Critisising the institutions that try to monopolise the term science is completely SEPARATE and opposite from being against science. Its the most scientific thing you can do. Science is a process not a title. (Edit) just like a charity getting corrupt and stopping to help people can longer be called a charity, an institution calling itself scientific but being against questioning, examination and trying to silence others in the field who disagree can no longer be called scientific.
@@micromikael4806 he means title as an positions of power in authority. I.e, titles like Pope which people rever in likewise to a so-called PHD Scientist under Scientism. Such positions of power can be corrupted even in authorities, thus, the idea that science is a process not a title is still a valid point. Its about the evidence one has, not the flashy titles whom can be disproven. And history does have people using scientific methods to challenge the very institutions in power and even debunk psuedoscience, in order to find truth. Thus we are advocates of Science, not Scientism that is authoritatian or the so call skeptical anti-science psueduoscience flate-earthers altfacts. It is the process, that is what he means.
@@micromikael4806 If you find value in a title of "science" given to any institution or individual then you are a huge part of the problem dealing with the quasi religious nature of scientism. If you were capable of any introspection, the last three years would have you apologizing right now, not doubling down.
Critisising the companies that are trying to monopolise making cars is separate from being against cars, the question is - would you rather drive a honda or a car that some enthusiast built in their garage? I comepletely agree that monopolies tend to create unhealthy situations for consumers & workers in the industry, BUT "worse than ideal" doesn't mean bad. In relation to science that means that even if whoever you are getting at are trying to monopolise science, that doesn't mean research is invalid and scientists across the world are wrong in their assumptions. Monopolising the term science IS NOT concealing knowlege. I do not work in the industry & i don't know if journals / organisations / whoever are trying to / already monopolised the term science, BUT it seems to me that science is very hard to monopolise at modern times. Literally millions of people around the world are involved, and nobody is gonna stop a mathematician from proving some theorem and posting it online ( i actually heard a story of some math theorem prooved by an anon on 4chan, which ended up being posted in an article with "anonymos user" as a co-author". Internet provides communication with almost zero effort, and nowdays knowlege is inherently available for everyone. What made me write this comment is that is seemed to me that Your rhethoric seemed to me unclear and very "make your own reasearch"-like.
@@chel8568 "nobody is gonna stop a mathematician from proving some theorem and posting it online" Unless it becomes politically useful to do so. The entire covvid pandemic was such an ocasion when even medical proffesionals were censored for disagreeing with the narrative
As a scientist with a soft spot for philosophy and the humanities, let me tell you this video is brilliant! I'm bothered by how pervasive scientism seems to be amongst science communicators and how complacent we are with it, if not outright buying into it... Which ultimately fuels the anti-science crowd in my opinion by disconnecting science from any social and historical context. We do science like it was a dogma given by the science gods in a vacuum and without a framework to even understand what we are doing and why, so it's hard for scientists to be self-critical and build bridges. Lack of proper education in history and philosophy of science amongst scientists has a lot to do with it, I think. Wrote way too much. Great video, subscribed.
Late reply, but I totally agree. It's like the distinction in medical research between statistically significant and clinically significant. Like, sure, maybe you found some obscure correlation, but does that discovery actually benefit anyone in any measurable way? I can't even begin to count how many articles I've read that have statistically significant results with absolutely zero practical applications.
That part about science communicators is weirdly true in my experience with academia. Scientists and industrial engineers had a significantly less poetic view of their work than the journalists, writers and influencers writing vulgarization about their work.
@@VaughanMcCuemore philosophy motivated reason because a lot of people (myself included) don’t want to view philosophy as something as outdated as alchemy or astrology
A postdoc in my undergraduate degree once told me that "Science is a useful tool because it has predictive power", and that's stuck with me ever since. From this perspective science can be less about dogmatic theory and more about predictive power, like if an apple falls from a tree does newtonian physics accurately predict the time it'll take and it's velocity? What about in terms of biology, does editing this chemical called DNA cause changes in organisms I'm studying?
I've heard similar aswell. Like there's a reason we do not take relativistic effects into account when designing nearly all and any mechanical structures. It's because a simpler theory (newtonian mechanics) can already explain everything that's far below light speed, which is most of everything. So you use that theory, even though you know it's false because it gives good enough answers. Of course it's not always correct, hell it's not even correct for the situations you apply it to, but it is correct enough to be useful
@@lazergurka-smerlin6561 It's all approximation and hit and trail in science... Experiments the reason only test if a hypothesis works ... Engineering is more art and neglecting things by intuition than hard core science... Theoretically many things can't be done or done needs something which doesn't seem pratical but when you open engineering books or ask the engineering professor he says otherwise and proves how neglecting many aspects can actually make those things possible atleast for our use...
i always come back to rewatch this video bc it's very well done. i have a bs in physics and before I went to college I was very into scientism. i gained so much perspective from diving into science beyond pop science, reading real academic journals, interacting with the process of doing robust academic studies, and also getting into philsophy. I truly think scientism is a dangerous ideology and it is quite common and prolific in a lot of tech circles. i am quite concerned with how common it is for these people to reject ways of knowing beyond science. there is so much to learn from different fields and they are all founded on different assumptions and exist in completely different terms.
While I do believe asking questions about science is perfectly fine what I don't agree with is denying theories without providing an alternative theory with proof. There's been a lot of that happening lately and frankly it's getting ridiculous the amount of armchair scientists popping up by the day all because they feel like experts after reading one science paper. Edit seems like my comment where I give an example isn't showing so I'll put it here. One example I have personally experienced is this outdated theory of disease called terrain theory. During my early years in College (before the pandemic) I only heard about it in passing during lectures on the history of microbiology. Then fast forward a few years after the pandemic and suddenly there are a bunch of people crying out that Pastuer was a fraud and Germ theory is a lie. Well I decided to do some digging and I found quite a bit of ludicrous information as well as several people who claimed to be "scientists" or have a strong understanding of diseases and how they work. Here's a quick rundown of what I found. 1) Terrain theory is an extremely outdated and debunked theory proposed by Antoine Bechamp that claims all infectious diseases from the simple cold to life-threatening Ebola are caused not by pathogens but by toxin build up due to having an extremely unhealthy lifestyle and/or living in a polluted environment. Now the problem here is how can we test it? Answer: we can't. So this theory isn't even a theory. Hell it's not even a hypothesis because to bea hypothesis is to be Falsifiable and terrain theory can't be tested to show one way or another. 2) Bechamp also proposed that the reason we see various microbes at the area of diseased tissue is not because they were the cause but because they are the clean up crew. He then went on further to claim that ALL microbes from bacteria to multicellular parasites like tapeworms are the exact same species which he called the microzyma. The various forms we see are just phases in its lifecycle much like how a caterpillar changes to a butterfly. Now this is obviously false for teo major reasons, the second being set in adamantium. First reason is it goes against genetics, evolution and what we see each time we run a gene sequencing test on any microbe. To be considered part of the same species each organism has to share at least 99%+ DNA with each other. A tapeworm has waaaay more DNA than a bacteria. How did it get that extra DNA? This question leads right into my next reason and the death blow to terrain theory. With no explanation for how it got the extra DNA and matter to form the tapeworm one is lead to believe it just magically appeared. Now this breaks a fundamental law of the universe: matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Since the microzyma fails to follow this fundamental rule it simply doesn't exist. 3) I've tried explaining this to terrain theory supporters and sadly all I got was insults or dyor. Out of 40 discussions only 3 to 4 were productive. The rest broke down as soon as I mentioned these hard questions. Boy the answers were seriously something. A few I got were that DNA doesn't exist at all. Hell one claimed the laws of the universe are fake and that microbes come directly from sugars. How is a molecule of sugar supposed to become a bacteria or tapeworm? Honestly it's astounding the lengths people will go to support their theories and yet they claim they're experts in the field of microbiology and that all scientists are shills.
@@plantae420 sure. One example I have personally experienced is this outdated theory of disease called terrain theory. During my early years in College (before the pandemic) I only heard about it in passing during lectures on the history of microbiology. Then fast forward a few years after the pandemic and suddenly there are a bunch of people crying out that Pastuer was a fraud and Germ theory is a lie. Well I decided to do some digging and I found quite a bit of ludicrous information as well as several people who claimed to be "scientists" or have a strong understanding of diseases and how they work. Here's a quick rundown of what I found. 1) Terrain theory is an extremely outdated and debunked theory proposed by Antoine Bechamp that claims all infectious diseases from the simple cold to life-threatening Ebola are caused not by pathogens but by toxin build up due to having an extremely unhealthy lifestyle and/or living in a polluted environment. Now the problem here is how can we test it? Answer: we can't. So this theory isn't even a theory. Hell it's not even a hypothesis because to bea hypothesis is to be Falsifiable and terrain theory can't be tested to show one way or another. 2) Bechamp also proposed that the reason we see various microbes at the area of diseased tissue is not because they were the cause but because they are the clean up crew. He then went on further to claim that ALL microbes from bacteria to multicellular parasites like tapeworms are the exact same species which he called the microzyma. The various forms we see are just phases in its lifecycle much like how a caterpillar changes to a butterfly. Now this is obviously false for teo major reasons, the second being set in adamantium. First reason is it goes against genetics, evolution and what we see each time we run a gene sequencing test on any microbe. To be considered part of the same species each organism has to share at least 99%+ DNA with each other. A tapeworm has waaaay more DNA than a bacteria. How did it get that extra DNA? This question leads right into my next reason and the death blow to terrain theory. With no explanation for how it got the extra DNA and matter to form the tapeworm one is lead to believe it just magically appeared. Now this breaks a fundamental law of thermodynamics: matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Since the microzyma fails to follow this fundamental rule it simply doesn't exist. 3) I've tried explaining this to terrain theory supporters and sadly all I got was insults or dyor. Our of 40 discussions only 3 to 4 were productive. The rest broke down as soon as I mentioned these hard questions. Boy the answers were seriously something. A few I got were that DNA doesn't exist at all. Hell one claimed the laws of thermodynamics are fake and that microbes come directly from sugars. How is a molecule of sugar supposed to become a bacteria or tapeworm? Honestly it's astounding the lengths people will go to support their theories and yet they claim they're experts in the field of microbiology and that all scientists are shills.
I’d say don’t argue with idiots, they’l always continue to exist in some proportion and you’l very rarely change their minds. Even if they do, the fact that they believed such incredible things usually indicates they’l do the same in the future, or are currently holding some ludicrous and harmful claims already. I feel also that antiscience is just a rejection of modernity and a sort of calling to the wild cave men days, when everything was simple and understandable, and mysticism made people feel good because they could belong to a group with incredibly cool and powerful ideas (that didn’t have to be true). Also people believe in things that give them a sense of power and control (ie. People hate the idea of them being stupid, and not understanding something) so they cling to ideas about the world that are ”tailored” to their level of understanding. Also also people who are into these kind of things are either people who are easily fooled and manipulated ie. The kinds of people cults love, or people who have a deep sense of rebelling against the world. Either way both groups are doomed, and theres nothing you can do to save them from their ignorance, so my solution is to FORGET THEIR EXISTANCE AND LIVE MY OWN LIFE
@@runawaytohide.com_watistisname while you make fair points one can just as easily argue that there is merit in arguing these idiots. All it takes is a bit of doubt for them to reconsider. Obviously the vast majority won't reconsider but one is better than none. One of those positive debates actually lead to a staunch supporter reconsidering or at least admitting that terrain theory has far more gaping flaws than germ theory especially when I pointed out the differences in DNA and overall size between various microbes and how it's just not possible that the microzyma exists when it clearly breaks these rules with no explanation. And that's usually what it takes. Point out an indisputable unanswerable flaw and most supporters lose their resolve. Of course I've debated quite a few that deny the existence of DNA and there are a few that deny the fundamental laws of the universe. Those ones I argue to help show the other less fanatical supporters that "hey is it really smart to support a theory that denies basic reality?" But again I completely see and understand your point and if it were any other antiscience like flat earth or the moin landing I would totally ignore it. But terrain theory poses a genuine threat to society.
@@sithwolf8017 you’re right, the misinformation about how contagious diseases work is harmful and possibly deadly. The funny thing is if people believe foul air is a problem and they use masks, they’l accidently shield themselves from harmful particles and reduce the spread of diseases inadvertently. So i guess it’s better they believe in this rather than the blood letting practice of the medieval era.
I disagree mr soyjack. I think there must ultimately be some trust in the authenticity of institutions. Institutions can’t really be treated like scientific theories where failures to perform as expected means the whole must be discarded. Rather institutions are expected to self-correct failures to maintain their authenticity. Institutions are successful when their failures are addressed and resolved.
@@wirelessbluestone5983Science is now a cult where any ''scientist'' can literally make up anything as long as the rest follow suit. Odd how no other vaccines require multiple shots in order to be effective ? But as long as they keep it making BILLIONS I guess it doesn't matter right ? 🐑🐑🐑🐑
I think also, (hopefully in the spirit of the video), that science doesn’t say much about what you should do, and so it doesn’t say much about if you should trust in science or not
@@ToriKo_ Science is a method of understanding the material word through study and experimentation, it is not a belief system, although it has become one to most modern Western Liberals. The scientific method requires open-mindedness, repeatability, falsifiability and essentially a willingness to accept and digest new and contradictory information, it is incompatible with dogma. "Trusting the science" is literally an act of faith and is why I said this is inherently unscientific.
Wow this was a really great video. After reading the comments it’s weird that it seems like half of them are missing the point. You presented a intro to the philosophy of science, relevance of philosophy, and some relevant surrounding cultural context, and it was very well articulated, paced, and not dry etc. Good job
@@somerandomdude827 insanity is the doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result you know like taking 3- 4 vaccines and expecting a difference from the 1th shot lmao.
Honestly, you're a breath of fresh air. Really well thought and natural. I hope you don't let go of the simplicity and fluidity you presented in this video upon your future work. By all means, do what you need to do in order to get recognition, hopefully, with time, you will build a solid ground for a community in which the dialectic process is endless. Appreciate your work.
The problem is that in most cases science or anti-science is used for political reasons irrespective of what the science actually says. Take climate change for example. On the anti-science side you have people who support coal, oil and gas, and disregard inconvenient truths like climate change, both domestically and internationally. Their position on a factual statement is determined by their preexisting political opinions and life situation. On the other side you have people like Greta Thunberg, who are correct in telling people that climate change is real and serious, but oppose the best way of massively reducing emissions whilst being able to maintain industrial society, nuclear power. This is because she's an environmentalist first, before she actually tries to find solutions to the problem of climate change, and the environmentalist dogma says nuclear power bad, because they couldn't distinguish between bomb smoke and water vapor in the 60's and 70's, and treat nuclear fission as dark magic that needs to be destroyed.
People dislike nuclear power because of the waste. Which literally poisons the earth and everything near it. The issue is that people don't seem to understand how relatively small that waste is in comparison and expect a perfect solution where the waste just turns into rainbows or some crap. But most of the time the people at fault are dodgy politicians trying to defend the oil industries and spreading misinformation (i still can't get over that one person that said that solar panels would drain all of the sun's heat...)
The problem is indeed the politization of science. And we can see it in your comment too. The whether is described as a "settled science", which is an oxymoron in itself, moreover if you study previous predictions, none of them came true. But this time its most definitely will come true... because they really mean it, just like for decades prior. Greta Thunberg is not a new phenomenon. In 90's there was Severn Cullis-Suzuki. But this time it was way more brazen. Greta was presented as a random child caring about the planet, starting a grassroots movement. But reality is, she's daughter of millionaires with close relations to Swedish media. The media was there on the very first day she skipped school, why? Then of course come other famous activists, who prophesize the Armageddon, but for some reason act as if it's all made up. It's the millionaire weather activists flying a private jet across the world to receive a weather award. Seriously, why people, whose carbon footprint is at least 100 times larger than mine lecture me about reducing CO2 emissions? Then we get Greta, who sailed a million dollar carbon fiber sailboat with professional crew to America to tell the UN how ruined her childhood is. How cool of her, too bad we can't afford that kind of trip... oh and the crew had to flown back to Europe and another was flown in, turns out if she took a plane, like normal people, the rip would pollute way less. Better yet, why not telecommute? Lastly, how do you prove or disprove anything in whether science? You can't run experiments. All you really have is correlation, and when the model fails again, you just adjust it again and pretend you were right all along. The worst part with this fixation on whether, we forget about more pressing ecological matters, like toxic pollution. But if you point out this type of convenient lie to make people act in desired way over complicated truth that isn't as clear cut as politicians and activist want you to think, will label you anti-science. Scientism has become a religion, you can no longer doubt any of it without being labeled a heretic. Oh, and whatever you do, never google "replication crisis". Spoiler, vast majority of studies were never replicated, when tried most of them lead to conflicting results.
