I would also mention that you can find books full of unexplained artifacts that continue to baffle scientists and archaeologists. In the absence of an explanation, such things tend to just be bracketed off and ignored until such an explanation is available.
You state at the beginning of the video that Popper wasn't interested in whether ideas were true or false, but you are wrong: "Our main concern in science and philosophy is, or ought to be, the search for truth, by way of bold conjectures and the critical search for what is false in our various competing theories." Popper, Objective Knowledge, p.319. This is at the beginning of a chapter in which Popper discusses the importance of the idea of truth.
If we found repeated instances of rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, it would progressively throw evolution into doubt. But I don't think any such anomaly could, in and of itself, overthrow a theory with so much convergent evidence in its favor.
Since UA-cam won't let me post links, google the following: Antikythera Mechanism, Baghdad Batteries, Giant Stone Balls of Costa Rica, and the Baigong Pipes. Of course, that's just archaeological artifacts. On the level of physics, see the 96% of matter and energy in the universe that has been bracketed off with the prefix "dark" in lieu of an actual explanation of what's going on with it.
I'm curious. As i've been reading some of Popper's works recently i'm beginning to feel that there is something incorrect about this analysis of Popper's critique of Marx. The main point, i think, is that you have to differentiate between Marx and Marx' theoretical method (historical materialism), and Marxism after Marx. Because, even though Popper is fairly critical towards Marx, i don't believe he ever refers to him as a pseudo scientist. What he criticizes about Marx is that he is to deterministic in his approach to sociology given that Marx prophesizes that the revolution will necessarily come as a dialectical product of the modes of production. This is to say that human beings have no say in whether or not the revolution will come, that they have no free will in a sense, no consciousness. However, says Popper, this method is in fact scientific because it is actually falsifiable, and it did get falsified when there was no revolution in the industrialized countries like Germany and England and as you mentioned Russia had a revolution even though it clearly did not meet the materialistic criteria for a revolution. What happens afterward though is that theorists starts questioning what went wrong and why the revolution never came. That is when the Frankfurt School emerges with leading figures like Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm etc. who decide to make a cultural analysis of why the revolution never happened using Marx' terms "alienation" and "commodity fetichism" AND Freud's psychoanalysis. What they end up doing is exactly what Popper calls pseudo-science which is to blame the lack of revolution on "false consciousness".
Can you provide a source for the Marx quote comparing himself to Newton? The closest discussion I'm finding is in Engels' theorizing about the development of science- “Natural science developed in the midst of the general revolution and was itself thoroughly revolutionary,” etc., I don't see much about the "science of society" as they called it.
I don't have it handy, sorry. It's been a long time since I saw that line and I've since forgotten where it came from. It's certainly possible that I'm misremembering, or my original sources was just wrong.
So, the antikythera device is a gear-based clock made of bronze, using the techniques and astronomical knowledge of the time (100 BC). Historic accounts from others at the time indicate that the technology existed from 300 BC. So, what's the mystery there? The date and function of the "battery" isn't known. So it's rather the opposite of a mystery. Current couldn't have flowed through it since the copper part was completely covered with coal, so it definitely wasn't a battery.
1.45 " It's not empiricism" The word "empiricism" didn't fit in my view since empiricism is a theory concerning the origins of knowledge. The expression needed there is empirical evidence or maybe a reliance on empirical evidence. Or something similar.
By establishing a counter-instance of a claim. When i claim all ravens are black, this claim would be falsified by observing a non black raven. In the same way a theory is falsified if occurences are observed that are prohibited by that theory.
Also Einsteins equations fail to account for the gravitational difference between the centre and tail of a galaxy ans it fails to predict the behaviour of local groups What do physicists do instead of making a new theory? They invent dark matter to fit the current theory. What would Popper say to that?
'Strict Popper' would probably say that sounda like making excuses for a falsified theory. But (as several have noted here in the comments) Popper himself eventually grew more lax and tried to find room for these sorts of anomalies.
