Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
George Carlin - Fascination with Science (Paley Center, 2008)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 бер 2010
- George Carlin explains that his beliefs are based in science and talks about his fascination with science.
ABOUT THE PALEY CENTER:
In an era of rapid change in media and technology, the not-for-profit Paley Center for Media explores the evolving ways in which we create, consume, and connect through media. With locations in New York and Los Angeles, and the foremost public archive of television and radio programming, the Paley Center produces and curates programs, forums, and educational activities that engage the general public, industry professionals, and the creative community in an ongoing conversation about the impact of media on our lives. The Paley Center for Media is a hub of innovation and connection for entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers with its finger on the pulse of the next big thing in media. Go to www.paleycenter.org to learn more.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
Tim Minchin
Science is at its greatest when it's not being turned into a test that you have to study for.
"Well I don't believe that science is going to put me in a nice place after I die..." Nice, I like that statement.
There is no need to "Believe" anything when it comes to science. It either is or it isn't
But theories.
NinjaYoshi150 "But theories"? Well, they're called "theories" because they can be disproved, but that doesn't mean they actually are. Light and gravity are just theories and I don't see people jumping from a cliff saying "Hey, it's just a theory, maybe gravity suddenly fails and I start floating". Theories aren't the same as hypothesis.
Science is a belief system? Try yelling "I don't believe in gravity!" before jumping off a building.
Every interview I see of George, I learn something new about him. From singing on the Arsenio Hall show to here talking about Quantum Physics. Truly a brilliant mind that could never be replaced.
I have the exact same way of thinking, I love the very big picture of things and I love the most microscopic detail of things. I just love science, there is much more beauty and elegance in it then an religious belief known to man.
Lol. I agreed with you I was just pointing out how its hard for people who "believe" to understand how many things don't require belief. That instead is replaced with fact.
I think Carlin saw how that guy started mumbling when he was trying to assert upon everyone listening that "science is a belief system" and he decided not to care about winning an argument (in true Carlin nihilist way) and just shrugged him off "yeah, sure"...
Will give my firstborn to bring Carlin back!
NEW STUFF TO ME...BUT STILL GEORGE...ABIT OF A SOULMATE...RIP
That's a very polite way of putting it. ^^
science is not a "belief system". It's a methodology for studying existence.
You are completely wrong. Science is a belief system. There is no solid proof that we rotate around the sun any more than the sun rotates around us. It is all one big guessing game. No facts, just speculation.
This Guy
Bullshit, you can measure the gravitational attraction of the sun and find how big it is
No, its not a belief system. Its a methodical method to rule out fiction in order to accept what is true. That is what science is. NOT a belief system. Damn, George was so polite on that one.
In religion, faith is a virtue; in science, faith is a vice. That's the difference.
Science is not (or, should not be,) a "belief system." A believe system is Stagnant: This is How it IS and Will Always Be. Science says: "Test this! Check it out and compare notes!" Theories are subject to change based on later, better data. Technology is the useful by-product of Science, but Knowledge and Research isn't always (immediately) useful - and that's good. Dawg bless you, George!
science is not a belief system. It's a method of organizing evidence, developing explanations for those observations, and testing the explanations. Nothing in that definition involves "belief"
Damn he tells it like I've seen it from the moment I've started thinking
Yeah... right. I'm with you on that I think. I do 'believe' or am at least curious about things that might be called 'supernatural', having experienced many of them too many times to count now (ESP for want of a better word)... But it is my view that some day, we will have a satisfactory scientific explanation for them. And many religions do dissociate from the material, and pretend that it's transcendence. That's a huge mistake. I have a personal 'spirituality', but it includes the physical.
In this context science IS a belief system, like religion, which for Carlin forms the basis of the way he makes sense of his role in the universe. Just because science also produces facts, knowledge and useable technology does not mean that it is not also used as a basis for a social (and political) worldview. It is a system for the production of knowledge, which are expressed by humans as beliefs. It is therefore a belief production system, or a belief system.
I did not see evidence that the interviewer was criticising Carlin. He asked Carlin what was the meaning of life, Carlin started to answer, thought he got side-tracked and said that he had forgotten the question. The interviewer said that "Science is a belief system", which could easily be taken as a summary along the lines of "I asked you what you believed in (the meaning of life)" and you answered essentially "science", which is Carlin's basis for understanding the meaning of human existence.
