we are completely unfamiliar with that creates this dissonance. Fact is, we can’t even rely on ourselves to trust each other- there’s such a thing as dreams and “false realities”, where we can rely upon a false idea of a person to verify our experiences. So, how can the reliability of our methods constitute any assertion of truth? Especially when extremely unscientific methods had proven reliable for years in certain lucky circumstances. The most common evidence being the very basis of science, because absolutely rigid skepticism is impossible to defeat, and yet, we consistently make use of ideas we cannot prove are unassailably true. That’s why being reasonable is more important than being correct or accurate.
Priests: Don't read the holy book yourself, trust the priests. Scientism Subscriber: omg religion is so backwards, so glad I am not falling for that method of control! so glad we have science now! Institutional Science: Don't do your own research, trust the experts. Scientism Subscriber: omg they are so smart! Experts know best!
I think you’re still falling into a trap there. Doing your own research without the expertise to understand or perform said research is still likely to lead to accepting something with the veneer of science, that may not be. It’s not about doing your own research it’s about being skeptical of the process. That’s why scientific consensus is more important than accepting a single study.
Even then, scientific consensus is not infallible itself. People can sign off on bad logic or good logic that’s just untrue, it would only be a confirmation that you’re not alone in what you thought. Lots of faulty findings are peer reviewed.
Science existed at the inception of religion. Religious power was facilitated by the exploitation of superior scientific knowledge. It's not difficult to perform a 'miracle' for the common man, if you know about chemical reactions.
I see her as an example of intellectual integrity.
She’s absolutely spot on.
"There IS a real world, independent of how we believe it to be"
Perfect!
11:50 = acknowledging that we need each other, to keep ourselves honest.
Always remember Socrates very first principle... Humility ,
Calling evolutionary psychology a science seems like a bit of a stretch. It's primarily built on presumptuous speculations rather than actual proven facts and nobody making the claims of this field was alive to actually observe what was happening or talk with the people who did the things they did.
"Science is nothing ore than the refinement of everyday thinking"
Which is why the media influence on everyday thinking needs to be reigned in.
This was interesting. Fit in with my idea that society is collectively codependent on organisational narcissism and professional gaslighting via the Milgram effect, be it science or politics, we need to be able to find, set and maintain the boundaries. Checks and balances are necessary and vital.
Thank you so much!
44:34 blind shapes
Human beings need knowledge that is sound, useful and the basis for greater things. Science offers this. As its natural companion we also need Art; fancy, beauty, irreverence, whimsy to humanise ourselves. Both Science and Art need protection from the dulled minds of those who try to place Mathematics above all. Mathematics is a purely abstract representation of reality - just as useful in the sand pit, through the kitchens, traffic flows and market stalls. Where it is just an aid, a secondary contributor, never to take point except within its own bubble.
Case in point is Theoretical Physics (TP). There has never been a single paper produced establishing the basics of TP as a Scientific study. It is and always was a purely Mathematical model. Mathematics being a purely abstract representation of reality. With the apparent acceptance of the theory they have since embarked on a supernatural pathway as 'proof of concept' involving computer-generated images (stained glass windows), descriptions of poorly understood phenomena described as 'Black' and 'Dark' with a ferocious capacity to kill everything (the god of the OT), a variety of prophets spouting contradictory claims (Hawking once described Black holes as capable of communicating with each other and exchanging material - what?) and even outright lies that can only be understood by the true believers (the recent time-dilation news followed by a picture of a Black Hole - complete with corona - (what?), the size of the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang, etc.) What drives them is the possibility of Time travel - presumably so they can get revenge on their parents/bullies/teachers/coaches... It is damaging to real Science and a waste of some serious talent.
The fact that we NEED to humanise ourselves is fascinating, don't you think?
@@happinesstan It is indeed. There is so much potential in the _sapiens_ genome that remains largely untapped and of course, a society as a seamless, pleasant resource may never be realised.
#1 problem being the opposable thumb being grafted onto a carnivore. Whose idea was that! j/k
I'm really struggling with a project, i.e. writing 'The Atheist's guide to Paradise'.
Cheers.
I am learning scientific evidence from her 😊
The closed caption is awful! They should have had someone familiar with Haack's works review and edit the transcription.
Phal ability? The science of curry.
I don't get why she is so against Popper. Since critical rationalism clearly includes the fallibility of science which is a very good "preventor" of the scientism she dislikes. Scientists as well as non scientist who adhere to popper when conducting or reading research always know this is only a slice of the truth, it may change, it's good for now, lets see what more science adds to that and so on.
Scientism is not bypassed by conceding the revisability thesis. Scientism presupposes the natural status of the classification of certain inquiries as scientific, and is complacent about the growing hegemony of scientific criteria in evaluation.
From what I understood, her gripe with Popper's take on falsifiability rests on the notion basic statements are essentially subjective.
But that doesn't address the reliability of our current tools to discern the world around us.
With all its flaws and room for fallibility, which tool(s) can we call more reliable than scientific methods for that purpose?
Edit" Nevertheless, I feel like there's a LOT I need to read on after watching this.
@@tempestive1the reliability of our tools in no way implies the voracity of our conclusions. We can believe reasonable things that are impossible for us to disprove, but that doesn’t make them true, because there are infinite aspects to things that can affect truth and all of our tools rely on finite perceptions. Questions like “what is a cup? When does a cup stop being a cup? If we break it, does it stop being a cup? Is it impossible for us to perceive the exact same things and still not perceive reality? Can we prove that every time we see something that when another person sees it, that our method is 100% absolutely reliable?”
Even if we both agreed that there was a cup in front of us, that doesn’t make it true, because it’s not impossible that we’re either mistaken, or crazy, or that there’s some aspect of reality that we are completely unfamiliar with that creates this dissonance.
Fact is, we can’t even rely on ourselves to trust each other- there’s such a thing as dreams and “false realities”, where we can rely upon a false idea of a person to verify our experiences.
So, how can the reliability of our methods constitute any assertion of truth? Especially when extremely unscientific methods had proven reliable for years in certain lucky circumstances. The most common evidence being the very basis of science, because absolutely rigid skepticism is impossible to defeat, and yet, we consistently make use of ideas we cannot prove are unassailably true.
That’s why being reasonable is more important than being correct or accurate.
love her
Priests: Don't read the holy book yourself, trust the priests.
Scientism Subscriber: omg religion is so backwards, so glad I am not falling for that method of control! so glad we have science now!
Institutional Science: Don't do your own research, trust the experts.
Scientism Subscriber: omg they are so smart! Experts know best!
Lol. Right on!
Do you have an example of where an institutional science organization recommends or gives advice not to do ones own research?
I think you’re still falling into a trap there. Doing your own research without the expertise to understand or perform said research is still likely to lead to accepting something with the veneer of science, that may not be. It’s not about doing your own research it’s about being skeptical of the process. That’s why scientific consensus is more important than accepting a single study.
Even then, scientific consensus is not infallible itself. People can sign off on bad logic or good logic that’s just untrue, it would only be a confirmation that you’re not alone in what you thought. Lots of faulty findings are peer reviewed.
is it particularly safe to say that "scientism" is "scientific propaganda"? or an effort to "propagandize" science?
Scientism created to prove: 2 + 2 = what ever estate says it is...
may need to jump around at times..
Science existed at the inception of religion. Religious power was facilitated by the exploitation of superior scientific knowledge. It's not difficult to perform a 'miracle' for the common man, if you know about chemical reactions.
17:13
Anti science will always be 100 times worse than scientism.
Scientism is anti-science though