You're statement that "Astrology is clearly pseudo-science" is itself pseudo-scientific, in that you haven't even made a definition of what you mean by the word "Astrology" if we adopt a definition such as "The influence of Astronomy on Biology", then clearly we have the circadian rhythm of the daily cycle & seasonal biology of the yearly one, which fulfill this definition.
Every Popper video I see tries to invalid Astrology. A shame and is often due to deriving from a secondary interpretation, making this a tertiary one. Better to read the primary books themselves ;)
Marxism, standing on the shoulders of Adan Smith and J S Mill, was described by Marx as "scientific socialism" and this was true by the measure of our understanding of scientific method 150 years ago. Popper's total annihilation of Marx's historisist theory was based on debunking the previous view of science and replacing it with our current view, knowledge grows by trial and error. Popper said nothing about Marxism failing because it didn't lead to a revolution in a capitalist state. He logically destroyed the whole theory whilst at the same time pointing out that capitalism was replaced by the mixed economy even before Marx wrote Das Capital. Marx loved the UK in his retirement.Popper never changed his mind and said evolutionary theory was scientific. He only said that those involved in historical research on the subject were bona-fide scientists genuinely seeking the truth by trial and error. But they were only unpicking the history of how we got from single cells to where we are today. They could tell us what was successful in the past and how one thing morphed into another but they failed the falsifiability criterion because they couldn't make any predictions, risky or otherwise, about the future. They couldn't say what would be tomorrow's survivor or which is the fittest today. Popper even proved that it is impossible to predict the near future never-mind the longer term.
We have specific examples of tests of the theory of relativity. I was not aware that Marxist theory predicted specific locations for revolution. So was Marx’ prediction inherent to his theory, or was it based on something else? (Hopes or other ideas) The person and the theory are not the same. Ideally someone would apply their theory when making predictions, but people are flawed. Maybe Marx made those predictions to encourage revolution, rather than because he was confident they would happen
Well, if he made those predictions to encourage revolution that falls into the 'self-fulfilling prophecy' fallacy, which is non-scientific for a different reason. Anyway, Popper's criticism of Marxism, Freudianism, and other pseudo-sciences is easy to understand. Really, Popper didn't write the book on the demarcation of science from non-science, he only contributed one criterion: falsifiability. Apart from this criterion, there are others, Popper is renowned just for adding this one criterion to the conversation. Anyway, consider the following two statements: 1.) Lightning never strikes the same place twice. 2.) Lightning never strikes the same place twice, except when it does. Statement 1 is a valid scientific theory. "Valid" doesn't mean "true," just that, whether true or false, it passes the border ("demarcation") into science (as opposed to "not science"). This is because it can be tested. Statement 2 is not valid, according to Popper's idea. It is "always right," and paradoxically then, it is wrong automatically, and thus invalid. You see, the testability of a theory rests on its falsifiability. "Falsifiability" doesn't mean that it is proven wrong, just that there exists a contingency, which IF observed, WOULD prove it wrong. If a statement cannot be falsified (i.e. there is NO conceivable observation that could ever disprove it), then we can't really test it, can we? If someone tries to test statement 2, and they see lightning strike two different places twice, they declare victory. If they see lightning strike the same place twice, they invoke "...except when it does," and declare victory. No matter what they observe, they declare victory. Logically, only something that is meaningless makes this mistake. Popper says that (one point) of being a valid theory (whether or not it is also a true theory) is that it doesn't make this mistake, that it is unfalsifiable.
@@michaelgavinjohnston7985 I agree with most of that, all tho Inam not clear on how most of it relates to my post. One little quibble: #2 is not “paradoxically wrong” or wrong in any way in itself; it is a useless tautology.
Predictions were that a communist revolution to overthrow capitalism should happen in those countries with the most "advanced late stage capitalism", that is, industrialized countries. Why? Because history had to go through all stages, from classical antiquity (slavery) to feudalism, capitalism, socialism and then communism, where each mode of production is better than the one it replaces, and you needed industrialized capitalism so that the workers would develop "class consciousness" and then revolt. What were those places then? The UK, Germany or the US, the more advanced industrialized countries at the time. Problem is, the revolution never happened in any industrializes country, but only on agrarian societies (or semi-industrialized kinda feudal) like russia, china, korea, vietnam and cuba That should be a pretty clear falsification of the theory
Minor note, wasn't Marx dubious about the Russian communist revolution because they did not go through the capitalist stage? Or something to that effect...