@byteresistor Seeing as you distinguished between facts and absolute proof, and addressed the relativity of those 'facts' within the context/fabric of the realm we find ourselves in, I completely agree with you. That's close to what I think. And I do think we live in a 'matrix' of sorts, having done a lot of meditation, and psychedelics to get a taste of the awareness that transcends the matrix. Transcending it doesn't make it go away though, it makes living in it a more conscious experience.
very correct.
I wouldn't say that science is about being wrong. Science is about making valid predictions. It is a belief system which continually adapts as we learn more about the world.
In this case, they were talking about science-y theories of which we can't learn anything about. We will never know the age of the universe, we can only guess. The existence of the universe outside the solar system is just an hypothesis based on a fantastically complicated light show.
Science isn't a belief system, its a methodology. The scientific method is a way of looking at the world that helps take your personal biases out of the picture. In science every single thing is up for debate and differing opinions on things bring people together in discussion instead of dividing one another like religion. Science breaks down differences of opinion using intellect and experiment, and noone is *required* to believe any part of it, it just presents you with unbiased evidence.
@BRussellspouts
You deserve millions more of thumbs up for that, that sums up my thoughts of him.
Science may not always be correct or accurate, but they are always working to get as close as possible to the truth. If one scientist comes up with a theory, there's 17 more that validate the theory and make sure there's no holes. Unlike religion, science is a constant improvement of itself.
@TheEd0206 totally agree!
@AtheistNY Yes! Definitely. A leap of imagination is a good way of putting it. Imagine thinking about a world without friction like Galileo for the first time. It's pretty amazing to theorize about a world without friction when all of our experiences are directly opposed to that belief.
The difference between science and religion is that scientists are always ready to be proven wrong. It's built in to the scientific method: we must revise our beliefs based on what we learn and experience. This is rarely true of religion, although Buddhism is a notable exception.
I live in the always love it...
@LiBlub1 i love your comment!! mind if i start using it to explain myself better?
@davethehostage You have a very eloquent comment, I fully agree.
@davethehostage My thoughts exactly greetings from Holland ...
I think what the guy is alluding to is that unless you're really good at all parts of all branches of science, you have to put some faith in past researchers to have a basis to build on.
@ColStuart Yeah, kind of puts into perspective his "it's a belief system" bollocks subsequently.
That guy who interviewed Carlin should read Dan Dannett's book Breaking the spell. There, he will probably understand what belief actually is.The notion of belief has different meanings in different contexts.(I hope my sentences are logical,English isn't my first language).
@ShadowedLight9 Good point. I didn't think of that. Although, the things that change, don't change because of evidence. They change because of some arbitrary decision made my someone appointed that power through another arbitrary decision. It's really just because some rule seems outdated and they feel people are losing connection to the religion. It's a power play.
Science doesn't change just to connect to people better.
@LiBlub1 =) thank you
@RandyTheBee I can't agree more, Science is not a belief system. I cringed when Carlin said sure, George knows better he let him off light on that point witch is unlike him. Science is no more or less the exploration and testing of reality to see how things really are.
@MaCs1313 Yeah, I quite like the way I put it. Classy.
Science is not a "belief system". It is based upon the scientific method and trying one's hardest to see if a proposed theory stands up to relentless ways of negating it. Not that any theory is "bulletproof", but when you keep on getting the same answer regardless of what you throw at it, well there's something going on there,
@44eelz That's a very good point, however someone's love for something or someone can somewhat logically be explain through science as well. I'm not saying that I don't believe in a higher consciousness and I know that my understanding of things is never going to be complete. But I can accept that and it's alright not to know which is a scientific view. I think balance is good I don't have blind faith but I'm not an atheist. I think everything is relative.
is there any whole interview?
Beliefe is based on faith, science is based on trust.
Those are similar, but not entirely the same. Trust allows for and can even encourage verification, while faith sees verification as its antithesis.
The universe is many more light years distant than it is old, because of the rate of expansion, which is faster than the rate of its age, and its pretty accurate. Its not a guess. The guessing comes in when it comes to the 5 different acceptable string theories and thats where it starts to get weird.
Is this the book he's talking about?
Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang
That last question about science being a belief system was ridiculous, and him thinking the Earth is 21 billion years old is probably part of his problem. Jesus.
I'm sure a 100 commentors have already said this, but science is NOT a belief system in the same (or similar) sense that religion is. Science is a means of discovering the truth that evolves as we challenge our assumptions and seek new facts. Relgion purports to provide the truth now, wrapped up in a bow. Religion is a diet pill and science is a bench press.
