I used to watch these lectures back in 2016 when i was doing a plastering course but just listening to Jordan too try and figure out what had just happened in my life fresh out of jail after an abusive relationship with an older narcissistic women who pushed me to the brink i lost a career a house and a child in the process and this man i am so thankfully i stumbled across him back then and so glad he had became such a success a truely great man in my eyes thank you Dr Jordan Peterson
@ thanks, appreciate it, me and my brother ended up pretty messed up, but dragged ourselves through. In way that is good, strangely, we didn't know any different. It only began to unravel when we got away.
But to be interested in, or absorbed by politics, is quite like what he's describing here. You need to be able to take on board new developments all the time and incorporate them into your world view. Or perhaps you don't, or alternatively won't, because of other complicating factors. For instance at the present time, the whole Trump / tariffs debate ( when it's possible to keep fully abreast of it ) is nothing short of confounding to most neo classicists for whom Milton Friedman is the authority.
@@aclifford652 Yes but Peterson of old wasn't political. That was my whole point. As soon as you align yourself with a certain political party you will lose some independence since you have to tow the party line. I said nothing about tariffs. Even Ben Shapiro said in his most recent video that they are poison for the economy though.
@EbonyPope I don't know that he's aligned himself as such with a Party, or a populist movement. Certainly I think he's managed to keep more distance between himself and this US populist movement than a lot of other 'casters' about the place. Personally I'd never heard of him until the trans lobby accosted him. I only know him, as does much of the world, as an inherently, if initially reluctant political figure. It's a bit like wishing that Martin Luther had stuck to religion I think. ( Though you might well respond that that's precisely what Luther wanted to do. )
@@aclifford652 Peterson is not Martin Luther King my dude. He is now openly supporting the Daily Wire. Martin Luther King never was shilling for any party. He even talked about it. He was not aligned with either one.
yes. Not cause I was specifically, but bc my collegiate career ended in May 2thousand 6teen. I was among the last to receive an actual education from the liberal arts. They have abandoned the search for truth, but there are many of us young enough to remember how we used to demand the truth. We need complete education reform.
There are no “facts” is true science. It’s always just been the consensus of what is most likely happening, based on the collective works and understanding of the global scientific community. As a biology undergrad, a professor taught us this on day one. Science has to be able to change, as we learn more as time goes on, based on new technological advancements, exploration, and simply by running new experiments. It’s what makes science so honest. It’s always admitting that this is our best guess, but is supported by findings.
Science is ever changing. It is about the search for knowledge, not meanings. We only know a little, so the more we learn, the more the science changes.
The problem is claiming fact. Touting THEORY as fact. Huge red flags. Science will peddle any bullsh!t to gain funding. It's fraud. Furthermore, science is largely being used to plunder nature in one way or another as it stands. There is only one possible outcome for this scenario.
There were other issues with Newtonian Physics at the turn of the 19th century. One very major one is that the orbit of Mercury around the sun could not be predicted with the equations. This was solved with Relativity, and frame dragging. Facts do change with the advancing understanding shows that it is not what we perceive it to be. Many years ago it was a known fact that ulcers were caused by stress, hot foods, and needed surgery to fix. One person put that fact to rest, by infecting himself with the bacteria that caused the ulcer, produced one in his stomach, and then cured it by antibiotics. This fact did change, and we are better for it. I am in agreement that the process of discovery of a "fact" is what does not change, and with advancements in the science, technology, theories, and understanding, these tools will provide the best knowledge that can be generated. The real issue is keeping that process true, and uncorrupted. That is the real challenge.
@@gary5799 I call it a limit of understanding. Does a child make a mistake in thinking the moon is this round face in the sky? It isn't till later in their development that they understand it to be a round body the orbits the earth. I think of mistakes as having the understanding, but not using the correct knowledge despite knowing otherwise. If someone today still believes that the ether is used as a medium to transmit light, and other forms of energy, that is a mistake. A theory or hypotheses that can be tested, will sometimes be validated, but never proven as a fact. You cannot prove something is a fact, you can only show that it cannot be falsified. What maybe we should be talking about are not facts, but hypothesis, or theories that can be shown to be tested in a thorough, and systematic way. The more it is tested in various ways, the more complete and solid the foundation you have for it. As understanding, technology, and resolution increases, the theory, and hypothesis, may have to change because new things are found, that the original theory did not cover.