Perhaps, but if we found other things that didn't fit the theory, independent lines of evidence that couldn't be accounted for via time travel, you would eventually throw out evolution, no?
When you talk about astrology being verifiable are you talking about it in the sense of conformation bias?. In conversations with Christians I'm constantly being told that the bible is verifiable with science, they will pick a vague prophesy and tell me for example that it explains something like DNA.
Whether or not the planet is warming is certainly falsifiable: we simply compare global average temperature year over year. But that does require specifying some parameters (e.g.--is the claim that the planet is warmer EVERY year compared to the last one? Or that each decade will be warmer than the previous one?) Whichever time frame you choose we simply make the measurements and compare. If the temperature is going up, the claim in not falsified, if it doesn't go up the claim is falsified.
Biology esp Human Biology is so complex.....human has to use all possible epistemic tools to get some knowledge if not all....hence, Evolution and Intelligent Design is a false dichotomy
I think your appraisal of Marxism is misguided. It's not necessarily the case that Marxism needs to make a prediction that people will predominantly love or hate their jobs, and it's compatible with both responses, just as evolutionary theory is compatible with the existence of predominantly selfish and altruistic species. Individual Marxists (and Freudians) may claim confirmation of their theories by irrelevant matters, but from that it doesn't follow that the theory itself is unscientific. You'd need to show that this pattern holds for the central claims of Marxist theory.
Aller, p'tite défense pour les Freudien: reconnaître que les lapsus sont parfois du à autre chose qu'un contenu inconscient refoulé donne plus de crédibilité scientifique selon Poppers :p
Number one: euthanasie strictement médicale. On brise le serment d'Hippocrate, on a compris, on est pas con merci bien (tu parles à une meuf qui a eu les couilles de dire fuck freud en fac de psycho donc fais pas genre je sais pas envoyer chier les traditions), mais on respecte l'éthique et on se rappelle que dans le cas d'une maladie mentale comme la mélancolie ou la dépression, tuer n'est pas la solution: c'est l'accomplissement de la folie. Psychologue de pacotille.
unfortunately marx is taken as unironic science by many edgy kids in this generation. It's either a worship of marx or just delving into straight up fascism.
I've been loving your lectures so far, but your analysis (as well as Popper's) of Marx is totally incorrect. It consists of various strawman arguments and genuine mischaracterizations of what Marx believed/theorized.
There are entire forests standing upright through "millions of years" of strata, I have seen one with my own eyes in Alaska. Tiktaalik has already been found not to be ancestral to full land animals. That an amphibian fossil would be found in a certain area is not "risky" at all. I know of dozens of specific predictions of natural origin theories which have been found wrong, starting with lunar dust when I was 10 years old (I am now 57). Popper was pressured into changing his public statements on macroevolution. I used to be in biochemistry research and any dissent of macroevolution had to be whispered for fear of career termination. I left it 20 years ago as keeping quiet became too much if a burden. As an agnostic I considered macroevolution pseudoscience with more evidence contrary to it than even astrology. The Inquisition is alive and well, they were different hats and now defund you instead of burn you at the stake. The religious zeal of current macroevolutionists blinds their minds.
I don't like Freud or Marx theory on human nature. Sadly, they are right. The presenter is bias. We hate the notion of being brainwashed into our thinking. We like to think we are a rational creature. We are not. Ask him a series of questions and his answers will demonstrate this coded programming to his identity. You should be able to design self to be rational. No external influence should guide your thinking or seek any agreement. Yes, to falsification to a theory. However, when a theory can't be falsified; it doesn't mean it isn't a sound theory. The question is when does a theory no longer apply. What condition renders it useless as a predictive method?