The Big Bang theory has by no means the status of indisputable fact commensurate with Einstein's laws of relativity or quantum mechanics, or Newton's laws of motion. There are many things about the origins of the universe that are not fully understood by Physicists - the BB theory is merely the best scientific explanation we have so far.
I ❤️ Geo
@maxprezas92
Does the observer affect the conclusion of the specific method? if so..it's also an beliefsystem...and what is the deep meaning of proving someting scientificaly? we need to find the smallest particle because of...they realy dont know :) it's an kind of collectivism and religion in a sense...do you see? im not trying to convince you..but it's an intresting thought^^
The fact of the matter is, a lot of people these days mean by "Science" is "evolution & millions of years"
You might as well that Science was basically established by men who were Christians.
@D1CHHH "but if you want to argue that his own statements are based on what other people have done, couldn't you say that about anyone?" Your quote confirms my point of view. If George Carlin chose to believe something that was established by the scientific community without his own tests or investigation(faith), then it should also become acceptable for people of religious faith to come to their own belief based on books that have been written by men. But why argue with my pointless statements.
This is by no means an automatically anti-science position, but could well be the healthy skepticism and questioning that believers in the usefulness of the scientific method consistently advocate. The arguments of the likes of Peter Woit in "Not even wrong" ask essentially the same types of question.
It is belief because there are many things that scientist doesn't agree, and if when they agree that doesn't mean they are right. But in schools and in the media they present things the most probable things as facts so we could function. But sometimes they just advertise some very discutable things as very probable, because it is in someone's interest, but that's another story. After all why are you all arguing about when Carlin agreed...
@AquariusRevolution
I agree!
But let's leave out historical assumptions.
@raheelak29 I'm sure he did, every time he walked by it.
@1RadicalOne lol i love your comment!
@oldpiq , i put scientist in quotation to stress to you that these are people..not gods. I find that many posters here think science is sacred. Science is a human based effort to understand the universe. Science is a human term, its a human map of what we think reality is. Science can be also used as a religion. A better term will be research and development.
@supergenius2450cr That's true, but the latest and most advanced estimates indicate that the number of solar years that have passed since the Big Bang is ~13.64-86 billion. It was almost offensive to hear somebody say that “the Earth is like 21 billion years old”.
Who's the interviewer? What's his name?
I could've just listened to George talk about the trillions of years of time in our universe for hours upon hours. Why interrupt him?!
(Whistle out loud)... Just a telescope.....
Look up "red shift."
Cosmologists are pretty accurate.
@maxheedrum100 Thank you!
@oldpiq , of course science is a belief system. science theories change all the time. Science is nothing but a map created by humans of what we think reality is. Science is a human effort to understand our surroundings. Science is a study..but filled with thoughts and ideas and sometimes their correct and sometimes they are wrong. The big bang is just a theory..we belief that is how the universe started. We were not there to witness this. But we belief, based on what we can perceive.
@AquariusRevolution i agree, but einstein said "science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind", dont think he meant it literally, but like faith, we sense the world with our 5 senses. even to that abstract at the end we must believe our senses in how they experience the physical world, how can you logically explain someone's love for science? otherwise they wouldnt care. im not religious, but even carlin agreed to believing science.
@killer6468 I can go in deeper debate in that what you sad "proven by what we know" - what we know has to be a fact to be valid in science, and again what proves that fact? What we know? :) Do you get it now where I'm aiming at?
@devourerofbabies Science means knowledge in latin and thats what it is
@truvelocity But all those calculations are based off of measurements made from a telescope. It's not like we can go to different parts of the universe and verify these theories. Nor can we go to different moments in time and verify these theories.
So, there is a belief component. I think that is what is being talked about
@theremixphilly You just proved that it is a belief system. These "facts" you speak of are based on our own skew or perspective of understanding. They are not absolute... They only apply to us and our attempt at understanding. Science is very useful, but it is not a meta-theory. It is, though, one of our most important enterprises. It's more like an evolving Elementary school child at this point, not some genius-like college prodigy.
science is my religion
Good. Keep it that way
@hznfrst Don't be surprised. Carlin was after all a layman, not specially educated in these branches and likely did not go to deeply into them, but rather going into other variations of science that interested him more, likely languages and social sciences.
And technically from an epistemological standpoint Science(Empiricism) axiomatically believes that the universe is understandable and can be understood from our senses.
