General Ignorance - John Lloyd
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лют 2013
- Legendary producer and QI mastermind John Lloyd visits the RSA to share the culmination of a life's reading -- that it's what we don't know that really matters.
Find out more about
QI: www.qi.com/
Follow the RSA on Twitter: / thersaorg
Like the RSA on Facebook: / thersaorg
Our events are made possible with the support of our Fellowship. Support us by donating or applying to become a Fellow.
Donate: www.thersa.org/support-the-rsa
Become a Fellow: www.thersa.org/fellowship/apply
He is a generous and open minded person. A good role model.
John Lloyd has a beautiful mind and a humble heart. Thank you RSA for sharing this meaningful interview and the full podcast too!
Very stimulating, I found the idea that ideas are floating by and not created by him but plucked from space to be very stimulating, mentally.
This helps a lot for my research paper! Thanks for posting this, John Lloyd very bright man
Confuscius sayyyy... "Knowledge is knowing when you know and knowing when you don't"
One of the more intriguing talks uploaded by RSA in a long, long time.
A very good talk, thanks for upload.
Also I love swivel chair debates.
At 9:07 he said "there are only about 6 things I think you really need to know", but only mentioned 2. I wonder what the other 4 are. Maybe we'll never get to know.
I know!!! When JL sat down, I was so annoyed that the interviewer didn't ask him!! The interviewer seemed to be off in his own world and somehow didn't notice!!
Yes, it would've been interesting to see what the other 4 were.
incredible. keep the great talks coming RSA
I just recently got into the podcast. Changed my life man.
This man is very wise
John Lloyd...Thank you for your brilliance in a darkened tank full of ideas floating by as if glittering fish of ignorance to be caught!
Thirty two people from Hull on this I imagine!
Brilliant
I first saw John as a panellist on QI and thought he was a bit of a grumpy old bugger then learned in the comments section he was a producer of the show and found out he's produced many great British comedies. He still seems like a grumpy old bugger but one that likes to entertain and impart information. I guess being a producer also requires a certain amount of professionalism and seriousness to be respected and trusted with other people's money.
I was surprised that he doesn't know what comedy is or what makes people laugh. In its most basic form comedy is about telling a story and then providing an ending that is the opposite to what people expect, ie the punchline. It is that unexpected surprise opposite conclusion that people find humerous. That is obviously not the only thing that people find funny but is a large part of what comedy is.
His views on science are interesting. I'm pretty sure that The Big Bang theory is still the most likely occurrence from what we have observed and from what the evidence suggests. I don't think it has been debunked or is falling apart in any way. He is right in saying that we don't know A LOT though and to admit that is not a bad thing at all. I'm not sure if his claim that only astrophysicists the believe in the big bang get hired. I find that exceptionally hard to believe.
He was a bit wrong about atheism as well. Atheism is withholding belief that gods exist due to insufficient evidence and rejecting theist claims that gods exist to insufficient evidence. Atheists don't "believe that gods don't exist" we don't believe the claim that they DO exist. As an atheist I reject the theist claims and apart from that I personally believe that the natural universe most likely originated naturally.
That covered a few of his many points, I also remember my father being irritated at my silly questions. If I can remember him being irritated then I must've been asking questions long before that so I can understand why he was grumpy. It it a bit sad though because it stops one asking questions and is I'm sure one of the many things that cause a strained relationship between many fathers and sons.
Interesting talk. Cheers
If my son asks me something I don't know, either I tell him "i dont know, let's search for it on google" or i'll give him a super goofy answer that his doubts will force him to search for it and correct me.
Q: why is there something rather than nothing ?
A: why should there be nothing rather than something ?
min 8:00
In the book Going Deeper there is a good analysis of humor.
"Humor is the sudden, unexpected intersection of two planes of thought at a single point in the now. You slide down both planes simultaneously, coming from two directions, and crash into yourself.
The steeper the planes. the funnier the joke.
...
Its never quite as funny when it has to be explained because that reduces the steepness of the planes, so when they meet its more like a gentle bump than an atomic explosion"
I'd like to know why there are buttons on John's jacket sleeve and what they do. If they don't do anything, why do tailors add them when they could be saving thousands on buttons each year by dispensing with them?
Why can't we post video responses?
A question is not the answer to a question, simply another question.