Looking for confirmation, going digging, finding something that you can apply your bias to, evolution confirmed. Congratulations. Would we reconsider the validity of our theory if our bias could not be applied? No. Would we go and inevnt new ways for our theory to be correct? Yes. At what point is evolutionist going to reconsider validity of his presupposition and be swayed to intelligent design? Never, because his world view allows for only one type of interpretation of the data.
If you mean to say that theories in climate science are unfalsifiable, that's (at least generally) incorrect. There may be some specific theories that are unfalsifiable, the main ones (that the climate is warming, that is is human activity that is driving it, and that this is a threat to the wellbeing of many species on the planet, including humans) are certainly falsifiable.
@@SisyphusRedeemed I humbly apologize. I guess my readings on the poor old man were in error. Great how he never seems to go away. I assume folks like us will be debating his thought 1 or 2 hundred years from now. You certainly have me re-thinking him. Thanks for your posts, I believe I've seen them all and appreciate the time and effort you expend. I should not have used terse language with you, you clearly deserve better.
@@pjeffries301 Thank you for the reply, apology accepted. FTR: Popper's use for Marx here is certainly far from exhaustive. It addresses only a very small aspect of his thinking (specifically, his claim to be a scientist). Beyond that, nothing Popper says impugns Marx in the slightest.
@@NRWTx I'm presenting 'Popper's Marx' here, which is certainly far from exhaustive (and one could also argue is not a fair representation of his views.) At the same time, Marx is a *highly* disputed figure, and no presentation of his ideas are going to satisfy everyone.
Congratulations for the methodology used for conveying the message!
I would also mention that you can find books full of unexplained artifacts that continue to baffle scientists and archaeologists. In the absence of an explanation, such things tend to just be bracketed off and ignored until such an explanation is available.
You state at the beginning of the video that Popper wasn't interested in whether ideas were true or false, but you are wrong: "Our main concern in science and philosophy is, or ought to be, the search for truth, by way of bold conjectures and the critical search for what is false in our various competing theories." Popper, Objective Knowledge, p.319. This is at the beginning of a chapter in which Popper discusses the importance of the idea of truth.
To echo the comment below this one, I love this guy's presentations!
If we found repeated instances of rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian, it would progressively throw evolution into doubt. But I don't think any such anomaly could, in and of itself, overthrow a theory with so much convergent evidence in its favor.
I'm studying this in my Philosophy class, any chance you could send me the slides from this video?
Since UA-cam won't let me post links, google the following: Antikythera Mechanism, Baghdad Batteries, Giant Stone Balls of Costa Rica, and the Baigong Pipes. Of course, that's just archaeological artifacts. On the level of physics, see the 96% of matter and energy in the universe that has been bracketed off with the prefix "dark" in lieu of an actual explanation of what's going on with it.
I'm curious. As i've been reading some of Popper's works recently i'm beginning to feel that there is something incorrect about this analysis of Popper's critique of Marx. The main point, i think, is that you have to differentiate between Marx and Marx' theoretical method (historical materialism), and Marxism after Marx. Because, even though Popper is fairly critical towards Marx, i don't believe he ever refers to him as a pseudo scientist. What he criticizes about Marx is that he is to deterministic in his approach to sociology given that Marx prophesizes that the revolution will necessarily come as a dialectical product of the modes of production. This is to say that human beings have no say in whether or not the revolution will come, that they have no free will in a sense, no consciousness. However, says Popper, this method is in fact scientific because it is actually falsifiable, and it did get falsified when there was no revolution in the industrialized countries like Germany and England and as you mentioned Russia had a revolution even though it clearly did not meet the materialistic criteria for a revolution. What happens afterward though is that theorists starts questioning what went wrong and why the revolution never came. That is when the Frankfurt School emerges with leading figures like Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm etc. who decide to make a cultural analysis of why the revolution never happened using Marx' terms "alienation" and "commodity fetichism" AND Freud's psychoanalysis. What they end up doing is exactly what Popper calls pseudo-science which is to blame the lack of revolution on "false consciousness".
The difference between freud and marx is that freuds pseuscience was much better in practice than marxs pseudoscience
Can you provide a source for the Marx quote comparing himself to Newton? The closest discussion I'm finding is in Engels' theorizing about the development of science- “Natural science developed in the midst of the general revolution and was itself thoroughly revolutionary,” etc., I don't see much about the "science of society" as they called it.