Great Thunberg is pro-nuclear energy. She's not an environmentalist. She never hasbeen. It's funny that you have to lie about one side to balance the scales.
oh lol, the irony, of course climate change believers would never do anything like that would they? Can you honestly say you've looked into "climate change" objectively from all sides and understand the subject matter? you know there are for more, and far more credible, scientists say it's nonsense than agree right? you will find those claiming that man's 3% of Co2 emissions is causing climate change amount to a tiny group of about a dozen who have proven themselves to be acting unscientifically. Someone else has commented here that the usefulness of science is in it's predictive power, so far all the predictions of the climate fear mongers have failed to materialise.
@@VaughanMcCue oh definitely and I wasn't trying to insinuate that! What I was referring to more was people saying 'science says x' even though it may be a misconception, oversimplification or a myth.
@@bridesheaddeserted Excellent point. It is most likely an underinformed person trying to persuade themselves or others that the benefits of whatever they rationalise to justify a behaviour. Science says a glass of wine at night is good for heart health. I bought a reasonable-sized aquarium (glass, of course) and have a small hose siphoning wine to me. I only have one glass each night because that is what science says. Thanks for clarifying your position..🍷
5 is a nice round number that fits well into the 3-meal model. One of the meals has two, the other two have one. Plus the overall additions like snacks.
Personally I met in my life many people, that were anti-science before they started using internet, but they talked about their beliefs only in private conversations. In my opinion the Internet just blurred the line between private conversation and publishing. Not many people want to spent time writing books or articles, but writing comments in the Internet is more like casual conversation. Casual conversation is volatile, but internet comments can be screnshoted and showed eternally.
I really enjoyed this video, but I have one question? How do we avoid ethos or the logical fallacy of argument from authority during discussions since we don't live in a society where everyone can become a renaissance man and be knowledgeable in every field due to the sheer amount of knowledge we have accumulated as a society? Is this something that as a society we have to concede by trusting people's research/opinions from their respected fields and move on from there such as trusting scientists for their research and religious leaders for morals?
Its inevitable as long as you have extended amount of knowledge in fields that are specific and categorized. What you need when human knowledge is too wide is have multiple but specialized humans. The problem nowadays is that those fields of knowledge were not well gatekept and a bunch of idiots and people simply not intelligent enough to be productive or just neutral, and are actually misinforming and destroying centuries of research with no penalty or rectification. What is needed here is reliable people that can think enough for themselves to question narratives, neurotic enough to know when something is wrong and work hard to correct it, and smart enough to master elements of knowledge to do all the above without being absolutely demotivated, burnt out, depressed etc. Ideologies are ideologies because they have wrong elements to them that make them not real, its pretty much a delusion, a web of information not properly tied to reality. People that are not smart, neurotic and independant enough will ALWAYS fall for ideologies and will very probably transmit it for generations (personality traits inheritance, therefore any somewhat similar ideology will "fit the slot"). You can only trust trustworthy people.
@@Bowcaster67 that sounds like a (for a lack of a better word) double standard or special pleading to me. What if the authority on the area has certain biases (e.g. a biochemist that believes that a god designed all lifes is talking about biochemistry)?
scepticism, not trust. question everything and if the explenation doesn't seem to make sense logically or is lacking argumentaticely, you don't have to accept it. read the research, don't trust it. moral judgements are derived from sentiment not reason. theres no need to have comprehensive knowledge in every field, most of that knowledge is completely inconsequential for our daily lives.
I find it interesting when people say they only believe in what can be scientifically proven when science itself sits on a foundation of principles that can not be proven scientifically. For example, the laws of logic can not be proven scientifically, yet science requires logic to function.
@@rompevuevitos222 yes, the definition of science has been changed over time to encompass so many things which is partly responsible for the rise of scientism. However, the belief that someone should believe in what is testable can not itself be tested. The list goes on.
@@PaulRezaeiI don't remember anything saying what you should believe in. But science has given the most consistent results than any other approach. That doesn't mean you should stick with science alone, for example, we don't need science to know about others feelings, that's when we trust on empathy instead of science.
I'm always happy to find people who understand and teach that science is a method, not a collection of fact. It's not an authority for its own sake, but because of the rigorous methodology and willingness to change with new evidence. One thing that I worry about is a different twist on both coming together in a way. From multiple of the professors I became friends with, as well as current university staff that have come out with their shared concerns abroad, and touched on by people like Jonathan Haidt, there's a growing concern about an almost "anti-science-scientism" that's driven by those with a narrative who, rather than being simply critical of older publications and methods and retesting them, hold resentment for them and may even reject some outright. Often driven by some sort of ideological beliefs, some have started to only do research into topics they believe are 'virtuous', and through methods that they approve of, seeking to prove their conclusions true rather than simply reject the null hypothesis. They start with the conclusion as a given and look to prove why, and not finding the result they wanted means the experiment was a failure. They want the authority of science without the chance of being wrong. (As an aside, in the final year of my undergrad, I actually had to get an exemption from a research participation requirement due to my inability to participate, since all the research projects that year were focused on such a narrow demographic that I didn't qualify for any of them.) It kind of reminds me of when there was worry about studying "love" because of the fear that a mechanical answer could lessen the emotion, though with that, it happened anyway and those fears were shown to be unfounded. Sadly, even some of the profs I know personally have mentioned that they no longer discuss some research or history due to both a fear of losing their position and because some of their more recent students have become aggressive, even shouting them down and hijacking their class to preach their views and activism. This isn't to say it's a majority or anything, just that it's become a concern for the future trustworthiness of institutions and the research they produce.
I think in most cases, people who allegedly distrust science actually distrust the motives of those funding the science, or of those who use science to push an agenda. For example, those who tell "climate deniers" they should shut up because they're not climate scientists are usually not climate scientists themselves. Trying to suppress debate is a political tactic, not a scientific one.
I've literally never seen anyone tell a climate change denier being told to shut up but I have seen them lie about existing facts over and over again. Everyone is welcome to prove climate science wrong or erroneous about a particular theory or investigation and some have done so but never has it been a climate change denier. It's because they don't go the route of science. Their goal is to sow distrust through rhetoric and misinformation.
science isn't anti religion, but rather something completely separate from religion. however, like water and oil, science and religion often times don't mix very well. that's because science consensus is built upon the most fundamental assumptions in order to accurately predict how the universe works. in the context of science, your belief in how something works is positively correlated with how much supporting evidence there is, and negatively correlated with how much contradictory evidence there is. ultimately, something that is recognized currently as true in science can be disproven by new evidence and the theories can be subsequently adjusted and refined, over and over. while on the other hand, religion is about believing in something that doesn't have concrete support for. you can't prove or disprove anything in religion because religion is based on faith. There is no scientific process in religion to rectify and adjust beliefs. person A can believe in X and person B can believe can believe in Y and nobody can disprove anyone. you can see this most evidently online when most religious arguments devolve into "he said" "she said" moments revolving around circular logic or assumptions that not everybody can agree upon to be true. for many religous people, as science uncovers more and more, religion becomes less and less of an explanation for why the world is the way it is. in this way, it can be viewed that science is anti-religion. because as science becomes more developed, there becomes less and less reason to use religion as a way to describe the world as we see it. as a simple example, before we discovered lightning during thunderstorms as electrical discharges attributed to nature, it was interpreted as god's wrath. however, as we learned that it was just a natural phenomenon that happens regardless of whether you worshiped the gods that week or not, people no longer attributed what they saw to god/religion. and just like that, the culture of religion gets eroded away by science, little by little. it is no coincidence that the rise of science and rise of secularism coincided with each other. as more scientific discoveries become made, there will be evidently fewer and fewer people who are religious
@@adsffdaaf4170 Mathematics made me more religious in that I believe there is an intent behind nature and it's not just random things that happen to exist.
Loving something and using it are very different things. Science can only address the cold hard facts, and sometimes it may fail due to lacking data. While philosophy can include the human factor among other things that science does not usually care about. But relying solely on it will lead to making nonfactual assertions. Pure science is thinking like a machine, while philosphy is more broad than that. Using both is very much possible.
0:26 science is meant to be questioned and improved upon, thats what makes it science, because that way it can progressed, otherwise we'd still be thinking that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones
20 years as a bio-lab director for non-STEM students here (Temple University Japan), but with most of my career, graduate degree, and research in applied linguistics - this is GREAT! Listened twice now, and will listen again. Two of my early influences were highlighted, Popper and Kuhn, and this if the first time I have heard a compare/contrast of the two. The summarizing of Kuhn was particularly good. JMHO, but Kuhn emphasized the social dynamics of collaborative problem solving processes, and Popper is mostly known for the nuts and bolts of objective ideals through pushing for falsification. I call objectivity an 'ideal' because I don't believe that Cartesian duality is best thought of as insight into fundamental reality, but rather an ideal to weed out potentially mistaken personal biases. One of my assumptions here is that it is not just paradigms which are provisional, I draw on the likes of Wittgenstein and Gödel (and other sources including many sources outside STEM fields) and believe in the strong version of the Whorf Sapir hypothesis ... that anything that can be expressed in language or logic is necessarily provisional and parochial (limited to those sharing a 'culture'). I like the way you deconstruct the likes of Sam Harris. I would put many popularizers of science in the same camp ... Yuval Harrari leading the pack, but including Jordon Peterson (Lobster behavior as a justification for hierarchical organization among humans?), Steven 'Pangloss' Pinker, and the Discovery Channel regulars. One point that could use some expansion and integration is in reconciling that great Einstein quote at about 5:09 "Science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." with the ending of this video to "trust the experts". To some degree, yes, this is necessary in large scale society, but not to the degree of relinquishing critical thinking skills to trusting experts who are blinded to their weaknesses by success in a narrower domain. This is precisely what the likes of Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson are doing. But more dangerously, what those using institutions to hide or manipulate self-serving intentions ... such as leaders of national governments, WHO, FDA, CDC, WEF ... and various corporations or academic institutions. Those in charge of using the fruits of idealistic scientists are probably more 'clever-intelligent' than the ave average person, but are usually not themselves idealists. Rather, they tend to be ideologues and/or high in cluster B personality disorders (dark-triads). The well documented behaviorist 'nudge units' employed by the British government to herd populations are a good example (Laura Dodsworth ... "A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic"). Here, I think Popper, through another book ... "The Open Society and its Enemies" ... would agree with Kuhn about the danger of trusting credentialed-authoritative experts to make decisions affecting billions, and I think the two would probably be back-to-back in agreement regarding the lock-step responses to the plandemic / reducing carbon-footprints ... and the future responses now being planned. Will probably come back to this again. And again, well done. Bravo!
There no "middle path". It's just science while knowing it's limitations and what it actually does. Scientism is tied to technology, which Sagan is correct when he said that sufficiently advanced science is akin to magic. The advances in technology from the beginning of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st has brought about such huge amounts of innovation, that people tend to think science is the be all/end all and it shall discover all answers. It's not. It's a matter of explanations that are shown to work via experiences in doing things and seeing what happens. It's purely materialistic and purely about discovering the mechanics of the physical world. That's it. Nothing more. Anti-science beliefs and distrust of science comes from a lot of the unintended consequences of our technology, and the fact that nothing is truly certain. Anti-scientism comes from having a lot of different experiences (results) or different explanations (hypotheses), and how quickly "facts" can change based on new observations. It comes from how you can't prove everything yourself anymore. The body of work and experiences that makes up science is greater than anyone can test and verify in their lifetime. A lot of it DOES get taken on by faith simply by necessity. Furthermore, even if the process of science is all good, the people that do the science are still people and can lie or be bribed or just make mistakes. Those things fuel the justifications in non-science. But still science isn't about believing. It's about what seemingly works when applied to describe the mechanics of the physical world.
Yes, and I have been saying this for years and suggest you pass the message: the problem is and always be dumb brains, it comes down to someone being capable of enough reasoning, abstraction, rigor, independant thought and sensitivity to error, aka creativity, IQ and neuroticism. People that are not capable of functioning without ideologies because of these lacks, will be incapable of "doing science". No matter the education.
As someone who really likes science, but questions a lot about it, I thought this was a really good video explaining why both anti science/science denialism and scientism (almost confused it with scientology) are both two extremes that are just wrong. Science isn’t necessarily absolute truth, it’s not a one and done process. It’s about repeated results, it’s about consistently getting better and clearer results. If you ask me, science is a form of truth or one truth out of many, but it’s not the only one.
This video is just flat out great. The points you make are very precise and I am happy you critique both camps. People in the anti-science camp often argue that they, or people more broadly, are naturally inclined to find the truth. But this isn't true. Being aware of your biases, instead of flat out denying them, is the first step to gaining a good understanding of things. It's also the reason why peer review exists. We have to acknowledge -- and then come up with systems to save ourselves from -- our biases, instead of pretending we're above it. Likewise, the scientism camp claims that philosophy has gotten irrelevant. I'm sorry, but how do you design a study without philosophy again? Before empiricism we must understand what is right and what ought to be done. This same mistake is responsible for the wave of scientific racism in the early 20th century. Let's avoid it please.
I think "scientific positions of power" being politically corrupted or just generally degenerate is part of what started the process of questioning the experts. Like food advisors for the Canadian government suggesting that sugary cereal is better for you than beef
You might be interested in the Epistemological Anarchism of Paul Feyerabend, specifically his book Against Method. I've only heard about it from Luke Smith's podcast Not Related and haven't actually read the book but it's an interesting system. Cool vid though.
Please do a video on eastern philosophies like the Dharmic faiths or east asian teachings. It's a largely unreported and underrepresented part of philosophy that gets left out.
Reason and evidence can sometimes lead us the wrong way but it's far more reliable than conclusions made without reason and without evidence. This statement doesn't seem controversial to me. Yet there are people who believe the most gob-smacking stupid things. The more stupid the idea the more they are willing to die rather than entertain a contradictory idea. Most disturbing, these are not a few weirdos living in cabins in the wilderness. It seems to me that most people have some beliefs that defy elementary logic. This scares me. Is this the way humans are? If so, what beliefs do I have that are profoundly stupid - I wouldn't know, I think my beliefs are all reasonable.
I think such is a coping mechanism for people who are so discontent or bored with their own lives that they have absolutely nothing else to do. And believing in the most absurd things only to scream about them loudly for everyone to hear is their way of making themselves feel better as it draws attention towards them. It's not that they seem to care about the contradictions they said, but as long as regular people pay them enough attention, it's good enough for them.
@@zzz66688 That is a very comforting idea. If they don't really believe what they are saying then when it comes to making an important decision they will do what is reasonable. I fear tribalism has forced crazy ideas to be obeyed without question. Where can this lead us? Look at the past. But then there were no nuclear weapons and no climate change to worry about. Some of our decisions today have dire consequences if we fail to act rationally.