@kabasak That's fine with me. I'd much rather debate my view points with those who oppose to find common ground/new ideas, ya know, like an adult. ;)
Unless the commentators here have some greater context about this particular interview, I think there is a good chance that they are barking up the wrong tree, importing an disagreement when there is no concrete evidence of one.
@TheYipedo And that is why the choice in "belief" is very, very fucking obvious. :)
belief systems like that dont change. science and what we know about our surroundings are always changing as we develop more technology. so no i would not compare science to a belief system
@wtfzwrong To be fair, he's only wrong by factor of about 5. Compare that with creationist's claims that are wrong by a factor of about a million and he's not doing too badly.
@kabasak It IS. Though not nearly as bad as something like Christianity.
@nepostojeneutralni There is. Facts are things which are proven by what we know.
@fifzeppelin you can come close enough for all practical purposes.
@yusufine The difference between a scientist and a religious fanatic is that a scientist is happy to know something doesn't exist.
@murdockqotsa True, he's a bad interviewer, but not an idiot. Science IS based on two unprovable postulates which, in fact, are required for you to accept on faith, if you, like me, believe in science. I learned them in high school. Any credible scientist will tell you what they are, and here they are: 1. the universe is knowable. 2. humans are capable of knowing said universe.
The 2nd one is trickier, since it denies the fallibility of human judgment, but they are articles of faith nonetheless.
@ellamarie96 It is a belief system in that we trust our senses to provide us accurate information about the universe. There's no indication that the results we've been seeing for millions of years DON'T point to some degree of cosmic consistency, but there are definitely elements of Scientific discovery that challenge our powers of comprehension. But even the belief that we CAN'T POSSIBLY comprehend reality in its entirety is inherently unprovable. There is no such thing as absolute knowledge.
Sience is not a beleif system. It is knowing, or not knowing.
@kabasak And is that you in your channel picture? Aren't we a bit old to be talking like a child of this generation?
Correction:
Religion is a way of THINKING you are always right.
@sfumato1002 Theory of evolution is part of natural science also called biology. I assume you disregard whole biology but you still like to know what to call an insect or a plant and it's kind of nice to know which plants are deadly to eat or which snakes are not to be pet. Knowledge of viruses is also kind of nice: to know how they EVOLVE and to be able to anticipate their behavior.
I think George lost the interviewer and the audience around about the time of him saying, "I'm reading right now about..."
The brilliant shall inherit the earth. And Carlin inherited about six feet of it in 2008.
Shut up
@hznfrst
Yeah, but lets not be too hard on him. He was a child of the cold war not the internet.
SCIENCE IS NOT A BELIEF- IT IS PROVEN or UNPROVEN FACTS. How does that sound like a belief system?
@deathtotheism That's convincing, and I partially agree... But the universe often throws up anomalies, and I say the human body has a tendency or probability to die without water... Maybe the probability approaches absolute certainty, to the point where we can use it as a given fact though. The way I see it, engineering and technology puts these 'facts' that are extrapolated by science into material use... And it works well most of the time. I still say there are tendencies though, not facts..
@D1CHHH Why are you responding to my pointless statements, Mr. D1CHHH? What do you wish to be sure of?
@crocswsocks Obliviously you aren't George because he took the question very well but the interviewer is perfectly correct that believing in science can be related to a belief in religion in a way. If you blindly believe what a scientist(a priest) says and don't do your own research you are no better than a Christian who blindly believes what he is being told.
@ellamarie96 Well, gravity's not a "scientific discovery". It's not science that made us conscious of it.
On the other hand believing the earth is this and that many years old is probably just a belief unless you're a scientist yourself and have explored the data and made the conclusions yourself.
Most scientists would say 21 billion years; Most religious people (mostly Jews, muslims, and christians) would say 6000 years. "What are you trying to say?" Well, what I'm trying to say is this: Who knows?
Science IS a (religion-like) Belief System, that provides (atheist, humanist) humans a sense of place in the universe, but it is also much more, a belief system that produces useful, practical, relevant, testable, beliefs.
The commentators reacting to invisible presumed implications that science is no more than religion appear to me to be talking exactly as if their scientific beliefs are essentially religious in nature. But I live where this issue is not polarising, unlike in the US.
@7at2
Maybe so, but at least it's not genocide. Even still, if a mad doctor kills somebody while trying to find out something about the human body, at the very least humanity will gain a wee bit from that, if he publishes his findings.
The interviewer disliked this 6 times. What a tool.