I don't have it handy, sorry. It's been a long time since I saw that line and I've since forgotten where it came from. It's certainly possible that I'm misremembering, or my original sources was just wrong.
its not true. He did however compare his historical materialism and mode of productions evolution to darwin.
are theories that are untestable like the multiverse unscientific?
So, the antikythera device is a gear-based clock made of bronze, using the techniques and astronomical knowledge of the time (100 BC). Historic accounts from others at the time indicate that the technology existed from 300 BC. So, what's the mystery there?
The date and function of the "battery" isn't known. So it's rather the opposite of a mystery. Current couldn't have flowed through it since the copper part was completely covered with coal, so it definitely wasn't a battery.
1.45 " It's not empiricism"
The word "empiricism" didn't fit in my view since empiricism is a theory concerning the origins of knowledge. The expression needed there is empirical evidence or maybe a reliance on empirical evidence. Or something similar.
How do you falsify? Example please
By establishing a counter-instance of a claim. When i claim all ravens are black, this claim would be falsified by observing a non black raven. In the same way a theory is falsified if occurences are observed that are prohibited by that theory.
Whose site is this?
How does Poppers demarcation of science reflect on climate science and theories of climate change?
Also Einsteins equations fail to account for the gravitational difference between the centre and tail of a galaxy ans it fails to predict the behaviour of local groups
What do physicists do instead of making a new theory? They invent dark matter to fit the current theory. What would Popper say to that?
'Strict Popper' would probably say that sounda like making excuses for a falsified theory. But (as several have noted here in the comments) Popper himself eventually grew more lax and tried to find room for these sorts of anomalies.
You're statement that "Astrology is clearly pseudo-science" is itself pseudo-scientific, in that you haven't even made a definition of what you mean by the word "Astrology" if we adopt a definition such as "The influence of Astronomy on Biology", then clearly we have the circadian rhythm of the daily cycle & seasonal biology of the yearly one, which fulfill this definition.
Every Popper video I see tries to invalid Astrology. A shame and is often due to deriving from a secondary interpretation, making this a tertiary one. Better to read the primary books themselves ;)
Marxism, standing on the shoulders of Adan Smith and J S Mill, was described by Marx as "scientific socialism" and this was true by the measure of our understanding of scientific method 150 years ago. Popper's total annihilation of Marx's historisist theory was based on debunking the previous view of science and replacing it with our current view, knowledge grows by trial and error. Popper said nothing about Marxism failing because it didn't lead to a revolution in a capitalist state. He logically destroyed the whole theory whilst at the same time pointing out that capitalism was replaced by the mixed economy even before Marx wrote Das Capital. Marx loved the UK in his retirement.Popper never changed his mind and said evolutionary theory was scientific. He only said that those involved in historical research on the subject were bona-fide scientists genuinely seeking the truth by trial and error. But they were only unpicking the history of how we got from single cells to where we are today. They could tell us what was successful in the past and how one thing morphed into another but they failed the falsifiability criterion because they couldn't make any predictions, risky or otherwise, about the future. They couldn't say what would be tomorrow's survivor or which is the fittest today. Popper even proved that it is impossible to predict the near future never-mind the longer term.
Well, if some could be provided, then they might not be 'bracketed' off. Most are dismissed because they'd been explained.
We have specific examples of tests of the theory of relativity. I was not aware that Marxist theory predicted specific locations for revolution. So was Marx’ prediction inherent to his theory, or was it based on something else? (Hopes or other ideas)
The person and the theory are not the same. Ideally someone would apply their theory when making predictions, but people are flawed. Maybe Marx made those predictions to encourage revolution, rather than because he was confident they would happen
Well, if he made those predictions to encourage revolution that falls into the 'self-fulfilling prophecy' fallacy, which is non-scientific for a different reason. Anyway, Popper's criticism of Marxism, Freudianism, and other pseudo-sciences is easy to understand. Really, Popper didn't write the book on the demarcation of science from non-science, he only contributed one criterion: falsifiability. Apart from this criterion, there are others, Popper is renowned just for adding this one criterion to the conversation.