To add a bit to the list of reasons and heuristics that might inform a fundamentally critical view of the scientific/academic insitution: Concerning trusting "experts" I think there are two big reasons you didn't mention in your introduction, namely 1. that the status of "expert", which is hard to define and impossible to verify without first establishing such a definition, has been used very excessively as a marketing/manipulation tool and 2. even the "real" experts who used to be given a massive benefit of the doubt - often practically to the point of deification - are now losing this popular trust because as more people get at least a passing impression of how science is conducted (ie that it is carried out by normal people with their own emotions and biases) and maybe also catch wind of some often very disturbing controversies from within certain academic fields, they of course become less willing to trust that institution unconditionally than if it just remained in their mind as that vague abstraction of pure reason and logic it might have been before. Another issue is that fostering a culture that is to the fundamentally trusting of "le science" is very much a package deal in many ways and if you really think about the consequences of that, it should for many (ofc including myself) look like there is a whole lot more to lose than there is to gain in that. Not wanting to get vaccinated is probably not bringing back tuberculosis and cholera in the next few years, but on the other hand there are a lot of ways recent scientific advancements become ever more intrucive and lend themselves much easier to manipulation and tyranny on different levels. There are the obvious "scifi-ish" examples like easily hijackable "security" systems, all-encompassing surveillance, non-consensual biological modification, falsified histories or evidence produced by AI and as far as concrete horror scenarios go, those are just the salient trend issues... But the question of how plausible any of those are aside, I doubt these are really the main factor for most normal people to begin with; what people are more worried about is the immense power a political position - even an incredibly unpopular one - can invest itself with if it is just "based in science", be that true or not. And deliberate manipulation isn't even the only issue with that either, since even well-meaning and well-informed scientists would just by virtue of having a very tunnel-vision-ed generally be disastrously bad policy makers. Yet still many people don't only believe that it's sensible but even imperative for politicians to be directly influenced by one or another field of "the science", right past any other sort of legitimisation - democratic or otherwise. Which is not to even mention, that taking even more authority out of the hands of real human beans(tm) only to transfer it to another soulless socio-mechanical moment at a junction between institutions would only serve to perpetuate a development that I think many are feeling at least a little bit uncomfortable with, even if most people don't keep it at the forefront of their minds in clear terms all the time. Having understood that, it's also important to consider that with these things it is near impossible to revert any legal precedent once it is established, and I think the whole Corona affair (yes ik, scawy and controversial) is the single best example to illustrate there are some people (God knows who, I'm not gonna try specifying cuz it's beside the point) who are trying to employ salami tactics in order to establish this precedent cuz they already tried to pull these wannabe-Caesar moves over the bird and swine flu before - don't know if everyone just magically forgot about that, but I don't remember the streets being lined with bodies when no one cared about vaccines and safety regulations back then... If it was already somehow acceptable to ruin reputations and livelihoods and essentially steal ungodly amounts of personal and professional time from the general populace only for it all to be memoryholed over night this time, who's to say how it's gonna turn out when they do it again five years from now? So all things considered - especially when these reasons start piling up over time - I'm not really surprised people start viewing this issue as an existential problem. I like to think myself a reasonable enough kinda person and I really don't *want* to be "against science" (much the opposite, really), but especially in recent years I'm not feeling too fond of the academy to say the least.
Hey if I wasn't subscribed to you already I would be after your line around the six minute mark about changing people's minds. In my experience, having a conversation with the goal of getting someone to reconsider their position is almost always worthless. Your best hope is to ask the sort of question you cited, "What would it take to change your mind?" Another question I ask that sometimes can be more sneaky is, "If you found out that wasn't true how would that affect your beliefs?" I first learned about this approach to discourse via the street epistemology hobbyists. There's a lot more I want to say, but we'll leave it there. Thanks for your work!
Science should not be denied, and it shouldn't be worshipped. But we should appreciate the process of science/the scientific method. The institution of "Science" has decimated it's trust among people, and deserve the ridicule and rejection. The silliness of many forms of science denial is because we are in a transitory period. Although what denial of the scientific consensus is "silly" is up for debate, I for instance deny the more apocalyptic, anthropogenic claims of climate change due to it's repeated failed doomsday predictions and obvious alignment with agendas, but not climate change in general because it's stupid to think the climate is static, and it's stupid to think our civilization has no effect. However, knowing how much higher CO2 has been in the distant past, even in eras known for flourishing plant life, it is also silly to think the effect we can have in a century will cause some unlivable apocalypse. We know the old, rigidly controlled, government-corporate-intertwined, grant-based Institution of "The Science" is dying, but we haven't fully established a reliable alternative yet. I suspect it will be something approaching a crowd-sourced apparatus. The other caveat is science tells us the "how" mechanics of the material, natural world. It cannot tell us "why's". And it seems to fail in areas beyond matter, like consciousness. That is where religion has a proper place. Religion vs Science is a false dialectic born from "The Enlightenment" people are finally beginning to see past.
I have actually seen people say that replicability is not a part of the scientific method when those scandals with sociology (in general), Alzheimer's research and some types of psychiatric medications were making the rounds last year, which is bordering on cultishness.
My take is that science in the end is just a form of philosophy, in which a wall of text/logic hides all the aethetical and ethical notions that would make an otherwise logically constructed system of thought vulnerable to anomalies. Philosophy has often the same problem. I like to call these notions axioms. They are sometimes unconscious and therefore meta-paradigms. If I analyse any system of thought I search for the axiom and do not care about the intricate matter. Scientists spend their time underpining a dominant paradigmn. Philosophy can reach a bit "higher" than normal science, because it can become a meta-science, that theorizes axioms instead of paradigms, but philosophy needs the help of history, psychology and linguistics to do that. Unlike Kuhn, who thought that a change in paradigms could be relatively easy, I am more sceptical, because certain politics may build on science and therefore would become outdated if a paradigm shift would be successive. Some educational and scholarly systems might therefore impede a scientific revolution for the sake of wealth and influence.
Agree with everything other than conclusion. “Trusting the experts” because it is simply more convenient and available in modern society is a cop out. An argument from authority is not good enough. Just because someone has a PhD in their name doesn’t mean they are right.
“Rejecting everything modern society has given to us,” is a bad way to make an argument for experts. FDA, the experts, used to allow and promote opioids for minor injuries, and still allows glyphosate, which is a known carcinogenic pesticide, to be sprayed on food. Modern ≠Best available.
Unless you have the time and money to repeat all experiments that grounds the scientific knowledge of all disciplines... and the prior knowledge to be able to interpret the data... you have to have some trust in scientists that studied and worked on it for years. It's very dangerous to think a unexpert opinion has the same vality that the opinion of a PhD in the pertinent area. A few google searches doesn't have more weight than a PhD.
@@Acoustic_player2024 The question is, what happens if it were you who was super-confident that 2+2 isn't 4 and rejects the experts that say otherwise because the idea "2+2=4" sounds absurd for you.
Its quite refreshing to hear my current position told to me in a well-structured and concise video by a random channel I found on my recommendation, u got yourself a new subscriber my g
As an ideological background, Scientism is both very practical and very volatile. We assume that object truth is possible with use of faith, form paradigms based on the assumed object truth, and then deny faith with use of faith in deductive reasoning. As a Pragmatist, if a religion causes us to be consistently planting good crops and distributing those crops fairly then it's good relative to the goal of survival of the populace. The way I see it all good is relative to practicality for achieving an objective, where achieving some objectives is practical for achieving other objectives and achieving seemingly any objective is going to be impractical for achieving some other objectives. Intrinsic good could potentially be derived from practicality for achieving the ends of an infinitely wise higher power - assuming we have a perfectly translated understanding of those objectives and are infinitely efficient in achieving those objectives. Assumptions are required. Say, for instance, with Scientism's higher powers of Objectivity and/or Truth where all that is assumed to be in line with their intentions is either object or true it requires there first be an assumption of Objectivity and/or Truth and then an assumption required to see anything as either object or true. Einstein subscribed to a higher power inspired by the ideas of Spinoza which is the higher power he mentions in his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe." (How many instances of 2 exist within this metric?)
i think peer review is very useful in spotting subtle errors that have been made in methodology or analysis, but the way it is invoked in public debate seems to be a bizarre democratisation of science, it's invoked as if whatever theory has the most number of scientists who believe it is "more correct". public perception of science is basically viewed the same way as an election
Who’s antiscience? I know of people being antscientism but that’s more so saying that it’s ok to question what’s in science and history books. And that has to do with us being able to yes, so our own research or searching out scientist or historians who aren’t bought by Big Science.
@@sr.mental5876 There are a lot more nuance to it than 'to fit a political agenda'. I mean does it really matter if it is modified to fit let's say the progressive political agenda? Would you rather science follow a regressive political agenda like the 1800s? Regardless of what you do, science has been and will always be affected by politics, just be glad that today's science hasn't followed Nazi eugenics or skull phrenology.
Fantastic video. Couldn't have said it better myself! Came here after watching your psychological experiments iceberg, and you've earned a subscription 👍
I love this video! I was thinking "yep! ... yes! ..." the whole way through! Something else I was anticipating you would talk about, when you mentioned people getting experts to do tasks for us, is how "squarespace is the sponsor of the video" or something, haha
While you yourself say the anti-science crowd is not a monolith organized movement at the start of the video, it's not entirely fair to group them as one (though I understand why it is done for the purposes of the video. I find the anti-science crowd is much like the conspiracy theory crowd. The conspiracy theory crowd is broken up in to, I would say around 3 camps. The first is the loony toons camp (some example are flat earth, lizard people, etc.), the second is the "distrust in the establishment is so high they are willing to believe stretches" often times in this case there is circumstantial evidence, or possibly evidence used to prove the event(s) has been proven to be exaggerated/fabricated, so they take this to mean the whole thing is made up/a conspiracy/etc. (some examples of this are holocaust denial which contrary to popular belief there are plenty of non-Nazis who believe, 9/11 was an inside job, etc.), and the last group is the "This is probably real" sorts, where there is evidence, means, motive, etc. is all there, and really the only thing still making it a conspiracy theory is merely the establishment saying it is (some examples include the JFK assassination being an alphabet agency, Epstein's "suicide", etc.) With the context put in place, going back to the anti-science crowd, I believe there is a similar tier list among it. The first group you have the actively anti-science crowd, this group I find isn't too huge and usually seems to consist of the hyper-religious who take scripture literally (at which point I personally think they are missing the point of religion itself, but I digress). The next group I would say are not really anti-science in and of itself, but more against what it has become and stands for, these people are the ones who are ignorant of a subject, but at one point in time were able to "trust the experts". After all of the things that have happened in the past few decades to discredit experts (whether them being wrong, politics corrupting the field, or a number of things), they have no trust anymore so the only thing they have to work with is ignorance, as such they fall in to the "well I read a thing online" trap. The last group, is the anti-Scientism crowd. This is an interesting group as the majority in it are actually for science, but cannot get behind Scientism and believe it has corrupted science and/or that it is an unhealthy substitute for the role religion and/or philosophy play in society. Because they are against Scientism they get thrown in the same camp with the first two aforementioned groups. In reality there should be many more than two roads, but like all ideological conflict, over time, sub-groups begin to merge together to form two opposing sides. Kind of like how WW2 did not start as Axis vs. Allies, but rather a number of smaller wars and factions that gradually merged together in to two large opposing sides over the course of the conflict. Or like how in the US the Republican and Democrat parties have no real principles in and of themselves, but are more coalitions of smaller groups that share rivals and enemies.
The description of science ranges between very poor to flately wrong. Accepting some assumptions that people extreemely rarely doubt leads to the conclusion that science is incomprehensively accurate in predicting the world. This position is well established the past centuries in philosophy. It is neither new, nor it deserves made-up pop-culture name callings such as 'scientism'.
@@theboombody How would you discover the truths that don't fit those criteria? Or would you say that these truths are undiscoverable truths and we can never know them?
As a Christian, this was explained super good!! It makes me so happy as someone in the middle ground that's also religious to see somebody else that's on the middle !
In my experience, scientism is largely (though not exclusively) manifested in two situations: (1) popular science enthusiasts who aren't actually trained in any scientific or philosophical discipline; (2) straw men depicted by the anti-science. Most actual scientists I know display the kind of humility and critical thinking that characterize a truly scientific spirit. As a provocative example, I would say that most social media forums around Richard Dawkins-esque content are thronged by the first type of scientism-ists (as well as anti-sciencers fighting them), but the actual scientists around whom such public discourse centres (Dawkins, Tyson etc.) tend to themselves be conscientious scientific thinkers (not all of them: e.g. Kaku and Hossenfelder are some problematic cases). Nevertheless, these decently scientific thinkers should be held culpable for the dogmatic and tribalistic communities of scientism they engender, and they should try to find a better way of promoting the cause of scientific thinking.
2:03 To add on to this, I'd also like to say that scientific papers (depends on the field but for the most part) are incomprehensible to your average layman. I was reading a review article recently on dyslexia and although the authors tried their best to simplify it, there was still tons of jargon terms like "orthography" and "lateralization", the use of psycholinguistic terms and mechanisms, and the mentioning of very specific brain areas. While I managed to read it fine for the most part as I'm studying psychology and neuroscience in college, your average layman wouldn't understand a huge majority of it unless they started some deep studying. I feel like this would turn off a lot of people from doing "proper research" and reading scientific papers.
trust the expert. well how do i trust that they are an expert? how do i trust they aren't corrupt experts? if people have learned anything in the past few years, its that titles dont equate to honesty and institutions that were once trustworthy are no better than a commercial from the fifties saying _"3 out of 4 doctors prefer camel cigarettes"_
That's how relationships work for good and bad. If you approach every situation with paranoia and fear you are gonna end up in a solitary box, try by engaging with people your family/friends already know, try to be a little skeptic for what other people tell you to be true but accept that you can "fail" or people could "fail" you.
@@jorgeperez2872 yeah but I'm saying some people don't have time to research every expert's opinion. some people just trust the wrong people to tell them who to trust. it's difficult and not like a personal relationship where you can see someone's character
@@Mitchell_is_smart._You2bs_dumb Someone's character has 0 weight on wether or not they are right. And to drive the point further, someone that relies on their character to make a point USUALLY does so because they do not have a factual basis. This goes beyond "i don't know who to trust". If someone has a reputable degree and the other has no studies on the topic, the decision should be obvious. Its not like there's only 1 expert either. The example you provided is not by an expert, it is by a company. And it isn't anything factual, it is just a preference.
@@rompevuevitos222 I was using character as an indicator for a friend or other personal relationship, and I consider how trustworthy someone is as a characteristic. I think we may have our wires crossed or just different definitions for subjective terms.
@@Mitchell_is_smart._You2bs_dumbIf a friend tells me "Ducks can't fly" but i heard from someone that has studies on the topic that they do, i'll believe the one that knows better. At most i may lie to them and say i believe them, but they are not as knowledgeable as a biologist and that's that.
2:00 it's not only paywall. It's a kind of intellectual qualification, like Latin used to be. Nowadays, every science has its own Latin - a set of terms, concepts, techniques - without which you simply will not understand what is being said in that paper behind the paywall. And I haven’t even begun to talk about the fact that many sciences speak the language of mathematics, which few people speak at the proper level. You can watch videos about interpretations of quantum mechanics as much as you want, but that science is not written in English. It's the language of mathematics, in which it will reveal its secrets to you... Translation of the Koran into another language is not the Koran. Quantum mechanics in popular videos without formulas is not quantum mechanics. One poet once said that reading poetry in translation is like taking a shower in a coat. Learn mathematics if you want to really understand the world.
I stopped trusting science when I found out who pays for medical research - the medical industry itself! And there is similar things going on in other fields... There is simply too much money talking for results to be objective. Not to mention the interpretation of results, which can go in whichever direction you want or need it to 🙄
Are you aware how often you used the word „trust“ in this video? Trust is applicable to religion. If used in connection with science, then there is a profound misconception.
I was listening to a Behind the Bastards podcast on the potential perils of AI. They discussed a tech conference in which the only woman of color panelist for the whole event was an academic who researched the downsides of relying on AI. In this, she made the point "Many people may fear skynet as an existential crisis, but to minorities, the existential crisis is AI being used improperly or being poorly trained in a way that discriminates against them, and it's happening now." A spokesperson for Adobe responded by acknowledging her warning, then continuing "but the real danger is not pursuing the development of AI." This interaction came to mind as you read Sam Harris's quote.
Just perused the wikipedia page for that. I didn't realize that concept had a proper name. Really fascinating stuff. I've added that to my ever-growing list of future video ideas. Thanks!
I think there’s a really important debate to be had as to whether or not Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions leads to relativism or not (regardless of what he says later). Additionally, I think a lot of people in the scientism camp REALLY underplay how pervasive political / personal bias is in academic research. Most research has reproducibility issues too. The results of some science is undeniable. It clearly works well when it’s working. But I think it works well much less often than many of us assume it does.
There's a lot of your own scientism in the video regarding the topics you classified as anti-science. Pretty ironic. Even more sad are the rah-rag dunning kruger commenters that don't know the difference.
one thing you didn't talk about science is how it can't really be used to understand the metaphysics. science only applies to the physical world we live in and not the meta physics.