We all have general ignorance until knowledge is given and transcoded by many factors unseen but now can be understood for a deeper understanding. Things change that are unseen n seemingly unimportant but in time will make sense. knowledge has power, truth brings gifts. Kids are are future n yet multitask us into insanity.
It's damn hard to remain humble in the face of arrogance.
@mastakur when did we start talking about religion or the lack thereof? :)
Same here
Enlighten us.
There is a proverb in Hong Kong: "Believing in what is proof by science while ignoring reality is in itself a superstition."
Considering that superstition is a belief in the supernatural and science is an observation and documentation of the natural universe that proverb is not entirely true or has maybe been misinterpreted. Some scientific theories may fall into that category but scientists don't claim they are absolutely true which is why they are scientific theory.
Agnosticism is intellectually, creatively, and spiritually empowering. Take it on.
Where in his comment is this evident?
Big Bang theory is false? There was no expansion of spacetime?
What is the alternative explanation for redshift then? What is the alternative explanation for CMBR?
Interesting that you are saying exactly the same thing as the guy you responded to. His statement "Atheists believe that God does not exist." could also be written as "Atheists disbelieve that God exists", which implies a lack of belief in a god. From the OED: Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a god or gods. ORIGIN: Greek: a - without and theos - god.
Were still waiting for the big bang theory to be replaced or extended.
I'd suggest you read isaac asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong". A quick google search and you can read the whole thing. It's not especially long, and it is a perfect illustration of why John Lloyd goes astray in the manner in which he approaches the topic.
What do you mean?
where DO ideas come from? Where DOES inspiration come from?
go:
hi =)
People prefer facts to theories..... oh boy what has happened to us now then where facts are trumped by feelings?
people are missing the point about what hes saying. hes not anti science or is ignorant about science, hes just saying that people shouldnt believe that science is moved by knowledge but by being ignorant, and if you do not embrace that ignorance you wont be able to progress, hes also pointing out the attitude that some scientists have about the questions that they are not able to answer yet, and how this affects science in general .
Perhaps, ultimately everything is nothing, but we call it something. Perhaps we want to do more than just 'live'. Embrace pleasant paradoxes like the idea that profound answers lead to deeper questions, which lead to profound questions - yet not deeper than the very questions driving them! Perhaps its better to be inaccurate, while still being on a progressive path, than to be right on a wrong one. Maybe present reality is a prologue to the very existence we believe we should be living - thus allowing infinity itself to expand to the point that we embody pure thought and intersecting experiences: synergistic convergence of perceptions. Perhaps structures and systems like science, mathematics, language, symbols( in art, astrology,/esoteric sciences)chakras, particles are mere interpretations of ever-fluctuating, yet ever-present energies which we perceive according to our ever-deepening, sensitive perception, which is made possible by a grounded, all-permeating focus: peace and compassion; the wider our view of the co-evolutionary processes, the wider the frame to the symbiotic cosmic expression. The greater our metaphors, questions, and symbols, the more we can sense the trajectory of a less-redundant continuum. Our ability to fathom the vastness of the abyss - in which our multilayered roots and morphing seeds reside - shall enable us to extend out into infinity, in all of its illuminating dimensions and experimental guises without losing our way. Perhaps outer phenomena like gravity, chaos, are seemingly overwhelming manifestations of some out of control, divine, artistic medium which we can work with, as opposed to being pawns - hence gravity, physics no longer become distant, turbulent, mutating phenomena, but replenishing, organic lifeforces
Why should most people be "hopeless at bringing up children"? How about putting yourself in their place, asking what they think about parenting, ask/observe similar age children, keep record of your own upbringing.
It's amazing how many dogmatists you can flush out of the woodwork merely by suggesting that science can't answer every question. Also, his definition of atheism and agnosticism is fine.
"Train by day Joe Rogan podcast by night....All day"
But in retrospect, I agree with previous posters, this video/lecture is mostly all over the place and somewhat incomprehensible.
It is interesting that with all of the insight and interesting discussion options available from watching this, that the comments are so shallow and predictable. Atheism/Agnosticism and attacking the idea of science - how about looking at the larger ideas - like thinking of interesting questions or embracing our ignorance as opposed to territorializing the little bits we do know.
Faith is belief, in the absence of evidence. Admitting we know nothing, requires letting go of faith.
Still a really good video, I wish everyone wasn't so fucking hard on such an interesting discussion. The guy does have a grasp on what science is but not the whole of what science does. I think he may just be bias.