@@rpercifieldjr I would argue that ether as a universal medium most likely exists, but we just haven't (or maybe can't) really find a way to properly measure it. Think about how light "slows down" when it travels through a medium and has a new speed. Now if we apply that to light in a vacuum, if it truly was traveling through "nothing" then there should be no speed limit, but we know it does. We are however, sticking to ideas that I think are much less plausible (the graviton), and ones that are completely pointless and absurd (string theory). Remember that we have stuff like dark energy and dark matter even though we can't measure them, but just guess. Not to mention vacuum energy.
@@GameFuMaster If there was a medium that electromagnetic radiation traveled through out motion through it would be detected. When you look at all of the various motions that we as observers make, earth rotating on its axis, Moon orbiting around the earth, Earth and moon orbiting around the sun, and the solar system within the Milky Way traveling within the same medium, no change of the velocity of this radiation has ever been detected. So the chance of finding a medium that this EM radiation travels through is very close to zero. Since EM radiation acts like both a particle and a wave a medium would imply a flow of some type. This flow has not been observed. Also current EM theory explains and predicts changes in medium velocities of EM radiation. There currently is no theory that has been tested for some type of medium, all so far have been falsified. String theory has not shown any promise to date, and there is no real path at present to unify the large and small scale theories of the universe. There is a lot we don't know, and all we can do is to continue to improve the technology, gather higher resolution data, and work on better theories to explain the universe. This is how you progress in science. When something is hypothesized and tested, we can then start to decipher what we see.
@@rpercifieldjr So I'm obviously not that well versed in this subject, so this is just my uninformed hypothesis. So we do know that light "bends" with "gravity". So we have made observation of its movement being changed. We see light "refracting" in water, but that's only because we have a comparison as an outside observer. Imagine if we somehow lived inside a glass sphere, and the sphere rotates, we would see light moving without its velocity changing. Remember in relativity that you cannot truly know who is actually moving if both parties are at "rest", as both can equally and validly say that the other is moving.
The method of science appears to consist in favoring the human sense of eyesight over powerful competing senses such as hearing, taste, smell, touch, and especially “personal feelings”. Imagine asking a room full of 20 people to estimate the temperature in the room and to write it down. Then bring in a digital thermometer visible to all 20 and ask the same question. The first instance is “less scientific” than the second, and the first instance is relying upon “feeling” (skin temp or metabolic rate) rather than eyesight. Understanding science as a process of subordinating other information sources to physical vision and the psychological processes related to vision helps to explain some things, such as Why the scientific method rapidly accelerated historically only after the improvement of glass optics brought about the telescope and the microscope Why science was a threat to an existing social order and required that feudalism be ended before science could greatly expand (“truth through observation and reason” conflicts with “truth through social status, tradition, and legal authority”) Being a process of learning through visual observation, science is limited to never become Art, where vision comes from the inside, and will always be in a (hopefully fruitful) competition with things which are often more Art than science, such as philosophy, religion, politics, commerce.
He doesn't believe in facts, he admitted he doesn't have a foundation of truth with Sam Harris in the dreadful podcast episode where Sam tried for an hour to get Jordan to agree with 1 simple fact, and he refused for 1 hour of simple simple questions. JD is a manifestation of what Half-truth would be if it was a person; He will act as if facts are true except when you ask him that way he can argue the facts. JD is amazing when he's right and appalling/misleading when he's trying to talk things into existence.
I hope he goes on to explain this, but facts don't change. Our understanding of reality changes, and with science (hopefully), that understanding gets better over time and closer to effectively explaining the facts. So to say that facts change over time is the wrong way to look at it.
It's just a mischaracterization of things. If the "fact" changes then it obviously wasn't an absolute fact and we shouldn't refer to it as such. It's manipulative and slimy. A better and more accurate description would be to call it an inference to best explanation or something along those lines. But to run around calling things fact that aren't i don't know why people engage in this sort of suspicious behavior.
@@swansonz3534 I love Jordan, and I suspect he's doing here what he does with almost everything, which is symbolizing the subject to death and using a more abstract definition of fact than we tend to actually attribute to the word. I think that kind of thinking is one of if not his greatest strengths, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't also often get in the way of clarity.
Thank you... I was losing my mind listening to him repeat this over and over. We discover electricity... But it was Always there. We developed the expression of the mathematical laws... But electricity was always doing what it was doing.
Evolution and any understanding of time, geology etc more than about 6000 years ago are not fact but " educated guesses or theories". All kinds of new variables could and often do change what we think may be true about the past.