Im gonna leave comment bc i wanna regurgitate something I heard. Science, and science communication are in cahoots with philosophy. Certain discoveries are often difficult to articulate so they need their bestie philosophy to further understand the implications behind the discoveries, and it's relationship with us. Idk science is thinking and thinking is philosophy... they go together and when new research appears one gots to think first. Great video, it gives my brain something to digest as i go along my hee haha day
I can become an expert in most things, at very least to know what is true and what isn't, if not the exact method and details, but the important core, and I believe everyone can, work hard, study, be skeptic, and don't worship any idea, question everything, I think is possible
No, you definitely can not become an “expert in most things”. You can, at best, become an expert in one or maybe two things after many, many years (decades) of study, sleepless nights and experience. I’m sorry, but UA-cam university is not equivalent of REAL university.
@@betaorionis2164 yes, you definitely can become an expert in most things. you can become an expert in most things after not that many years of study, well rested nights and experience. I'm not sorry. there is no youtube university. if that is what you hit me with, that is what you will be hit back, if you want something else, bring that yourself to begin with. also I legit can't stop myself from saying: skill issue
Not sure if it's exactly "scientism", but one thing that specifically annoys me is when people study animal behavior, and use that to justify today's societal norms. As if the way society is structured today is somehow the natural conclusion of evolution, and any other way of structuring society is just "unnatural" because it goes against "human nature". People do this a lot when discussing gender stereotypes for example, and a lot of the time it feels like it's used as a justification for certain gender stereotypes to exist, and an argument against questioning those gender stereotypes. For example "men are natural leaders, and that's why it's natural for most people in powerful positions to be men". (And the worst part is if these gender stereotypes are treated as the most natural behavior for all men or women. Like, "this is how male chimpanzees behave, and that's why it's natural for human males to behave like this, and that's how all men should behave".) But you can also hear similar justifications for capitalism for example. Capitalism is natural because evolution, or whatever. As if the way today's society is structured is the end of history and there are no other possibiities.
An electrician probably knows more about wiring than I do. A chef probably knows more about cooking than I do. A scientist probably knows more about science than I do. Doesn't mean I'm just gonna take their word for it if they say something sketchy.
Problem is that the difference in knowledge between a scientist and you is so colossally huge that your word will be completely pointless. Why the f*** would anyone lose 15 seconds of his life listening to your absolutely uneducated “opinions” on science issues? Why, exactly?
Something that I feel needs to be mentioned is that science does not determine what is the best political policy. To use a timely example, science proved that masking reduces the spread of COVID. Some will say science proved that we "all should wear a mask", which is clearly untrue. Science only said, if you value reducing COVID masks may be a way to do so. There are plenty of hypothetical logical reasons that you could decide not to mask as a society where you could still agree with the conclusions of science. This to me seems like the biggest hallmark of scientism, where someone says "trust the science" even though the science in question can't draw any conclusions about the topic at hand. I'm pro masking btw, I was just using it as an example.
About linguistics: To this day, they don't agree on a paradime. Chomsky is influcencial to this day, sure, but at no point was he unquestioned. I think the model works for "hard science" like physics and other natural sciences much better than for "soft sience" like linguistics and stuff. But otherwise a good video! Well done! I learned a lot! Very important topic for sure.
I’m not adding anything to the philosophical conversation, I just wanted to say I found your UA-cam channel two days ago and I’ve been binging. Great content! I’ve already shared a few videos with my friends and will continue to do so! Keep up the quality content!
The premise of this video itself is a bit poorly presented. Applying the scientific method rigorously means that you are not only allowed to question the status quo, but you are encouraged to. There's no need to carve a middle ground inbetween scientific thinking and anti-scientific thinking, but rather we need to teach people how the scientific method works and where to spot potential flaws in logic, bad actors and other issues that might obfuscate the current state of affairs in the scientific community. If you are someone who praises any and all studies conducted without researching similar and contrarian studies yourself, then you are effectively acting anti-scientifically.
Apart from the fact that 'trust the experts' is an appeal to authority fallacy, we would also need to learn a lot about an expert, to be able to tell if he can be trusted. Just academic credentials, reputation, and especially not position(in institutions) and promotion in the media are reliable factors. Neither is being part of a majority. Imo trusting the experts IS scientism. It's also telling that you use the religious term denial to set up your dogma of 'settled science' as something that should not be questioned. Very unscientific that. 'Settled science' is stagnation. It disincentivizes paradigm shifts. It says a lot that you not only singled out anti-vax and 'climate change denial', denying evolution (all of them formulated as derogatory) and then implicitly put them on the same level als 'flat-earther'. The shape of the earth can be concluded from something as simple as comparing the night's sky from nothern and southern latitudes. The other things mentioned are way more abstract, and are in fact theories. As with all theories, you can find contradictions, omissions and faults. For example, evolution is still just a theory and there have been many criticisms raised, from irreducible complexity, to the extremely low chances of complexity upon complexity that living organisms consist of happening by chance (even if you have way more time available than the age of the universe). Natural selection is also often elevated to god-like status, even though e.g. things like wings would be a detriment to the survival of an animal if it was only developed in part (where it can no longer run well but can not yet fly). With 'climate change denial' you conflate two things: People who doubt measurements (see urban heat island effect), or even our ability to measure the 'average' temperature of our whole planet (or what that would even mean) (see most temperature measuring stations are located on the northern hemisphere). And people who doubt the influence of humans on said climate (which has always been changing) - example would be that no paper that blames humans for climate change takes into account all the ways our sun has on the planet. Vaccines are built on the (unproven) assumption that pathogens cause disease and our bodies fight against these pathogens. A logical framework on how to prove causation for this have existed for a long time, Koch's Postulates. There is no scientific publication that I've seen (and I've looked at a few) that fulfils all of Koch's Postulates using the scientific method (where just the independent variable is changed and nothing else). There are only experiments that just isolate/detect an entity, show correlation (but not causation) or that do animal experiments with unnatural 'infection' routes (injection of foreign organic material) often without control experiments (or ones where you can't tell if they treated the control group differently). Why are many so-called pathogens regularly found in healthy people?(up to the ridiculous notion of 'asymptomatically sick' which is just a blatant contradiction). So my opinion is pathogen causation has not been proven through rigorous scientific means. You surely can see how calling me anti-science for that is ludicrous?
Pathogens don't cause disease? It sounds like you have a masters in anti-vax mental gymnastics. This is the problem with people seeing google as a form of "research". Just reading through this comment tells me you went through study after study with the specific goal of finding verbal stipulations that might be used as bricks to build an anti-peer meta analysis review of sorts. Sure, you can write a book in the comments of a youtube video, doesn't mean people will take your opinion as seriously as the experts who study these things for a living. I'll trust the experts on this one
@@klipk7296 Do you have any high-quality scientific trials you can show that actually show pathogens cause disease? Ones that actually use the scientific method? How about you find some, instead of ad-hominem accusing people of mental gymnastics without showing how something specific requires a leap in logic (if that is even what you mean - do you even know what you mean?). You're trying to "win" an argument by denigrating it, asserting arguing in youtube comments is pointless.. while writing arguments in a youtube comment. You completely missed the point. Nothing I wrote is an opinion, not of me or of anyone else. It's descriptive. It describes how trusting experts is lazy thinking and you give up your freedom and self-determination. This is fine, but if it results in a common belief like contagion it enables totalitarian rule through stuff like vaccine passes. It often leads to witch hunts like in the middle ages. Some 'experts' said so-and-so is a witch, trust us! People didn't ask for evidence and didn't look for it themselves, so innocent people died. This is where you're headed.
@@klipk7296 "Just reading through this comment tells me you went through study after study with the specific goal of finding verbal stipulations that might be used as bricks to build an anti-peer meta analysis review of sorts." Did you just say that certain studies' conclusions are true, even if they contain wrong words or descriptions in their methods section? Do you even know what reproducibility means? Statements like this is textbook scientism.
@richie9327 why don't you show proof of terrain theory's main concepts: pleomorphism and environmental factors/trauma/negative emotions/physical abuse/etc being responsible for "infectious" disease like Ebola and Smallpox? And no, a red blood cell shitting rods isn't proof of pleomorphism. I want hard evidence. Gene sequencing, protein analysis, culture, petri dishes. I want a name of a microbe that originated from a human cell. Same deal with the second concept. Show me RCTs where Terrain Theory was put to the test in human trials or animal models. Show me RCTs where people with abusive family/friends develop Rabies or Lyme disease. Show me animal models where animals were starved and developed symptoms of the Bubonic Plague. Zhang, Yujiang et al. “Transmission efficiency of the plague pathogen (Y. pestis) by the flea, Xenopsylla skrjabini, to mice and great gerbils.” Parasites & vectors vol. 8 256. 1 May. 2015
You know I've always felt like you could probably mathematically figure out morals and ethics but I don't actually know about that because there's a lot of stuff in mathematics that are like unsolvable problems and maybe that's just what morals are
Math itself is incomplete and undecidable, and we don't know it's consistency, so we get a tool that isn't that great to do it. Isn't that math is weak, but the problem is damn hard.
Philosophy makes way more sense than science to me because it deals with abstract concepts. Science is great tool that describes everything, but it can’t explain why there is something rather than nothing in concrete terms, nor can it explain why it is so funny when i see an animal with its tongue out.
I was with you right up to the end. Basic leatherwork is something you can learn over the course of a few days, and if you've worked on modern cars, it's pretty clear the engineers who designed them know very little about mechanics.
@@rompevuevitos222 are you about to argue putting the starter motor under the intake manifold reflects 100 years of automotive developmental excellence? How about having to remove bodywork in order to access a battery jumping point. What are your thoughts on canbus enabled tail lights?
@@highdesertdrew1844 Not everything is about efficiency. There's also integrity, safety, areodynamics and simply looks, all of which manufacturers care about for one reason or the other. Specially the more expensive cars, the owners are not going to fix crap on those or worry about what part is easily accessible. They are going to take it to a mechanic which is going to deal with it instead of them and it will come back to their hand some weeks/months later working just like before as if it was magic. And a couple poor design choices doesn't mean 100 years of regression...
@@rompevuevitos222 Everything is actually about efficiency, every bit of hominid development has been about efficiency. From the length of cutting edge we can extract per kilogram of material, to the number of miles we can drive on a kilowatt of energy, to how many horsepower we can apply to a problem, every development is about efficiency. Everything you said "there's also" about relate to efficiency. The more complex a repair is made, the more time the car will spend in the shop, the more complex simple repairs become the more it taxes other elements of the supply chain. This drop in efficiency may be due to conscious effort on the part of manufacturers to encourage simply purchasing a replacement, rather than repairing an existing example, as in the case of planned obsolescence, or simply because to the manufacturer it is more efficient to turn raw materials into cars they can sell, than to make cars that can have long and useful lives. In which case, we're dealing with a drop in efficiency. There is one other stark possibility. That they are not as competent as they used to be.
I’ve been on this journey too, and I feel like I’ve come upon something special with something called human design, I’ve been lightly experimenting with it in my life and it seems extremely relevant in my life somehow. To me effectivity speaks measure so ive been delving into this, if anyone has insight on this topic and/or wants to discuss that would be dope.
Yeah so essentially the information that I was given in my body graph from human design seems very relevant. I’m wondering if anyone else has experimented with this system before.
I like the video but science is not theoretical fiction. Scientists (who really should be philosophers as well - side note, imo) are not infallible, agreed. The better Scientists are open about their efforts to address their assumptions. But putting individuals aside (the workers as scientists) and looking at science as a concept - science is the description of reality. Which we can get wrong because of things like faulty assumptions, but being a description would put science squarely into the realm of non-fiction. I do recognize there is a fictional element that exists close by and in my opinion that would be when we have a theory of something that is broadly impossible for humans to experience physically in the way we describe it, say mathematically. In these instances we use imagination, poetic license, to help us as individuals to understand a theory and its predictions. I kinda blurted this out quickly on the crapper so sorry if its nonsensical.
I technically don't want either but if I was to be given the ultimatum to choose between the two and having neither was not an option I guess I'd have to go with scientism
I want to make one suggestion regarding scientists trying to disprove their own theories, because there is an easy comeback to this that needs to be addressed. In practice, researchers tend to be biased to their findings. In an ideal world they would be actively trying to disprove their own work. But this simply isn't the case...at least it's no way guaranteed. Researchers are heavily inventiveised to produce evidence complimentary to their findings, firstly for reputational reasons but also in order to secure funding. People's livelihoods are sometimes at stake. So an anti science actor could point to any instance of fudging data and claim that they are right and science can't be trusted. So we should acknowledge the potential conflict of interest. But the reason why science can still be trusted is because professional rivalry is also powerful. The peer review system takes advantage of another interest in the scientific establishment: the need to prove someone wrong and themselves right. That's the difference between the sciences and other industries. The sciences can self regulate by having the systems and infrastructure to pit researchers against each other.
Critisising the institutions that try to monopolise the term science is completely SEPARATE and opposite from being against science.
Its the most scientific thing you can do.
Science is a process not a title.
(Edit) just like a charity getting corrupt and stopping to help people can longer be called a charity, an institution calling itself scientific but being against questioning, examination and trying to silence others in the field who disagree can no longer be called scientific.
@@micromikael4806 what are you asking?
@@micromikael4806 he means title as an positions of power in authority. I.e, titles like Pope which people rever in likewise to a so-called PHD Scientist under Scientism. Such positions of power can be corrupted even in authorities, thus, the idea that science is a process not a title is still a valid point. Its about the evidence one has, not the flashy titles whom can be disproven. And history does have people using scientific methods to challenge the very institutions in power and even debunk psuedoscience, in order to find truth.
Thus we are advocates of Science, not Scientism that is authoritatian or the so call skeptical anti-science psueduoscience flate-earthers altfacts.
It is the process, that is what he means.
@@micromikael4806 If you find value in a title of "science" given to any institution or individual then you are a huge part of the problem dealing with the quasi religious nature of scientism. If you were capable of any introspection, the last three years would have you apologizing right now, not doubling down.
Critisising the companies that are trying to monopolise making cars is separate from being against cars, the question is - would you rather drive a honda or a car that some enthusiast built in their garage?
I comepletely agree that monopolies tend to create unhealthy situations for consumers & workers in the industry, BUT "worse than ideal" doesn't mean bad.
In relation to science that means that even if whoever you are getting at are trying to monopolise science, that doesn't mean research is invalid and scientists across the world are wrong in their assumptions.
Monopolising the term science IS NOT concealing knowlege.
I do not work in the industry & i don't know if journals / organisations / whoever are trying to / already monopolised the term science, BUT it seems to me that science is very hard to monopolise at modern times. Literally millions of people around the world are involved, and nobody is gonna stop a mathematician from proving some theorem and posting it online ( i actually heard a story of some math theorem prooved by an anon on 4chan, which ended up being posted in an article with "anonymos user" as a co-author".
Internet provides communication with almost zero effort, and nowdays knowlege is inherently available for everyone.
What made me write this comment is that is seemed to me that Your rhethoric seemed to me unclear and very "make your own reasearch"-like.
@@chel8568 "nobody is gonna stop a mathematician from proving some theorem and posting it online"
Unless it becomes politically useful to do so.
The entire covvid pandemic was such an ocasion when even medical proffesionals were censored for disagreeing with the narrative
As a scientist with a soft spot for philosophy and the humanities, let me tell you this video is brilliant! I'm bothered by how pervasive scientism seems to be amongst science communicators and how complacent we are with it, if not outright buying into it... Which ultimately fuels the anti-science crowd in my opinion by disconnecting science from any social and historical context. We do science like it was a dogma given by the science gods in a vacuum and without a framework to even understand what we are doing and why, so it's hard for scientists to be self-critical and build bridges. Lack of proper education in history and philosophy of science amongst scientists has a lot to do with it, I think.
Wrote way too much. Great video, subscribed.
Late reply, but I totally agree. It's like the distinction in medical research between statistically significant and clinically significant. Like, sure, maybe you found some obscure correlation, but does that discovery actually benefit anyone in any measurable way? I can't even begin to count how many articles I've read that have statistically significant results with absolutely zero practical applications.