Having said that though I do agree with the underlining point John Lloyd's making i don't like how he's mixing up ignorance and building up an argument based on overlapping evidence. I find he's got a sort of hippy, "Joe Rogan-esque" view about ideas and knowing things. :/
Electric Universe
Yes, science is on the frontier of knowledge and we are ignorant about so much. I'm not talking about that part. I'm talking about how he portrays science as if it's a binary right/wrong situation. That, to me, is a very shallow understanding of ignorance and science. Like I've recommended to others, check out isaac asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong". It'll hopefully illustrate my point to you better than I can. Also, please don't insult people until you understand what they're actually saying.
Just because some one says it's so, doesn't mean it's true. That was a crucial point he makes in this talk. Making that claim is as factual as God, both are a description of experience, but how can you suppose that my experience of humor is the same as yours?
His major claim is we have idea's, but we don't KNOW if they are 100% true or not. We only know based on the evidence we have collected (aka science), and even then new evidence, on occasions, proves old evidence as wrong.
Or don't insult them even when you do. "Be nice"
What was Mr. Lloyd's point, I wonder? I'm not sure he knows.
He had so many. Hard to chose just one.
That view on ideas and knowing things almost always leads to VERY unjustified arrogance when it comes to that.
Knowing some random facts without background makes you intelligent just as much as watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos makes you an astrophysicist.
That's why you take everything with a grain of salt and come to your own conclusions based upon your own experience, logic, reason and rationality. :)
Agreed. I bet he lack the basic understanding most of the subjects he talks about, he just heard it from somebody or read 1 short article in a newspaper. (He should read some Feynman and than may be he would learn what is the difference between fact and belief)
Disbelief is not a synonym for lack of belief. Disbelief is active. Lacking belief is passive. Just like Antitheism is active, and Atheism is passive.
Atheist: I don't believe in any particular deity.
Theist: I believe there is a(t least one) god.
Antitheist: I believe no gods exist.
And also:
Agnostic: I don't know if a god exists or not.
Gnostic: I know a(t least one) god exists.
This should also help you see how you can be atheist and agnostic at the same time, if that's your leaning.
Atheism is withholding belief in gods due to insufficient evidence and rejecting the theists claim that gods exist because of insufficient evidence.
well heres something to chew on..until the moment arrives nothing is there
That is certainly an interesting thought experiment but cannot be proven to be true until we can see into the future and is demonstrably untrue if our senses and what we perceive in reality is correct.
It's like saying that maybe we are in the Matrix or maybe we are just a brain in a vat. It cannot be falsified therefore is a fallacious claim. Interesting though nonetheless.
The one that gets me is when I stop every now and then and realise that time is going past right now, right this second, this millisecond. Gone. As I write this and as you read it the moment is passing. Time, reality, consciousness and perception are pretty trippy when you really think about it.
He got a few things incorrect, but it's mainly the fact that most of what he says is so imprecise as to be nearly meaningless.
Immanuel Kant dealt with this metaphysical issue ... to say we know nothing destroys our ability to know anything -Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment. Metaphysics is an interesting part of philosophy but the least useful - to go back in time and pretend that anything is possible ie: Greek gods just for the sake of "remaining ignorant" seems a little silly to me and a huge waste of time.Still enjoyable talk
Almost. Before things can exist, they have to be logically consistent. E.g. it is impossible for a round square to exist. There simply are no logically consistent god claims, thus gods are not possible. Occam's razor simply cuts god's throat.
Semantics, I find many people who consider themselves atheist as faithful as the most strong believer in X religion out there. You have to hold strongly onto the faith that you are right in not believing. I just find it annoying everyone is bases arguments on things people can not prove and arguably never.
He's also not wrong
Wait, does this guy believe there are no "aliens", or just that none have visited? Great talk though!
I know this is old, but I think this was in the context of them having visited, or ever being capable of visiting Earth.
I think what is REALLY "anti-scientific" is your rambling. You put words and meanings into the speakers mouth that he never uttered during the entire video - but there ALWAYS comes someone like you as soon as someone is just a little thoughtful, who immediately sees all of science in peril, for no discernible reason whatsoever.
Jesus table flipping Christ that's exactly what I said.