The trouble with Piaget is that many of his students come to the conclusion that truth merely a social construct -- infinitely mutable, and hence easily dismissed
In investing, success requires more than just technical analysis - it takes discipline and emotional resilience. The “time in the market vs. timing the market” mindset has kept me grounded through the market’s ups and downs. Thanks to Evelyn Infurna’s expert guidance and daily insights, along with my focus on learning, my portfolio has grown steadily. Here’s to continued progress!!
Evelyn Infurna Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
Best thing Ottawa University did was release this man out into the public a much wider audience 😅 Is he perfect in all he say, no, but so much closer than most 😉
University of Toronto. And they didn't fire him per se, he took a sabbatical and then never went back because he didn't think it would be possible to teach normally after being embroiled in all the controversy.
He’s become a fame-hungry, power-hungry money lover. I don’t auto-trust anyone making “truth” claims, but especially ones who are selling books doing it. Clear conflict of interest.
@@CMA418 yea earning money from hard work in trying to figure stuff out for decades of your life and then trying to help people with it? Perish the thought
I was an atheist and science nerd all my life, but after experiencing many intense paranormal experiences starting in 2022 I came to understand that esoteric occult knowledge explains how reality works way better than science does.
Well, they evolve just like everything else. However, the fitness function, by which they evolve might also change at times (not sure). Piaget's statements about the methods by which facts are sought appears to be simple functionalism. Finding facts involves performing procedures that generate them, simpliciter, and a fact is simply what is found and what it does; that then gets selected or not. Functionalism is the answer to everything in my experience. My second favorite answer is recursion. :^)
Just like entities have identity, so do entities actions, For a man: walking is different activity from running, the same with jumping, standing, sitting, falling, laying on the floor, swimming, etc. Change is a fact just like inertness, i.e., change has identity to. If it didn't, the concept of change would be a cognitive and evaluative blank to you.
What, when, how and why. These answers have been pursued by humans since the beginning. Rarely are we satisfied with the answers we arrive at. Examining the root of that dissatisfaction can teach you a lot about yourself.
Density equals mass over volume. It's a fact that can never be changed or substituted. It forms a piece in the puzzle of complete physics knowledge. Theories can sometimes be misleading and the approach it takes is detrimental to science. Because we try to fit them with factual knowledge, which always bring confusion. An example is evolution which largely depends on historical evidence. Most of the claims are not factual, yet it is thought as a theory. Scientists should accept that only facts beget facts. It's as simple as that.
@Kevin-sr8yx Precisely. See Ohm's Law for another example. One must define terms and then remain consistent. This is why those pretending to be based in science surreptitiously change the meaning of words. Words like "gender," "vaccine," and "woman."
@@atherosclerosisheo3379 yea should have just asked the nice peaceful reasonable people that lived in those civilized times "can't we all just get along?!" Very original thought, my friend. Is it perchance from the dawkins school of dogmatic belief?
Facts never change. Thats definition. Theories change. Most science works on theories, until facts prove it wrong. Otherwise, it’s assumed the theory is fact. It’s the assumption that can sometimes be problematic.
I think physics provides by far the best examples when it comes to epistemology. Postmodern theories that deny reality as a whole have only been able to spread in Western educational institutions because knowledge of physics is gradually being lost.
Nice lecture... although I have my qualms about "facts" changing. (I'm a professor of physiology and epidemiology; the former is firmly footed in fact while the latter is notorious for being "overturned"... but not really.) In a couple of my recent videos, I talk about how misinformation is what changes. Here, I talk about study weaknesses (by breaking down a video game study): ua-cam.com/video/SIh84ya2QxQ/v-deo.html And here, I talk about Bill Maher as an influencer misinterpreting the scientific method, which leads to seeming contradictions: ua-cam.com/video/0oMClMUxw3s/v-deo.html Anyway...... your line about "we got this all wrapped up" is, as I see it, the problem. In other words: hubris is the problem. Not the facts themselves.
Every man has his own religion. A set of beliefs and ideological visions that shape his actions in the world. Those who pursue science are no different, and their beliefs can be just as strong as any man of the cloth. "trust the science" is a phrase with as much religious zeal as "trust in the Lord".