That part about science communicators is weirdly true in my experience with academia. Scientists and industrial engineers had a significantly less poetic view of their work than the journalists, writers and influencers writing vulgarization about their work.
Thanks
Is it possible to name a specific example, or is this a comment backed by religiously motivated reasoning?
@@VaughanMcCuemore philosophy motivated reason because a lot of people (myself included) don’t want to view philosophy as something as outdated as alchemy or astrology
A postdoc in my undergraduate degree once told me that "Science is a useful tool because it has predictive power", and that's stuck with me ever since. From this perspective science can be less about dogmatic theory and more about predictive power, like if an apple falls from a tree does newtonian physics accurately predict the time it'll take and it's velocity? What about in terms of biology, does editing this chemical called DNA cause changes in organisms I'm studying?
I've heard similar aswell. Like there's a reason we do not take relativistic effects into account when designing nearly all and any mechanical structures. It's because a simpler theory (newtonian mechanics) can already explain everything that's far below light speed, which is most of everything. So you use that theory, even though you know it's false because it gives good enough answers. Of course it's not always correct, hell it's not even correct for the situations you apply it to, but it is correct enough to be useful
As a mechanical engineer who has never had to use any relativistic equations, I concur.
@@lazergurka-smerlin6561 It's all approximation and hit and trail in science... Experiments the reason only test if a hypothesis works ...
Engineering is more art and neglecting things by intuition than hard core science... Theoretically many things can't be done or done needs something which doesn't seem pratical but when you open engineering books or ask the engineering professor he says otherwise and proves how neglecting many aspects can actually make those things possible atleast for our use...
i always come back to rewatch this video bc it's very well done. i have a bs in physics and before I went to college I was very into scientism. i gained so much perspective from diving into science beyond pop science, reading real academic journals, interacting with the process of doing robust academic studies, and also getting into philsophy. I truly think scientism is a dangerous ideology and it is quite common and prolific in a lot of tech circles. i am quite concerned with how common it is for these people to reject ways of knowing beyond science. there is so much to learn from different fields and they are all founded on different assumptions and exist in completely different terms.
would you be interested in the topics I talk about then?
While I do believe asking questions about science is perfectly fine what I don't agree with is denying theories without providing an alternative theory with proof. There's been a lot of that happening lately and frankly it's getting ridiculous the amount of armchair scientists popping up by the day all because they feel like experts after reading one science paper.
Edit seems like my comment where I give an example isn't showing so I'll put it here.
One example I have personally experienced is this outdated theory of disease called terrain theory. During my early years in College (before the pandemic) I only heard about it in passing during lectures on the history of microbiology. Then fast forward a few years after the pandemic and suddenly there are a bunch of people crying out that Pastuer was a fraud and Germ theory is a lie. Well I decided to do some digging and I found quite a bit of ludicrous information as well as several people who claimed to be "scientists" or have a strong understanding of diseases and how they work.
Here's a quick rundown of what I found.
1) Terrain theory is an extremely outdated and debunked theory proposed by Antoine Bechamp that claims all infectious diseases from the simple cold to life-threatening Ebola are caused not by pathogens but by toxin build up due to having an extremely unhealthy lifestyle and/or living in a polluted environment. Now the problem here is how can we test it? Answer: we can't. So this theory isn't even a theory. Hell it's not even a hypothesis because to bea hypothesis is to be Falsifiable and terrain theory can't be tested to show one way or another.
2) Bechamp also proposed that the reason we see various microbes at the area of diseased tissue is not because they were the cause but because they are the clean up crew. He then went on further to claim that ALL microbes from bacteria to multicellular parasites like tapeworms are the exact same species which he called the microzyma. The various forms we see are just phases in its lifecycle much like how a caterpillar changes to a butterfly. Now this is obviously false for teo major reasons, the second being set in adamantium. First reason is it goes against genetics, evolution and what we see each time we run a gene sequencing test on any microbe. To be considered part of the same species each organism has to share at least 99%+ DNA with each other. A tapeworm has waaaay more DNA than a bacteria. How did it get that extra DNA? This question leads right into my next reason and the death blow to terrain theory. With no explanation for how it got the extra DNA and matter to form the tapeworm one is lead to believe it just magically appeared. Now this breaks a fundamental law of the universe: matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Since the microzyma fails to follow this fundamental rule it simply doesn't exist.
3) I've tried explaining this to terrain theory supporters and sadly all I got was insults or dyor. Out of 40 discussions only 3 to 4 were productive. The rest broke down as soon as I mentioned these hard questions. Boy the answers were seriously something. A few I got were that DNA doesn't exist at all. Hell one claimed the laws of the universe are fake and that microbes come directly from sugars. How is a molecule of sugar supposed to become a bacteria or tapeworm? Honestly it's astounding the lengths people will go to support their theories and yet they claim they're experts in the field of microbiology and that all scientists are shills.
That sounds interesting.
Can you give an example?
@@plantae420 sure. One example I have personally experienced is this outdated theory of disease called terrain theory. During my early years in College (before the pandemic) I only heard about it in passing during lectures on the history of microbiology. Then fast forward a few years after the pandemic and suddenly there are a bunch of people crying out that Pastuer was a fraud and Germ theory is a lie. Well I decided to do some digging and I found quite a bit of ludicrous information as well as several people who claimed to be "scientists" or have a strong understanding of diseases and how they work.
Here's a quick rundown of what I found.
1) Terrain theory is an extremely outdated and debunked theory proposed by Antoine Bechamp that claims all infectious diseases from the simple cold to life-threatening Ebola are caused not by pathogens but by toxin build up due to having an extremely unhealthy lifestyle and/or living in a polluted environment. Now the problem here is how can we test it? Answer: we can't. So this theory isn't even a theory. Hell it's not even a hypothesis because to bea hypothesis is to be Falsifiable and terrain theory can't be tested to show one way or another.
2) Bechamp also proposed that the reason we see various microbes at the area of diseased tissue is not because they were the cause but because they are the clean up crew. He then went on further to claim that ALL microbes from bacteria to multicellular parasites like tapeworms are the exact same species which he called the microzyma. The various forms we see are just phases in its lifecycle much like how a caterpillar changes to a butterfly. Now this is obviously false for teo major reasons, the second being set in adamantium. First reason is it goes against genetics, evolution and what we see each time we run a gene sequencing test on any microbe. To be considered part of the same species each organism has to share at least 99%+ DNA with each other. A tapeworm has waaaay more DNA than a bacteria. How did it get that extra DNA? This question leads right into my next reason and the death blow to terrain theory. With no explanation for how it got the extra DNA and matter to form the tapeworm one is lead to believe it just magically appeared. Now this breaks a fundamental law of thermodynamics: matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Since the microzyma fails to follow this fundamental rule it simply doesn't exist.
3) I've tried explaining this to terrain theory supporters and sadly all I got was insults or dyor. Our of 40 discussions only 3 to 4 were productive. The rest broke down as soon as I mentioned these hard questions. Boy the answers were seriously something. A few I got were that DNA doesn't exist at all. Hell one claimed the laws of thermodynamics are fake and that microbes come directly from sugars. How is a molecule of sugar supposed to become a bacteria or tapeworm? Honestly it's astounding the lengths people will go to support their theories and yet they claim they're experts in the field of microbiology and that all scientists are shills.
I’d say don’t argue with idiots, they’l always continue to exist in some proportion and you’l very rarely change their minds. Even if they do, the fact that they believed such incredible things usually indicates they’l do the same in the future, or are currently holding some ludicrous and harmful claims already.
I feel also that antiscience is just a rejection of modernity and a sort of calling to the wild cave men days, when everything was simple and understandable, and mysticism made people feel good because they could belong to a group with incredibly cool and powerful ideas (that didn’t have to be true).
Also people believe in things that give them a sense of power and control (ie. People hate the idea of them being stupid, and not understanding something) so they cling to ideas about the world that are ”tailored” to their level of understanding.
Also also people who are into these kind of things are either people who are easily fooled and manipulated ie. The kinds of people cults love, or people who have a deep sense of rebelling against the world. Either way both groups are doomed, and theres nothing you can do to save them from their ignorance, so my solution is to FORGET THEIR EXISTANCE AND LIVE MY OWN LIFE
@@runawaytohide.com_watistisname while you make fair points one can just as easily argue that there is merit in arguing these idiots. All it takes is a bit of doubt for them to reconsider. Obviously the vast majority won't reconsider but one is better than none. One of those positive debates actually lead to a staunch supporter reconsidering or at least admitting that terrain theory has far more gaping flaws than germ theory especially when I pointed out the differences in DNA and overall size between various microbes and how it's just not possible that the microzyma exists when it clearly breaks these rules with no explanation. And that's usually what it takes. Point out an indisputable unanswerable flaw and most supporters lose their resolve. Of course I've debated quite a few that deny the existence of DNA and there are a few that deny the fundamental laws of the universe. Those ones I argue to help show the other less fanatical supporters that "hey is it really smart to support a theory that denies basic reality?" But again I completely see and understand your point and if it were any other antiscience like flat earth or the moin landing I would totally ignore it. But terrain theory poses a genuine threat to society.
@@sithwolf8017 you’re right, the misinformation about how contagious diseases work is harmful and possibly deadly. The funny thing is if people believe foul air is a problem and they use masks, they’l accidently shield themselves from harmful particles and reduce the spread of diseases inadvertently. So i guess it’s better they believe in this rather than the blood letting practice of the medieval era.
"Trusting the Science" is the least scientific thing you can do.
I disagree mr soyjack. I think there must ultimately be some trust in the authenticity of institutions.
Institutions can’t really be treated like scientific theories where failures to perform as expected means the whole must be discarded. Rather institutions are expected to self-correct failures to maintain their authenticity.
Institutions are successful when their failures are addressed and resolved.
@@wirelessbluestone5983 of all the dumb fucks I have ever met, you are easily and by far the dumbest.
@@wirelessbluestone5983Science is now a cult where any ''scientist'' can literally make up anything as long as the rest follow suit. Odd how no other vaccines require multiple shots in order to be effective ? But as long as they keep it making BILLIONS I guess it doesn't matter right ? 🐑🐑🐑🐑
I think also, (hopefully in the spirit of the video), that science doesn’t say much about what you should do, and so it doesn’t say much about if you should trust in science or not
@@ToriKo_ Science is a method of understanding the material word through study and experimentation, it is not a belief system, although it has become one to most modern Western Liberals.
The scientific method requires open-mindedness, repeatability, falsifiability and essentially a willingness to accept and digest new and contradictory information, it is incompatible with dogma.
"Trusting the science" is literally an act of faith and is why I said this is inherently unscientific.
Science is a tool. Not a God, not a fraud. A tool. Use it as you'd use a tool.
Perfect summary.
Such a well constructed and explained video in an almost academic manner! Keep up this content, I love it!
Thanks King
Wow this was a really great video. After reading the comments it’s weird that it seems like half of them are missing the point. You presented a intro to the philosophy of science, relevance of philosophy, and some relevant surrounding cultural context, and it was very well articulated, paced, and not dry etc. Good job
Recognizing that you are ignoring facts is the first step to wisdom
Not at all it’s the first step towards insanity
@@somerandomdude827 insanity is the doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result you know like taking 3- 4 vaccines and expecting a difference from the 1th shot lmao.
@@chuggynation8275 LMAO you now nothing about vaccines the later ones where proven to have been more effective
The only facts you can ignore are the ones you don't know but if you ignore some of the ones you know you're an intellectual criminal.
Ah yes absolute pseudo woke nonsense
Honestly, you're a breath of fresh air. Really well thought and natural. I hope you don't let go of the simplicity and fluidity you presented in this video upon your future work. By all means, do what you need to do in order to get recognition, hopefully, with time, you will build a solid ground for a community in which the dialectic process is endless. Appreciate your work.
The problem is that in most cases science or anti-science is used for political reasons irrespective of what the science actually says. Take climate change for example. On the anti-science side you have people who support coal, oil and gas, and disregard inconvenient truths like climate change, both domestically and internationally. Their position on a factual statement is determined by their preexisting political opinions and life situation. On the other side you have people like Greta Thunberg, who are correct in telling people that climate change is real and serious, but oppose the best way of massively reducing emissions whilst being able to maintain industrial society, nuclear power. This is because she's an environmentalist first, before she actually tries to find solutions to the problem of climate change, and the environmentalist dogma says nuclear power bad, because they couldn't distinguish between bomb smoke and water vapor in the 60's and 70's, and treat nuclear fission as dark magic that needs to be destroyed.
People dislike nuclear power because of the waste. Which literally poisons the earth and everything near it.
The issue is that people don't seem to understand how relatively small that waste is in comparison and expect a perfect solution where the waste just turns into rainbows or some crap.
But most of the time the people at fault are dodgy politicians trying to defend the oil industries and spreading misinformation (i still can't get over that one person that said that solar panels would drain all of the sun's heat...)
The problem is indeed the politization of science. And we can see it in your comment too. The whether is described as a "settled science", which is an oxymoron in itself, moreover if you study previous predictions, none of them came true. But this time its most definitely will come true... because they really mean it, just like for decades prior.
Greta Thunberg is not a new phenomenon. In 90's there was Severn Cullis-Suzuki. But this time it was way more brazen. Greta was presented as a random child caring about the planet, starting a grassroots movement. But reality is, she's daughter of millionaires with close relations to Swedish media. The media was there on the very first day she skipped school, why?
Then of course come other famous activists, who prophesize the Armageddon, but for some reason act as if it's all made up. It's the millionaire weather activists flying a private jet across the world to receive a weather award. Seriously, why people, whose carbon footprint is at least 100 times larger than mine lecture me about reducing CO2 emissions? Then we get Greta, who sailed a million dollar carbon fiber sailboat with professional crew to America to tell the UN how ruined her childhood is. How cool of her, too bad we can't afford that kind of trip... oh and the crew had to flown back to Europe and another was flown in, turns out if she took a plane, like normal people, the rip would pollute way less. Better yet, why not telecommute?
Lastly, how do you prove or disprove anything in whether science? You can't run experiments. All you really have is correlation, and when the model fails again, you just adjust it again and pretend you were right all along. The worst part with this fixation on whether, we forget about more pressing ecological matters, like toxic pollution.
But if you point out this type of convenient lie to make people act in desired way over complicated truth that isn't as clear cut as politicians and activist want you to think, will label you anti-science. Scientism has become a religion, you can no longer doubt any of it without being labeled a heretic. Oh, and whatever you do, never google "replication crisis". Spoiler, vast majority of studies were never replicated, when tried most of them lead to conflicting results.
And the previous comment is great example of it, if I use correct word for long term "whether" patterns, it gets censored.
Great Thunberg is pro-nuclear energy. She's not an environmentalist. She never hasbeen.
It's funny that you have to lie about one side to balance the scales.
oh lol, the irony, of course climate change believers would never do anything like that would they?
Can you honestly say you've looked into "climate change" objectively from all sides and understand the subject matter?
you know there are for more, and far more credible, scientists say it's nonsense than agree right?
you will find those claiming that man's 3% of Co2 emissions is causing climate change amount to a tiny group of about a dozen who have proven themselves to be acting unscientifically.
Someone else has commented here that the usefulness of science is in it's predictive power, so far all the predictions of the climate fear mongers have failed to materialise.
Very well said. I've been seeing 'scientism' becoming more and more prevalent online but didn't have the words to describe it.
Online, like church, isn't the best place to determine fact from fiction.
@@VaughanMcCue oh definitely and I wasn't trying to insinuate that! What I was referring to more was people saying 'science says x' even though it may be a misconception, oversimplification or a myth.
@@bridesheaddeserted
Excellent point.
It is most likely an underinformed person trying to persuade themselves or others that the benefits of whatever they rationalise to justify a behaviour.
Science says a glass of wine at night is good for heart health. I bought a reasonable-sized aquarium (glass, of course) and have a small hose siphoning wine to me.
I only have one glass each night because that is what science says.
Thanks for clarifying your position..🍷
In addition. I am a scientisimist for almost everything and make exceptions for savants and various prodigies.
@@VaughanMcCueso even politics? If that’s the case are you an advocate for technocracy?
You know I'm something of a scientist myself
But I will never believe in the 8+ grains a day on the food pyramid
5 is a nice round number that fits well into the 3-meal model. One of the meals has two, the other two have one. Plus the overall additions like snacks.