Anyway, consider the following two statements:
1.) Lightning never strikes the same place twice.
2.) Lightning never strikes the same place twice, except when it does.
Statement 1 is a valid scientific theory. "Valid" doesn't mean "true," just that, whether true or false, it passes the border ("demarcation") into science (as opposed to "not science"). This is because it can be tested.
Statement 2 is not valid, according to Popper's idea. It is "always right," and paradoxically then, it is wrong automatically, and thus invalid. You see, the testability of a theory rests on its falsifiability. "Falsifiability" doesn't mean that it is proven wrong, just that there exists a contingency, which IF observed, WOULD prove it wrong. If a statement cannot be falsified (i.e. there is NO conceivable observation that could ever disprove it), then we can't really test it, can we?
If someone tries to test statement 2, and they see lightning strike two different places twice, they declare victory. If they see lightning strike the same place twice, they invoke "...except when it does," and declare victory. No matter what they observe, they declare victory. Logically, only something that is meaningless makes this mistake. Popper says that (one point) of being a valid theory (whether or not it is also a true theory) is that it doesn't make this mistake, that it is unfalsifiable.
@@michaelgavinjohnston7985 I agree with most of that, all tho Inam not clear on how most of it relates to my post.
One little quibble: #2 is not “paradoxically wrong” or wrong in any way in itself; it is a useless tautology.
Predictions were that a communist revolution to overthrow capitalism should happen in those countries with the most "advanced late stage capitalism", that is, industrialized countries. Why? Because history had to go through all stages, from classical antiquity (slavery) to feudalism, capitalism, socialism and then communism, where each mode of production is better than the one it replaces, and you needed industrialized capitalism so that the workers would develop "class consciousness" and then revolt.
What were those places then? The UK, Germany or the US, the more advanced industrialized countries at the time. Problem is, the revolution never happened in any industrializes country, but only on agrarian societies (or semi-industrialized kinda feudal) like russia, china, korea, vietnam and cuba
That should be a pretty clear falsification of the theory
Minor note, wasn't Marx dubious about the Russian communist revolution because they did not go through the capitalist stage? Or something to that effect...
Perhaps, but if we found other things that didn't fit the theory, independent lines of evidence that couldn't be accounted for via time travel, you would eventually throw out evolution, no?
My guy Popper knows where it's at
no
Amazing lectures.
This was awesome!
what about the Chinese zodiac?
When you talk about astrology being verifiable are you talking about it in the sense of conformation bias?. In conversations with Christians I'm constantly being told that the bible is verifiable with science, they will pick a vague prophesy and tell me for example that it explains something like DNA.
Does the theory of Global Warming fail Popper's tests?
Whether or not the planet is warming is certainly falsifiable: we simply compare global average temperature year over year. But that does require specifying some parameters (e.g.--is the claim that the planet is warmer EVERY year compared to the last one? Or that each decade will be warmer than the previous one?) Whichever time frame you choose we simply make the measurements and compare. If the temperature is going up, the claim in not falsified, if it doesn't go up the claim is falsified.
Biology esp Human Biology is so complex.....human has to use all possible epistemic tools to get some knowledge if not all....hence, Evolution and Intelligent Design is a false dichotomy
maybe Freud had an Oedipal complex and wanted to normalize it.
I would sooner consider rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian to be evidence for time travel than against evolution.
I think your appraisal of Marxism is misguided. It's not necessarily the case that Marxism needs to make a prediction that people will predominantly love or hate their jobs, and it's compatible with both responses, just as evolutionary theory is compatible with the existence of predominantly selfish and altruistic species. Individual Marxists (and Freudians) may claim confirmation of their theories by irrelevant matters, but from that it doesn't follow that the theory itself is unscientific. You'd need to show that this pattern holds for the central claims of Marxist theory.