I think this is the kind of thing anti-intellectual/anti-scientific people thrive on. The notion you can never know anything... and while from some philosophical perspectives, this is true... it's such an inherently self-defeating proposition and one utterly at odds with the scientific method...
But then, given QI's tenuous grasp on facts - that's not exactly surprising.
The presentation isn't about science, it's about ignorance. He broached the idea of science because it's a field where we know practically nothing (which he mentioned and happens to be right).
The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.
I feel where he is coming from. Science is a wonderful tool, but in many people it also generates arrogance. Hence, they only consider what they know and refuse to consider that the scope of human ignorance is way more than the current scope of human knowledge. Moreover, they refuse to acknowledge that there are phenomena that might be unexplainable by science, such as the concept of soul and even life, in a certain context. There may also be gaps in our knowledge, limited as it is.
Also, Science encourages certain kinds of questions, in short the ones that are testable. But, instead of acknowledging that, some mainstream scientists and intellectuals have started to discourage other questions that lie beyond the realm of science. In doing so, they forget that this is also a form of intolerance.
The way he presented it was incorrect. What he presents is a poor concept of ignorance. I don't argue with the sentiment, but I disagree with how he applies it. I'd suggest you read isaac asimov's "The Relativity of Wrong". A quick google search and you can read the whole thing. It's not especially long, and it is a perfect illustration of why John Lloyd goes astray in the manner in which he approaches the topic.
what are you talking about the fact that people embrace ignorance as the fuel of science is completely right, if you are aware that you don't know jack shit about anything you´ll want to know more things about anything .
Doesn't every religion attribute God with a mind? And minds seem to be a product of evolution.
Might have been what you were trying to say, def wasn't what you did say.
"Atheist: I don't believe in any particular deity."
...inaccurate
"This should also help you see how you can be atheist and agnostic at the same time"
...inaccurate
The point your trying to get at might be right but your tripping on the semantics and botching some terms
lots of semantics here, not sure that's very useful...
"Anyone who believes in indefinte growh in a blah blah blah" holy hell TED fucking HATES economists lol D: #EveryVideo
TED?
Atheism - rejection of the claim there is a god
lol I'm sorry put your semantics are nettlesome. if your "I don't believe in any particular deity" were the same as the actual definition of an atheist then it could simply be "I don't believe in any deity" and you could lose the unnecessary word "particular" in there
is he high or something?
Ideas coming out of the sky?, now that was the only part i found funny about the whole speech
I don't think it was supposed to be funny.
Hate to be a besserwisser but... Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One does not rule out the other.
I don't think you know what "semantics" means, and I *know* you don't know what atheism means.
While his intellectual humility is admirable, most of his points are banalities and silly sophisms which seem deep only to majors in humanities. For someone who makes fun of people for being boring he's rather boring himself.
"embarrassing" Who feels embarrassed for not knowing more than 4% of all the potential knowledge in the universe? Sadly I think that RSA have followed in the path of TED with speakers who are well connected and less informative than they imagine themselves to be. An entire lecture on all the things he doesn't know? How Socratic of him.
Nice to hear, but kind of rambling, eh?
I love rambling. A good ramble can be quite exhilarating.
Are you a parent?
My "I don't believe in any particular deity" is exactly the same as your "a person who does not believe in the existence of a God or gods." Why are we arguing again? This is getting old.
Nor does he understand atheism...
About halfway through, this guy fails hard at the definitions of agnostic and atheist. Five minutes with a dictionary before he opens his mouth would behoove him.
behoove? Evidently you've been hitting the dictionary hard. lol
@@earthtoalice Yeah, like seven years ago when I made this post. Your poetry sucks.
@@mediadrone01 I was making a joke. I found the word 'behoove' interesting, 'cause I never heard it before. Just friendly banter. Apologies for the obvious startling offence and upset I have caused. But thanks for checking out my work.
This guy doesn't understand science very well. :\
I disagree man, the dictionary definition of an atheist is pretty straightforward: a person who does not believe in the existence of a God or gods. And I think those who call themselves atheists would confirm this. Seems like you might be unnecessarily complicating things with semantics
I really like John Lloyd; he is an interesting man and a great conversationalist. But it does disappoint me that he characterises atheism as being arrogantly certain about a deity's non-existence; and he champions agnosticism as the preferred option. Like the default position in any sane court of law, atheism simply states 'there is no evidence to support the claim that a deity exists.'