Grains lmao
30 kinds of roughage a week is the Stat I’ve heard for good gut health
Nutrition is strange. Some people can drink a lot of soda and not be affected too much, and others can drink a lot of it and it messes them up.
Personally I met in my life many people, that were anti-science before they started using internet, but they talked about their beliefs only in private conversations. In my opinion the Internet just blurred the line between private conversation and publishing. Not many people want to spent time writing books or articles, but writing comments in the Internet is more like casual conversation. Casual conversation is volatile, but internet comments can be screnshoted and showed eternally.
I really enjoyed this video, but I have one question? How do we avoid ethos or the logical fallacy of argument from authority during discussions since we don't live in a society where everyone can become a renaissance man and be knowledgeable in every field due to the sheer amount of knowledge we have accumulated as a society? Is this something that as a society we have to concede by trusting people's research/opinions from their respected fields and move on from there such as trusting scientists for their research and religious leaders for morals?
Its inevitable as long as you have extended amount of knowledge in fields that are specific and categorized. What you need when human knowledge is too wide is have multiple but specialized humans. The problem nowadays is that those fields of knowledge were not well gatekept and a bunch of idiots and people simply not intelligent enough to be productive or just neutral, and are actually misinforming and destroying centuries of research with no penalty or rectification. What is needed here is reliable people that can think enough for themselves to question narratives, neurotic enough to know when something is wrong and work hard to correct it, and smart enough to master elements of knowledge to do all the above without being absolutely demotivated, burnt out, depressed etc.
Ideologies are ideologies because they have wrong elements to them that make them not real, its pretty much a delusion, a web of information not properly tied to reality. People that are not smart, neurotic and independant enough will ALWAYS fall for ideologies and will very probably transmit it for generations (personality traits inheritance, therefore any somewhat similar ideology will "fit the slot"). You can only trust trustworthy people.
@@Bowcaster67 that sounds like a (for a lack of a better word) double standard or special pleading to me. What if the authority on the area has certain biases (e.g. a biochemist that believes that a god designed all lifes is talking about biochemistry)?
scepticism, not trust. question everything and if the explenation doesn't seem to make sense logically or is lacking argumentaticely, you don't have to accept it. read the research, don't trust it. moral judgements are derived from sentiment not reason.
theres no need to have comprehensive knowledge in every field, most of that knowledge is completely inconsequential for our daily lives.
Argument from authority is only a logical fallacy when you're appealing to somebody who isn't demonstrably an authority on the given topic.
Cite the authorities research and not their conclusion.
Science is a process, not a list of facts. Like all processes, it is flawed and can be improved on.
And isn't immune to political corruption.
@@Michael_the_DrunkardAnd methaphysical missteps, along with epistemological dogmatism
"I'd rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned."
- Richard Feynman -
I find it interesting when people say they only believe in what can be scientifically proven when science itself sits on a foundation of principles that can not be proven scientifically. For example, the laws of logic can not be proven scientifically, yet science requires logic to function.
Well, they have shown to be repeatable true (as in, they give the expected results every time). So that's the scientific method at work.
@@rompevuevitos222 yes, the definition of science has been changed over time to encompass so many things which is partly responsible for the rise of scientism. However, the belief that someone should believe in what is testable can not itself be tested. The list goes on.
@@PaulRezaeiI don't remember anything saying what you should believe in. But science has given the most consistent results than any other approach.
That doesn't mean you should stick with science alone, for example, we don't need science to know about others feelings, that's when we trust on empathy instead of science.
I'm always happy to find people who understand and teach that science is a method, not a collection of fact. It's not an authority for its own sake, but because of the rigorous methodology and willingness to change with new evidence.
One thing that I worry about is a different twist on both coming together in a way. From multiple of the professors I became friends with, as well as current university staff that have come out with their shared concerns abroad, and touched on by people like Jonathan Haidt, there's a growing concern about an almost "anti-science-scientism" that's driven by those with a narrative who, rather than being simply critical of older publications and methods and retesting them, hold resentment for them and may even reject some outright. Often driven by some sort of ideological beliefs, some have started to only do research into topics they believe are 'virtuous', and through methods that they approve of, seeking to prove their conclusions true rather than simply reject the null hypothesis. They start with the conclusion as a given and look to prove why, and not finding the result they wanted means the experiment was a failure. They want the authority of science without the chance of being wrong. (As an aside, in the final year of my undergrad, I actually had to get an exemption from a research participation requirement due to my inability to participate, since all the research projects that year were focused on such a narrow demographic that I didn't qualify for any of them.) It kind of reminds me of when there was worry about studying "love" because of the fear that a mechanical answer could lessen the emotion, though with that, it happened anyway and those fears were shown to be unfounded. Sadly, even some of the profs I know personally have mentioned that they no longer discuss some research or history due to both a fear of losing their position and because some of their more recent students have become aggressive, even shouting them down and hijacking their class to preach their views and activism. This isn't to say it's a majority or anything, just that it's become a concern for the future trustworthiness of institutions and the research they produce.
I think in most cases, people who allegedly distrust science actually distrust the motives of those funding the science, or of those who use science to push an agenda. For example, those who tell "climate deniers" they should shut up because they're not climate scientists are usually not climate scientists themselves. Trying to suppress debate is a political tactic, not a scientific one.
I've literally never seen anyone tell a climate change denier being told to shut up but I have seen them lie about existing facts over and over again.
Everyone is welcome to prove climate science wrong or erroneous about a particular theory or investigation and some have done so but never has it been a climate change denier.
It's because they don't go the route of science. Their goal is to sow distrust through rhetoric and misinformation.
science isn't anti religion, but rather something completely separate from religion. however, like water and oil, science and religion often times don't mix very well. that's because science consensus is built upon the most fundamental assumptions in order to accurately predict how the universe works. in the context of science, your belief in how something works is positively correlated with how much supporting evidence there is, and negatively correlated with how much contradictory evidence there is. ultimately, something that is recognized currently as true in science can be disproven by new evidence and the theories can be subsequently adjusted and refined, over and over.
while on the other hand, religion is about believing in something that doesn't have concrete support for. you can't prove or disprove anything in religion because religion is based on faith. There is no scientific process in religion to rectify and adjust beliefs. person A can believe in X and person B can believe can believe in Y and nobody can disprove anyone. you can see this most evidently online when most religious arguments devolve into "he said" "she said" moments revolving around circular logic or assumptions that not everybody can agree upon to be true.
for many religous people, as science uncovers more and more, religion becomes less and less of an explanation for why the world is the way it is. in this way, it can be viewed that science is anti-religion. because as science becomes more developed, there becomes less and less reason to use religion as a way to describe the world as we see it. as a simple example, before we discovered lightning during thunderstorms as electrical discharges attributed to nature, it was interpreted as god's wrath. however, as we learned that it was just a natural phenomenon that happens regardless of whether you worshiped the gods that week or not, people no longer attributed what they saw to god/religion. and just like that, the culture of religion gets eroded away by science, little by little.
it is no coincidence that the rise of science and rise of secularism coincided with each other. as more scientific discoveries become made, there will be evidently fewer and fewer people who are religious
The rise of scientism and secularism coincided with each other. Studying chemistry had the opposite effect on me.
@@adsffdaaf4170 Mathematics made me more religious in that I believe there is an intent behind nature and it's not just random things that happen to exist.
wait, help me a moment, I love philosophy, but science, too, what should i believe?
Both done with the correct skepticism can propel our understading of the world. Aristotle in a way gave us our basis for the scientific method.
Loving something and using it are very different things.
Science can only address the cold hard facts, and sometimes it may fail due to lacking data.
While philosophy can include the human factor among other things that science does not usually care about. But relying solely on it will lead to making nonfactual assertions.
Pure science is thinking like a machine, while philosphy is more broad than that. Using both is very much possible.
Believe only what can be repeatedly demonstrated to be so in your direct experience.
All else is hearsay.
@@axeman2638 so we should deny the existence of the four fundamental forces?
@@sithwolf8017 Can they be demonstrated to exist by repeated practical experiment that confirms prediction?
0:26 science is meant to be questioned and improved upon, thats what makes it science, because that way it can progressed, otherwise we'd still be thinking that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones
20 years as a bio-lab director for non-STEM students here (Temple University Japan), but with most of my career, graduate degree, and research in applied linguistics - this is GREAT! Listened twice now, and will listen again. Two of my early influences were highlighted, Popper and Kuhn, and this if the first time I have heard a compare/contrast of the two. The summarizing of Kuhn was particularly good.
JMHO, but Kuhn emphasized the social dynamics of collaborative problem solving processes, and Popper is mostly known for the nuts and bolts of objective ideals through pushing for falsification. I call objectivity an 'ideal' because I don't believe that Cartesian duality is best thought of as insight into fundamental reality, but rather an ideal to weed out potentially mistaken personal biases. One of my assumptions here is that it is not just paradigms which are provisional, I draw on the likes of Wittgenstein and Gödel (and other sources including many sources outside STEM fields) and believe in the strong version of the Whorf Sapir hypothesis ... that anything that can be expressed in language or logic is necessarily provisional and parochial (limited to those sharing a 'culture').
I like the way you deconstruct the likes of Sam Harris. I would put many popularizers of science in the same camp ... Yuval Harrari leading the pack, but including Jordon Peterson (Lobster behavior as a justification for hierarchical organization among humans?), Steven 'Pangloss' Pinker, and the Discovery Channel regulars.
One point that could use some expansion and integration is in reconciling that great Einstein quote at about 5:09 "Science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking." with the ending of this video to "trust the experts". To some degree, yes, this is necessary in large scale society, but not to the degree of relinquishing critical thinking skills to trusting experts who are blinded to their weaknesses by success in a narrower domain. This is precisely what the likes of Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson are doing.
But more dangerously, what those using institutions to hide or manipulate self-serving intentions ... such as leaders of national governments, WHO, FDA, CDC, WEF ... and various corporations or academic institutions. Those in charge of using the fruits of idealistic scientists are probably more 'clever-intelligent' than the ave average person, but are usually not themselves idealists. Rather, they tend to be ideologues and/or high in cluster B personality disorders (dark-triads). The well documented behaviorist 'nudge units' employed by the British government to herd populations are a good example (Laura Dodsworth ... "A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic").
Here, I think Popper, through another book ... "The Open Society and its Enemies" ... would agree with Kuhn about the danger of trusting credentialed-authoritative experts to make decisions affecting billions, and I think the two would probably be back-to-back in agreement regarding the lock-step responses to the plandemic / reducing carbon-footprints ... and the future responses now being planned.
Will probably come back to this again.
And again, well done. Bravo!
There no "middle path". It's just science while knowing it's limitations and what it actually does.
Scientism is tied to technology, which Sagan is correct when he said that sufficiently advanced science is akin to magic.
The advances in technology from the beginning of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st has brought about such huge amounts of innovation, that people tend to think science is the be all/end all and it shall discover all answers.
It's not. It's a matter of explanations that are shown to work via experiences in doing things and seeing what happens. It's purely materialistic and purely about discovering the mechanics of the physical world.
That's it. Nothing more.
Anti-science beliefs and distrust of science comes from a lot of the unintended consequences of our technology, and the fact that nothing is truly certain.
Anti-scientism comes from having a lot of different experiences (results) or different explanations (hypotheses), and how quickly "facts" can change based on new observations. It comes from how you can't prove everything yourself anymore. The body of work and experiences that makes up science is greater than anyone can test and verify in their lifetime. A lot of it DOES get taken on by faith simply by necessity.
Furthermore, even if the process of science is all good, the people that do the science are still people and can lie or be bribed or just make mistakes.
Those things fuel the justifications in non-science.
But still science isn't about believing. It's about what seemingly works when applied to describe the mechanics of the physical world.
Yes, and I have been saying this for years and suggest you pass the message: the problem is and always be dumb brains, it comes down to someone being capable of enough reasoning, abstraction, rigor, independant thought and sensitivity to error, aka creativity, IQ and neuroticism. People that are not capable of functioning without ideologies because of these lacks, will be incapable of "doing science". No matter the education.
Words words and more words and there's no argument to why we should base everything on science.
As someone who really likes science, but questions a lot about it, I thought this was a really good video explaining why both anti science/science denialism and scientism (almost confused it with scientology) are both two extremes that are just wrong. Science isn’t necessarily absolute truth, it’s not a one and done process. It’s about repeated results, it’s about consistently getting better and clearer results. If you ask me, science is a form of truth or one truth out of many, but it’s not the only one.
This video is just flat out great. The points you make are very precise and I am happy you critique both camps. People in the anti-science camp often argue that they, or people more broadly, are naturally inclined to find the truth. But this isn't true. Being aware of your biases, instead of flat out denying them, is the first step to gaining a good understanding of things. It's also the reason why peer review exists. We have to acknowledge -- and then come up with systems to save ourselves from -- our biases, instead of pretending we're above it. Likewise, the scientism camp claims that philosophy has gotten irrelevant. I'm sorry, but how do you design a study without philosophy again? Before empiricism we must understand what is right and what ought to be done. This same mistake is responsible for the wave of scientific racism in the early 20th century. Let's avoid it please.
I think "scientific positions of power" being politically corrupted or just generally degenerate is part of what started the process of questioning the experts. Like food advisors for the Canadian government suggesting that sugary cereal is better for you than beef
You might be interested in the Epistemological Anarchism of Paul Feyerabend, specifically his book Against Method. I've only heard about it from Luke Smith's podcast Not Related and haven't actually read the book but it's an interesting system. Cool vid though.
Empiricism vs scholasticism is what you touched on in addressing scientism.
Please do a video on eastern philosophies like the Dharmic faiths or east asian teachings. It's a largely unreported and underrepresented part of philosophy that gets left out.
Reason and evidence can sometimes lead us the wrong way but it's far more reliable than conclusions made without reason and without evidence. This statement doesn't seem controversial to me. Yet there are people who believe the most gob-smacking stupid things. The more stupid the idea the more they are willing to die rather than entertain a contradictory idea. Most disturbing, these are not a few weirdos living in cabins in the wilderness. It seems to me that most people have some beliefs that defy elementary logic. This scares me. Is this the way humans are? If so, what beliefs do I have that are profoundly stupid - I wouldn't know, I think my beliefs are all reasonable.
I think such is a coping mechanism for people who are so discontent or bored with their own lives that they have absolutely nothing else to do. And believing in the most absurd things only to scream about them loudly for everyone to hear is their way of making themselves feel better as it draws attention towards them. It's not that they seem to care about the contradictions they said, but as long as regular people pay them enough attention, it's good enough for them.
@@zzz66688 That is a very comforting idea. If they don't really believe what they are saying then when it comes to making an important decision they will do what is reasonable.
I fear tribalism has forced crazy ideas to be obeyed without question. Where can this lead us? Look at the past. But then there were no nuclear weapons and no climate change to worry about. Some of our decisions today have dire consequences if we fail to act rationally.
To add a bit to the list of reasons and heuristics that might inform a fundamentally critical view of the scientific/academic insitution:
Concerning trusting "experts" I think there are two big reasons you didn't mention in your introduction, namely 1. that the status of "expert", which is hard to define and impossible to verify without first establishing such a definition, has been used very excessively as a marketing/manipulation tool and 2. even the "real" experts who used to be given a massive benefit of the doubt - often practically to the point of deification - are now losing this popular trust because as more people get at least a passing impression of how science is conducted (ie that it is carried out by normal people with their own emotions and biases) and maybe also catch wind of some often very disturbing controversies from within certain academic fields, they of course become less willing to trust that institution unconditionally than if it just remained in their mind as that vague abstraction of pure reason and logic it might have been before.
Another issue is that fostering a culture that is to the fundamentally trusting of "le science" is very much a package deal in many ways and if you really think about the consequences of that, it should for many (ofc including myself) look like there is a whole lot more to lose than there is to gain in that.
Not wanting to get vaccinated is probably not bringing back tuberculosis and cholera in the next few years, but on the other hand there are a lot of ways recent scientific advancements become ever more intrucive and lend themselves much easier to manipulation and tyranny on different levels.