Aller, p'tite défense pour les Freudien: reconnaître que les lapsus sont parfois du à autre chose qu'un contenu inconscient refoulé donne plus de crédibilité scientifique selon Poppers :p
Moi aussi je joue avec les mot des fois, va-y on va réecrire la loi 🤣
Number one: euthanasie strictement médicale. On brise le serment d'Hippocrate, on a compris, on est pas con merci bien (tu parles à une meuf qui a eu les couilles de dire fuck freud en fac de psycho donc fais pas genre je sais pas envoyer chier les traditions), mais on respecte l'éthique et on se rappelle que dans le cas d'une maladie mentale comme la mélancolie ou la dépression, tuer n'est pas la solution: c'est l'accomplissement de la folie. Psychologue de pacotille.
I watched it!
unfortunately marx is taken as unironic science by many edgy kids in this generation. It's either a worship of marx or just delving into straight up fascism.
you have no clue about marx so why do you talk
I've been loving your lectures so far, but your analysis (as well as Popper's) of Marx is totally incorrect. It consists of various strawman arguments and genuine mischaracterizations of what Marx believed/theorized.
There are entire forests standing upright through "millions of years" of strata, I have seen one with my own eyes in Alaska. Tiktaalik has already been found not to be ancestral to full land animals. That an amphibian fossil would be found in a certain area is not "risky" at all. I know of dozens of specific predictions of natural origin theories which have been found wrong, starting with lunar dust when I was 10 years old (I am now 57). Popper was pressured into changing his public statements on macroevolution. I used to be in biochemistry research and any dissent of macroevolution had to be whispered for fear of career termination. I left it 20 years ago as keeping quiet became too much if a burden. As an agnostic I considered macroevolution pseudoscience with more evidence contrary to it than even astrology. The Inquisition is alive and well, they were different hats and now defund you instead of burn you at the stake. The religious zeal of current macroevolutionists blinds their minds.
I don't like Freud or Marx theory on human nature. Sadly, they are right. The presenter is bias. We hate the notion of being brainwashed into our thinking. We like to think we are a rational creature. We are not. Ask him a series of questions and his answers will demonstrate this coded programming to his identity. You should be able to design self to be rational. No external influence should guide your thinking or seek any agreement. Yes, to falsification to a theory. However, when a theory can't be falsified; it doesn't mean it isn't a sound theory. The question is when does a theory no longer apply. What condition renders it useless as a predictive method?
Looking for confirmation, going digging, finding something that you can apply your bias to, evolution confirmed. Congratulations. Would we reconsider the validity of our theory if our bias could not be applied? No. Would we go and inevnt new ways for our theory to be correct? Yes.
At what point is evolutionist going to reconsider validity of his presupposition and be swayed to intelligent design? Never, because his world view allows for only one type of interpretation of the data.
Sounds like climate science
If you mean to say that theories in climate science are unfalsifiable, that's (at least generally) incorrect. There may be some specific theories that are unfalsifiable, the main ones (that the climate is warming, that is is human activity that is driving it, and that this is a threat to the wellbeing of many species on the planet, including humans) are certainly falsifiable.
Maybe actually study Marx before pontificating. Just sayin.
I've studied Marx in detail. I've taught his works at the college level.
@@SisyphusRedeemed I humbly apologize. I guess my readings on the poor old man were in error. Great how he never seems to go away. I assume folks like us will be debating his thought 1 or 2 hundred years from now. You certainly have me re-thinking him. Thanks for your posts, I believe I've seen them all and appreciate the time and effort you expend. I should not have used terse language with you, you clearly deserve better.
@@pjeffries301 Thank you for the reply, apology accepted.
FTR: Popper's use for Marx here is certainly far from exhaustive. It addresses only a very small aspect of his thinking (specifically, his claim to be a scientist). Beyond that, nothing Popper says impugns Marx in the slightest.
@@SisyphusRedeemed how come it then that you say so much non sense on this video if you studied him "in detail"
@@NRWTx I'm presenting 'Popper's Marx' here, which is certainly far from exhaustive (and one could also argue is not a fair representation of his views.) At the same time, Marx is a *highly* disputed figure, and no presentation of his ideas are going to satisfy everyone.