There are the obvious "scifi-ish" examples like easily hijackable "security" systems, all-encompassing surveillance, non-consensual biological modification, falsified histories or evidence produced by AI and as far as concrete horror scenarios go, those are just the salient trend issues... But the question of how plausible any of those are aside, I doubt these are really the main factor for most normal people to begin with; what people are more worried about is the immense power a political position - even an incredibly unpopular one - can invest itself with if it is just "based in science", be that true or not.
And deliberate manipulation isn't even the only issue with that either, since even well-meaning and well-informed scientists would just by virtue of having a very tunnel-vision-ed generally be disastrously bad policy makers. Yet still many people don't only believe that it's sensible but even imperative for politicians to be directly influenced by one or another field of "the science", right past any other sort of legitimisation - democratic or otherwise. Which is not to even mention, that taking even more authority out of the hands of real human beans(tm) only to transfer it to another soulless socio-mechanical moment at a junction between institutions would only serve to perpetuate a development that I think many are feeling at least a little bit uncomfortable with, even if most people don't keep it at the forefront of their minds in clear terms all the time.
Having understood that, it's also important to consider that with these things it is near impossible to revert any legal precedent once it is established, and I think the whole Corona affair (yes ik, scawy and controversial) is the single best example to illustrate there are some people (God knows who, I'm not gonna try specifying cuz it's beside the point) who are trying to employ salami tactics in order to establish this precedent cuz they already tried to pull these wannabe-Caesar moves over the bird and swine flu before - don't know if everyone just magically forgot about that, but I don't remember the streets being lined with bodies when no one cared about vaccines and safety regulations back then... If it was already somehow acceptable to ruin reputations and livelihoods and essentially steal ungodly amounts of personal and professional time from the general populace only for it all to be memoryholed over night this time, who's to say how it's gonna turn out when they do it again five years from now?
So all things considered - especially when these reasons start piling up over time - I'm not really surprised people start viewing this issue as an existential problem. I like to think myself a reasonable enough kinda person and I really don't *want* to be "against science" (much the opposite, really), but especially in recent years I'm not feeling too fond of the academy to say the least.
Hey if I wasn't subscribed to you already I would be after your line around the six minute mark about changing people's minds. In my experience, having a conversation with the goal of getting someone to reconsider their position is almost always worthless. Your best hope is to ask the sort of question you cited, "What would it take to change your mind?" Another question I ask that sometimes can be more sneaky is, "If you found out that wasn't true how would that affect your beliefs?" I first learned about this approach to discourse via the street epistemology hobbyists. There's a lot more I want to say, but we'll leave it there. Thanks for your work!
It occurs to me that most scientists I know, and read, aren't supporters of scientism. Great video, made me think.
Science should not be denied, and it shouldn't be worshipped.
But we should appreciate the process of science/the scientific method. The institution of "Science" has decimated it's trust among people, and deserve the ridicule and rejection.
The silliness of many forms of science denial is because we are in a transitory period. Although what denial of the scientific consensus is "silly" is up for debate, I for instance deny the more apocalyptic, anthropogenic claims of climate change due to it's repeated failed doomsday predictions and obvious alignment with agendas, but not climate change in general because it's stupid to think the climate is static, and it's stupid to think our civilization has no effect. However, knowing how much higher CO2 has been in the distant past, even in eras known for flourishing plant life, it is also silly to think the effect we can have in a century will cause some unlivable apocalypse.
We know the old, rigidly controlled, government-corporate-intertwined, grant-based Institution of "The Science" is dying, but we haven't fully established a reliable alternative yet. I suspect it will be something approaching a crowd-sourced apparatus.
The other caveat is science tells us the "how" mechanics of the material, natural world. It cannot tell us "why's". And it seems to fail in areas beyond matter, like consciousness. That is where religion has a proper place. Religion vs Science is a false dialectic born from "The Enlightenment" people are finally beginning to see past.
I have actually seen people say that replicability is not a part of the scientific method when those scandals with sociology (in general), Alzheimer's research and some types of psychiatric medications were making the rounds last year, which is bordering on cultishness.
My take is that science in the end is just a form of philosophy, in which a wall of text/logic hides all the aethetical and ethical notions that would make an otherwise logically constructed system of thought vulnerable to anomalies.
Philosophy has often the same problem.
I like to call these notions axioms. They are sometimes unconscious and therefore meta-paradigms. If I analyse any system of thought I search for the axiom and do not care about the intricate matter. Scientists spend their time underpining a dominant paradigmn.
Philosophy can reach a bit "higher" than normal science, because it can become a meta-science, that theorizes axioms instead of paradigms, but philosophy needs the help of history, psychology and linguistics to do that.
Unlike Kuhn, who thought that a change in paradigms could be relatively easy, I am more sceptical, because certain politics may build on science and therefore would become outdated if a paradigm shift would be successive. Some educational and scholarly systems might therefore impede a scientific revolution for the sake of wealth and influence.
Agree with everything other than conclusion. “Trusting the experts” because it is simply more convenient and available in modern society is a cop out. An argument from authority is not good enough. Just because someone has a PhD in their name doesn’t mean they are right.
“Rejecting everything modern society has given to us,” is a bad way to make an argument for experts. FDA, the experts, used to allow and promote opioids for minor injuries, and still allows glyphosate, which is a known carcinogenic pesticide, to be sprayed on food. Modern ≠Best available.
FDA is literally the so called expert in its field
Unless you have the time and money to repeat all experiments that grounds the scientific knowledge of all disciplines... and the prior knowledge to be able to interpret the data... you have to have some trust in scientists that studied and worked on it for years.
It's very dangerous to think a unexpert opinion has the same vality that the opinion of a PhD in the pertinent area. A few google searches doesn't have more weight than a PhD.
@Espadasilenciosa it doesn't matter if they are an expert if they think 2 plus 2 is not 4 which is a real thing.
@@Acoustic_player2024 The question is, what happens if it were you who was super-confident that 2+2 isn't 4 and rejects the experts that say otherwise because the idea "2+2=4" sounds absurd for you.
Its quite refreshing to hear my current position told to me in a well-structured and concise video by a random channel I found on my recommendation, u got yourself a new subscriber my g
As an ideological background, Scientism is both very practical and very volatile. We assume that object truth is possible with use of faith, form paradigms based on the assumed object truth, and then deny faith with use of faith in deductive reasoning. As a Pragmatist, if a religion causes us to be consistently planting good crops and distributing those crops fairly then it's good relative to the goal of survival of the populace. The way I see it all good is relative to practicality for achieving an objective, where achieving some objectives is practical for achieving other objectives and achieving seemingly any objective is going to be impractical for achieving some other objectives. Intrinsic good could potentially be derived from practicality for achieving the ends of an infinitely wise higher power - assuming we have a perfectly translated understanding of those objectives and are infinitely efficient in achieving those objectives. Assumptions are required. Say, for instance, with Scientism's higher powers of Objectivity and/or Truth where all that is assumed to be in line with their intentions is either object or true it requires there first be an assumption of Objectivity and/or Truth and then an assumption required to see anything as either object or true. Einstein subscribed to a higher power inspired by the ideas of Spinoza which is the higher power he mentions in his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe." (How many instances of 2 exist within this metric?)
Thank you for this. As a scientist, I find both frustrating in different ways.
Criticizing science is science
But lying and misinformation are not
DNA doesn't contain information that affect behaviors, maybe correct that, as it's part of your basic example of what can be taken for "granted".
i think peer review is very useful in spotting subtle errors that have been made in methodology or analysis, but the way it is invoked in public debate seems to be a bizarre democratisation of science, it's invoked as if whatever theory has the most number of scientists who believe it is "more correct". public perception of science is basically viewed the same way as an election
im not familiar with philosophical terms so not sure the best way to describe what i mean, but i hope it's understandable
we actually still use leeches in some cases, as it turns out we still don't have better short-term solutions in certain situations
Who’s antiscience? I know of people being antscientism but that’s more so saying that it’s ok to question what’s in science and history books. And that has to do with us being able to yes, so our own research or searching out scientist or historians who aren’t bought by Big Science.
Maybe the loss of trust is due to the experts lying? And also science should always be questioned by its very nature
Which experts have lied?
And no, being wrong is not the same thing as lying.
@@Spugler2 Research in academia is sometimes modified to fit a political agenda.
Google it.
@@sr.mental5876 There are a lot more nuance to it than 'to fit a political agenda'. I mean does it really matter if it is modified to fit let's say the progressive political agenda? Would you rather science follow a regressive political agenda like the 1800s?
Regardless of what you do, science has been and will always be affected by politics, just be glad that today's science hasn't followed Nazi eugenics or skull phrenology.
Fantastic video. Couldn't have said it better myself!
Came here after watching your psychological experiments iceberg, and you've earned a subscription 👍
I love this video! I was thinking "yep! ... yes! ..." the whole way through! Something else I was anticipating you would talk about, when you mentioned people getting experts to do tasks for us, is how "squarespace is the sponsor of the video" or something, haha
Dont forget about the factor of misinformation which ruins peoples trust to the point we dont really know if we’re hearing expert information or not
While you yourself say the anti-science crowd is not a monolith organized movement at the start of the video, it's not entirely fair to group them as one (though I understand why it is done for the purposes of the video. I find the anti-science crowd is much like the conspiracy theory crowd. The conspiracy theory crowd is broken up in to, I would say around 3 camps. The first is the loony toons camp (some example are flat earth, lizard people, etc.), the second is the "distrust in the establishment is so high they are willing to believe stretches" often times in this case there is circumstantial evidence, or possibly evidence used to prove the event(s) has been proven to be exaggerated/fabricated, so they take this to mean the whole thing is made up/a conspiracy/etc. (some examples of this are holocaust denial which contrary to popular belief there are plenty of non-Nazis who believe, 9/11 was an inside job, etc.), and the last group is the "This is probably real" sorts, where there is evidence, means, motive, etc. is all there, and really the only thing still making it a conspiracy theory is merely the establishment saying it is (some examples include the JFK assassination being an alphabet agency, Epstein's "suicide", etc.)
With the context put in place, going back to the anti-science crowd, I believe there is a similar tier list among it. The first group you have the actively anti-science crowd, this group I find isn't too huge and usually seems to consist of the hyper-religious who take scripture literally (at which point I personally think they are missing the point of religion itself, but I digress). The next group I would say are not really anti-science in and of itself, but more against what it has become and stands for, these people are the ones who are ignorant of a subject, but at one point in time were able to "trust the experts". After all of the things that have happened in the past few decades to discredit experts (whether them being wrong, politics corrupting the field, or a number of things), they have no trust anymore so the only thing they have to work with is ignorance, as such they fall in to the "well I read a thing online" trap. The last group, is the anti-Scientism crowd. This is an interesting group as the majority in it are actually for science, but cannot get behind Scientism and believe it has corrupted science and/or that it is an unhealthy substitute for the role religion and/or philosophy play in society. Because they are against Scientism they get thrown in the same camp with the first two aforementioned groups.
In reality there should be many more than two roads, but like all ideological conflict, over time, sub-groups begin to merge together to form two opposing sides. Kind of like how WW2 did not start as Axis vs. Allies, but rather a number of smaller wars and factions that gradually merged together in to two large opposing sides over the course of the conflict. Or like how in the US the Republican and Democrat parties have no real principles in and of themselves, but are more coalitions of smaller groups that share rivals and enemies.
Absolutely amazing comment. You put exactly what I had in mind perfectly into words.
knowing the truth can only be a good thing...the BEST thing...the problem is who can you trust is telling you the truth...
Just wondering if there has ever been a time when the world went back to stage 1 of kuhn’s paradigm idea and could it happen in the future?
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes "Superstition is freedom from the oppressive institution of science."
The description of science ranges between very poor to flately wrong. Accepting some assumptions that people extreemely rarely doubt leads to the conclusion that science is incomprehensively accurate in predicting the world. This position is well established the past centuries in philosophy. It is neither new, nor it deserves made-up pop-culture name callings such as 'scientism'.
Which is why science is always correcting itself...
You have very few videos but you've got stellar thoughtful content. Wish to see more from you. Subscribed.
Science is not the absolute truth. However, it is the best approximation to truth we have.
It's limited to detecting truths we can discover under controllable, repeatable, testable conditions. Not all truths may fit those criteria.
@@theboombody How would you discover the truths that don't fit those criteria? Or would you say that these truths are undiscoverable truths and we can never know them?
@@daschmitzi8403 I would probably say we can never know them.
Once you have a basic background in math, science, or engineering, you understand Global Warming is more marketing than science.
it scares me that people are taking what you say about science as fact
As a Christian, this was explained super good!! It makes me so happy as someone in the middle ground that's also religious to see somebody else that's on the middle !
In my experience, scientism is largely (though not exclusively) manifested in two situations: (1) popular science enthusiasts who aren't actually trained in any scientific or philosophical discipline; (2) straw men depicted by the anti-science. Most actual scientists I know display the kind of humility and critical thinking that characterize a truly scientific spirit.
As a provocative example, I would say that most social media forums around Richard Dawkins-esque content are thronged by the first type of scientism-ists (as well as anti-sciencers fighting them), but the actual scientists around whom such public discourse centres (Dawkins, Tyson etc.) tend to themselves be conscientious scientific thinkers (not all of them: e.g. Kaku and Hossenfelder are some problematic cases). Nevertheless, these decently scientific thinkers should be held culpable for the dogmatic and tribalistic communities of scientism they engender, and they should try to find a better way of promoting the cause of scientific thinking.
2:03
To add on to this, I'd also like to say that scientific papers (depends on the field but for the most part) are incomprehensible to your average layman.
I was reading a review article recently on dyslexia and although the authors tried their best to simplify it, there was still tons of jargon terms like "orthography" and "lateralization", the use of psycholinguistic terms and mechanisms, and the mentioning of very specific brain areas.
While I managed to read it fine for the most part as I'm studying psychology and neuroscience in college, your average layman wouldn't understand a huge majority of it unless they started some deep studying. I feel like this would turn off a lot of people from doing "proper research" and reading scientific papers.
Can't there be a healthy medium?
trust the expert. well how do i trust that they are an expert? how do i trust they aren't corrupt experts? if people have learned anything in the past few years, its that titles dont equate to honesty and institutions that were once trustworthy are no better than a commercial from the fifties saying _"3 out of 4 doctors prefer camel cigarettes"_
That's how relationships work for good and bad. If you approach every situation with paranoia and fear you are gonna end up in a solitary box, try by engaging with people your family/friends already know, try to be a little skeptic for what other people tell you to be true but accept that you can "fail" or people could "fail" you.
@@jorgeperez2872 yeah but I'm saying some people don't have time to research every expert's opinion. some people just trust the wrong people to tell them who to trust. it's difficult and not like a personal relationship where you can see someone's character
@@Mitchell_is_smart._You2bs_dumb Someone's character has 0 weight on wether or not they are right.
And to drive the point further, someone that relies on their character to make a point USUALLY does so because they do not have a factual basis.
This goes beyond "i don't know who to trust". If someone has a reputable degree and the other has no studies on the topic, the decision should be obvious.
Its not like there's only 1 expert either.
The example you provided is not by an expert, it is by a company. And it isn't anything factual, it is just a preference.
@@rompevuevitos222 I was using character as an indicator for a friend or other personal relationship, and I consider how trustworthy someone is as a characteristic. I think we may have our wires crossed or just different definitions for subjective terms.
@@Mitchell_is_smart._You2bs_dumbIf a friend tells me "Ducks can't fly" but i heard from someone that has studies on the topic that they do, i'll believe the one that knows better.
At most i may lie to them and say i believe them, but they are not as knowledgeable as a biologist and that's that.
What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?
What is the Covid-related mortality for vaccinated non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?
Nice deflection. Answer the question. What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?@@burnttoast385
I am never leaving my scientist bubble. I do not have the energy to deal with any of these people.
Bruh how does this have 33 comments and 1k views this is top tier
2:00 it's not only paywall. It's a kind of intellectual qualification, like Latin used to be. Nowadays, every science has its own Latin - a set of terms, concepts, techniques - without which you simply will not understand what is being said in that paper behind the paywall. And I haven’t even begun to talk about the fact that many sciences speak the language of mathematics, which few people speak at the proper level. You can watch videos about interpretations of quantum mechanics as much as you want, but that science is not written in English. It's the language of mathematics, in which it will reveal its secrets to you... Translation of the Koran into another language is not the Koran. Quantum mechanics in popular videos without formulas is not quantum mechanics. One poet once said that reading poetry in translation is like taking a shower in a coat. Learn mathematics if you want to really understand the world.
I stopped trusting science when I found out who pays for medical research - the medical industry itself! And there is similar things going on in other fields... There is simply too much money talking for results to be objective. Not to mention the interpretation of results, which can go in whichever direction you want or need it to 🙄
Are you aware how often you used the word „trust“ in this video? Trust is applicable to religion. If used in connection with science, then there is a profound misconception.
Yeah a lot of these comments don't seem to get the basic of science. You don't need to "trust" the evidence as the evidence speaks for itself.
@@sithwolf8017 What is the Covid-related mortality for non-elderly persons with no comorbidities?
I was listening to a Behind the Bastards podcast on the potential perils of AI.
They discussed a tech conference in which the only woman of color panelist for the whole event was an academic who researched the downsides of relying on AI. In this, she made the point "Many people may fear skynet as an existential crisis, but to minorities, the existential crisis is AI being used improperly or being poorly trained in a way that discriminates against them, and it's happening now."
A spokesperson for Adobe responded by acknowledging her warning, then continuing "but the real danger is not pursuing the development of AI."
This interaction came to mind as you read Sam Harris's quote.
Experts could be corrupt and lie
Not that hard to understand
You should make a video on “the wisdom of the crowd” because typically I find that to be true when it applies to things in my everyday life.
Just perused the wikipedia page for that. I didn't realize that concept had a proper name. Really fascinating stuff. I've added that to my ever-growing list of future video ideas. Thanks!
@@duncanclarke really really love your content. I’ll
Be waiting for new episodes like I waiting for breaking bad episodes
I think there’s a really important debate to be had as to whether or not Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions leads to relativism or not (regardless of what he says later). Additionally, I think a lot of people in the scientism camp REALLY underplay how pervasive political / personal bias is in academic research. Most research has reproducibility issues too.
The results of some science is undeniable. It clearly works well when it’s working. But I think it works well much less often than many of us assume it does.
Background music ?
There's a lot of your own scientism in the video regarding the topics you classified as anti-science.
Pretty ironic.
Even more sad are the rah-rag dunning kruger commenters that don't know the difference.
one thing you didn't talk about science is how it can't really be used to understand the metaphysics. science only applies to the physical world we live in and not the meta physics.
It's like a saga about what we have witnessed. Kind of like a bible for discovery.
also big chungus. science tells us nothing about big chungus
Im gonna leave comment bc i wanna regurgitate something I heard. Science, and science communication are in cahoots with philosophy. Certain discoveries are often difficult to articulate so they need their bestie philosophy to further understand the implications behind the discoveries, and it's relationship with us. Idk science is thinking and thinking is philosophy... they go together and when new research appears one gots to think first. Great video, it gives my brain something to digest as i go along my hee haha day
What about the evidence of our own observation? Scientist's make predictions for the next 20 years and 40 years later nothing.
They don’t make predictions, they use current data to speculate
@@plaidchuck and all of their previous speculation has been wrong.
@@leepreston9637yes but that's good cause we aren't betting anything
Don't forget to get your booster
I can become an expert in most things, at very least to know what is true and what isn't, if not the exact method and details, but the important core, and I believe everyone can, work hard, study, be skeptic, and don't worship any idea, question everything, I think is possible
No, you definitely can not become an “expert in most things”. You can, at best, become an expert in one or maybe two things after many, many years (decades) of study, sleepless nights and experience. I’m sorry, but UA-cam university is not equivalent of REAL university.
@@betaorionis2164 yes, you definitely can become an expert in most things. you can become an expert in most things after not that many years of study, well rested nights and experience. I'm not sorry. there is no youtube university.
if that is what you hit me with, that is what you will be hit back, if you want something else, bring that yourself to begin with.
also I legit can't stop myself from saying: skill issue
@@NeroDefogger Drs. David Dunnning and Justin Kruger explained very well your deluded ramblings.
@@betaorionis2164 the irony of you having a deluded rambling before and me just copying what you did somehow doesn't reach you
Not sure if it's exactly "scientism", but one thing that specifically annoys me is when people study animal behavior, and use that to justify today's societal norms. As if the way society is structured today is somehow the natural conclusion of evolution, and any other way of structuring society is just "unnatural" because it goes against "human nature".
People do this a lot when discussing gender stereotypes for example, and a lot of the time it feels like it's used as a justification for certain gender stereotypes to exist, and an argument against questioning those gender stereotypes. For example "men are natural leaders, and that's why it's natural for most people in powerful positions to be men". (And the worst part is if these gender stereotypes are treated as the most natural behavior for all men or women. Like, "this is how male chimpanzees behave, and that's why it's natural for human males to behave like this, and that's how all men should behave".)
But you can also hear similar justifications for capitalism for example. Capitalism is natural because evolution, or whatever. As if the way today's society is structured is the end of history and there are no other possibiities.
An electrician probably knows more about wiring than I do. A chef probably knows more about cooking than I do. A scientist probably knows more about science than I do.
Doesn't mean I'm just gonna take their word for it if they say something sketchy.
Problem is that the difference in knowledge between a scientist and you is so colossally huge that your word will be completely pointless. Why the f*** would anyone lose 15 seconds of his life listening to your absolutely uneducated “opinions” on science issues? Why, exactly?
Something that I feel needs to be mentioned is that science does not determine what is the best political policy. To use a timely example, science proved that masking reduces the spread of COVID. Some will say science proved that we "all should wear a mask", which is clearly untrue. Science only said, if you value reducing COVID masks may be a way to do so. There are plenty of hypothetical logical reasons that you could decide not to mask as a society where you could still agree with the conclusions of science. This to me seems like the biggest hallmark of scientism, where someone says "trust the science" even though the science in question can't draw any conclusions about the topic at hand.
I'm pro masking btw, I was just using it as an example.
About linguistics: To this day, they don't agree on a paradime. Chomsky is influcencial to this day, sure, but at no point was he unquestioned. I think the model works for "hard science" like physics and other natural sciences much better than for "soft sience" like linguistics and stuff.
But otherwise a good video! Well done! I learned a lot! Very important topic for sure.
I’m not adding anything to the philosophical conversation, I just wanted to say I found your UA-cam channel two days ago and I’ve been binging. Great content! I’ve already shared a few videos with my friends and will continue to do so! Keep up the quality content!
Absolutely amazing video, you explain it like a champ, seriously one of my favourite videos on UA-cam now!
The premise of this video itself is a bit poorly presented. Applying the scientific method rigorously means that you are not only allowed to question the status quo, but you are encouraged to. There's no need to carve a middle ground inbetween scientific thinking and anti-scientific thinking, but rather we need to teach people how the scientific method works and where to spot potential flaws in logic, bad actors and other issues that might obfuscate the current state of affairs in the scientific community.
If you are someone who praises any and all studies conducted without researching similar and contrarian studies yourself, then you are effectively acting anti-scientifically.
Glad to see this topic mentioned
Apart from the fact that 'trust the experts' is an appeal to authority fallacy, we would also need to learn a lot about an expert, to be able to tell if he can be trusted. Just academic credentials, reputation, and especially not position(in institutions) and promotion in the media are reliable factors. Neither is being part of a majority. Imo trusting the experts IS scientism.
It's also telling that you use the religious term denial to set up your dogma of 'settled science' as something that should not be questioned. Very unscientific that. 'Settled science' is stagnation. It disincentivizes paradigm shifts.
It says a lot that you not only singled out anti-vax and 'climate change denial', denying evolution (all of them formulated as derogatory) and then implicitly put them on the same level als 'flat-earther'. The shape of the earth can be concluded from something as simple as comparing the night's sky from nothern and southern latitudes. The other things mentioned are way more abstract, and are in fact theories. As with all theories, you can find contradictions, omissions and faults.
For example, evolution is still just a theory and there have been many criticisms raised, from irreducible complexity, to the extremely low chances of complexity upon complexity that living organisms consist of happening by chance (even if you have way more time available than the age of the universe). Natural selection is also often elevated to god-like status, even though e.g. things like wings would be a detriment to the survival of an animal if it was only developed in part (where it can no longer run well but can not yet fly).
With 'climate change denial' you conflate two things: People who doubt measurements (see urban heat island effect), or even our ability to measure the 'average' temperature of our whole planet (or what that would even mean) (see most temperature measuring stations are located on the northern hemisphere). And people who doubt the influence of humans on said climate (which has always been changing) - example would be that no paper that blames humans for climate change takes into account all the ways our sun has on the planet.
Vaccines are built on the (unproven) assumption that pathogens cause disease and our bodies fight against these pathogens. A logical framework on how to prove causation for this have existed for a long time, Koch's Postulates. There is no scientific publication that I've seen (and I've looked at a few) that fulfils all of Koch's Postulates using the scientific method (where just the independent variable is changed and nothing else). There are only experiments that just isolate/detect an entity, show correlation (but not causation) or that do animal experiments with unnatural 'infection' routes (injection of foreign organic material) often without control experiments (or ones where you can't tell if they treated the control group differently). Why are many so-called pathogens regularly found in healthy people?(up to the ridiculous notion of 'asymptomatically sick' which is just a blatant contradiction). So my opinion is pathogen causation has not been proven through rigorous scientific means. You surely can see how calling me anti-science for that is ludicrous?
Pathogens don't cause disease? It sounds like you have a masters in anti-vax mental gymnastics. This is the problem with people seeing google as a form of "research". Just reading through this comment tells me you went through study after study with the specific goal of finding verbal stipulations that might be used as bricks to build an anti-peer meta analysis review of sorts.
Sure, you can write a book in the comments of a youtube video, doesn't mean people will take your opinion as seriously as the experts who study these things for a living. I'll trust the experts on this one
@@klipk7296 Do you have any high-quality scientific trials you can show that actually show pathogens cause disease? Ones that actually use the scientific method? How about you find some, instead of ad-hominem accusing people of mental gymnastics without showing how something specific requires a leap in logic (if that is even what you mean - do you even know what you mean?).
You're trying to "win" an argument by denigrating it, asserting arguing in youtube comments is pointless.. while writing arguments in a youtube comment.
You completely missed the point. Nothing I wrote is an opinion, not of me or of anyone else. It's descriptive. It describes how trusting experts is lazy thinking and you give up your freedom and self-determination. This is fine, but if it results in a common belief like contagion it enables totalitarian rule through stuff like vaccine passes. It often leads to witch hunts like in the middle ages. Some 'experts' said so-and-so is a witch, trust us! People didn't ask for evidence and didn't look for it themselves, so innocent people died.
This is where you're headed.
@@klipk7296 "Just reading through this comment tells me you went through study after study with the specific goal of finding verbal stipulations that might be used as bricks to build an anti-peer meta analysis review of sorts."
Did you just say that certain studies' conclusions are true, even if they contain wrong words or descriptions in their methods section? Do you even know what reproducibility means? Statements like this is textbook scientism.
@richie9327 why don't you show proof of terrain theory's main concepts: pleomorphism and environmental factors/trauma/negative emotions/physical abuse/etc being responsible for "infectious" disease like Ebola and Smallpox? And no, a red blood cell shitting rods isn't proof of pleomorphism. I want hard evidence. Gene sequencing, protein analysis, culture, petri dishes. I want a name of a microbe that originated from a human cell. Same deal with the second concept. Show me RCTs where Terrain Theory was put to the test in human trials or animal models. Show me RCTs where people with abusive family/friends develop Rabies or Lyme disease. Show me animal models where animals were starved and developed symptoms of the Bubonic Plague.
Zhang, Yujiang et al. “Transmission efficiency of the plague pathogen (Y. pestis) by the flea, Xenopsylla skrjabini, to mice and great gerbils.” Parasites & vectors vol. 8 256. 1 May. 2015
You know I've always felt like you could probably mathematically figure out morals and ethics but I don't actually know about that because there's a lot of stuff in mathematics that are like unsolvable problems and maybe that's just what morals are
Math itself is incomplete and undecidable, and we don't know it's consistency, so we get a tool that isn't that great to do it. Isn't that math is weak, but the problem is damn hard.
Philosophy makes way more sense than science to me because it deals with abstract concepts. Science is great tool that describes everything, but it can’t explain why there is something rather than nothing in concrete terms, nor can it explain why it is so funny when i see an animal with its tongue out.
I was with you right up to the end. Basic leatherwork is something you can learn over the course of a few days, and if you've worked on modern cars, it's pretty clear the engineers who designed them know very little about mechanics.
Are you seriously trying to argue that the 100 years of progress in car development is knowing "very little about mechanics"?
@@rompevuevitos222 are you about to argue putting the starter motor under the intake manifold reflects 100 years of automotive developmental excellence? How about having to remove bodywork in order to access a battery jumping point. What are your thoughts on canbus enabled tail lights?
@@highdesertdrew1844 Not everything is about efficiency. There's also integrity, safety, areodynamics and simply looks, all of which manufacturers care about for one reason or the other.
Specially the more expensive cars, the owners are not going to fix crap on those or worry about what part is easily accessible. They are going to take it to a mechanic which is going to deal with it instead of them and it will come back to their hand some weeks/months later working just like before as if it was magic.
And a couple poor design choices doesn't mean 100 years of regression...
@@rompevuevitos222 Everything is actually about efficiency, every bit of hominid development has been about efficiency. From the length of cutting edge we can extract per kilogram of material, to the number of miles we can drive on a kilowatt of energy, to how many horsepower we can apply to a problem, every development is about efficiency. Everything you said "there's also" about relate to efficiency. The more complex a repair is made, the more time the car will spend in the shop, the more complex simple repairs become the more it taxes other elements of the supply chain.
This drop in efficiency may be due to conscious effort on the part of manufacturers to encourage simply purchasing a replacement, rather than repairing an existing example, as in the case of planned obsolescence, or simply because to the manufacturer it is more efficient to turn raw materials into cars they can sell, than to make cars that can have long and useful lives. In which case, we're dealing with a drop in efficiency.
There is one other stark possibility. That they are not as competent as they used to be.
I’ve been on this journey too, and I feel like I’ve come upon something special with something called human design, I’ve been lightly experimenting with it in my life and it seems extremely relevant in my life somehow. To me effectivity speaks measure so ive been delving into this, if anyone has insight on this topic and/or wants to discuss that would be dope.
Can you summarize your point please?
Yeah so essentially the information that I was given in my body graph from human design seems very relevant. I’m wondering if anyone else has experimented with this system before.
Oh sweet summer child
I like the video but science is not theoretical fiction. Scientists (who really should be philosophers as well - side note, imo) are not infallible, agreed. The better Scientists are open about their efforts to address their assumptions. But putting individuals aside (the workers as scientists) and looking at science as a concept - science is the description of reality. Which we can get wrong because of things like faulty assumptions, but being a description would put science squarely into the realm of non-fiction. I do recognize there is a fictional element that exists close by and in my opinion that would be when we have a theory of something that is broadly impossible for humans to experience physically in the way we describe it, say mathematically. In these instances we use imagination, poetic license, to help us as individuals to understand a theory and its predictions.
I kinda blurted this out quickly on the crapper so sorry if its nonsensical.
Just like to know how darwinism contributed to biology.
It's a historical science.
I technically don't want either but if I was to be given the ultimatum to choose between the two and having neither was not an option I guess I'd have to go with scientism
I want to make one suggestion regarding scientists trying to disprove their own theories, because there is an easy comeback to this that needs to be addressed. In practice, researchers tend to be biased to their findings. In an ideal world they would be actively trying to disprove their own work. But this simply isn't the case...at least it's no way guaranteed. Researchers are heavily inventiveised to produce evidence complimentary to their findings, firstly for reputational reasons but also in order to secure funding. People's livelihoods are sometimes at stake. So an anti science actor could point to any instance of fudging data and claim that they are right and science can't be trusted.
So we should acknowledge the potential conflict of interest. But the reason why science can still be trusted is because professional rivalry is also powerful. The peer review system takes advantage of another interest in the scientific establishment: the need to prove someone wrong and themselves right. That's the difference between the sciences and other industries. The sciences can self regulate by having the systems and infrastructure to pit researchers against each other.