Scientific facts don't keep changing. What happens is that new facts come along that force a re-examination of the *explanations* that existed for the previous set of facts. Newtonian physics did a great job of explaining gravity, but some observations [facts] did not fit the model. That showed that Newton's theories, while powerful, were incomplete. Einstein came up with a new model that not only incorporated Newtonian physics, but also accounted for the facts [observations] that Newton could not account for.
because scientific facts are only as good as the science during that time period and are up for review as time goes on and new studies are brought forward i assume
Newtonian physics is not a "subset of Einsteinian physics". Newtonian physics operate at a different level than Einsteinian physics. For the most part, Newtonian physics are fine, and in fact are used every day. But in the extremes of the physical world, Newtonian physics breaks down. Things happen that Newton cannot explain. Einstein thought about that, and came up with a theory to explain that which Newton couldn't. Remember though, the Einstein himself realzied his theory wasn't "complete", in that it had no explanation for quantum phenomenon. Relativity deals with the universe, quantum physics deals with the particles that make up the universe.
Think of it as image resolution, like he mentioned. A blurry picture is "a subset" of a clear picture; you can produce the blurry picture from the clear one, but not the other way around. Is a blurry picture wrong? Is the clear picture wrong, if it can be made clearer? (there's no right answer, since this is a philosophical debate)
@@jacobshirley3457 But the difference between Newton and Einstein is not a picture becoming more clear. They are two very different pictures. It's not like finding the speed of light, getting closer and closer to the final result.
Newtonian physics can be derived from relativity by making certain assumptions about certain things. Any result that can be obtained using Newtonian physics can be achieved using relativity. Newtonian physics are a special case of general relativity and hence a subset
Piaget and by extension Peterson is overthinking things. Physics is easy to understand by following the timeline of scientists without trying to explain what each scientist was abstractly trying to do. Peterson seems to enjoy using 20 words to explain simple concepts. Isaac Newton collected the current theories, pondered them, and derived his Laws of Motion which explained the world of moving objects better than the previous explanations. But then the discovery of Mercury orbiting the Sun didn't follow Newton's Laws of Motion, and so scientists accepted Bewtonian Relativity because it worked perfectly well for everything OTHER than Mercury, until Einsteinian Relativity correctly explained Mercury's motion. Scientists observe Nature, and attempt to explain it better than the explanations that came before. They devise theories, make predictions, and suggest experiments to test both. The experiments either demonstrate the theory is correct, or they don't. There's no need to expound upon anything beyond that.
Science is the study and apprehension of reality by rigorous observation and the elimination of error. Theories and paradigms are only valuable insofar as they assist in accurately projecting reality. They keep changing over time not because reality is different or because it is relative but only as our understanding of reality changes and erroneous ideas keep getting put to the wayside.
Not sure you can demonstrate that reality is not relative. The common meaning of the phrase is that "reality is relative to my preferences", which is obviously an adolescent mindset. But objects in motion are relative to each other, matter is relative to energy, time is relative to space, and God is relational....so what do you mean by 'reality is not "relative'?
Love your work, happy thoughts from Ontario... Hopefully you get a chance to turn your brain off and go fishing and just listen to nature . Your always busy.
I used to watch these lectures back in 2016 when i was doing a plastering course but just listening to Jordan too try and figure out what had just happened in my life fresh out of jail after an abusive relationship with an older narcissistic women who pushed me to the brink i lost a career a house and a child in the process and this man i am so thankfully i stumbled across him back then and so glad he had became such a success a truely great man in my eyes thank you Dr Jordan Peterson
respect to you - narcissists are pretty close to evil - my mum was both narcissistic and schizophrenic- according to DrP I'm pretty f-cked lol
@@MrDominicBrant bro i feel for you man 🙏 i can only imagine it... but i bet no i know your one strong mofo ❤
@ thanks, appreciate it, me and my brother ended up pretty messed up, but dragged ourselves through. In way that is good, strangely, we didn't know any different. It only began to unravel when we got away.
Man I miss the Peterson of old who was less political and would just inform you about the wonders of human psychology.
But to be interested in, or absorbed by politics, is quite like what he's describing here. You need to be able to take on board new developments all the time and incorporate them into your world view. Or perhaps you don't, or alternatively won't, because of other complicating factors.
For instance at the present time, the whole Trump / tariffs debate ( when it's possible to keep fully abreast of it ) is nothing short of confounding to most neo classicists for whom Milton Friedman is the authority.
@@aclifford652 Yes but Peterson of old wasn't political. That was my whole point. As soon as you align yourself with a certain political party you will lose some independence since you have to tow the party line.
I said nothing about tariffs. Even Ben Shapiro said in his most recent video that they are poison for the economy though.
That is what happens when you go after free speech as Canada did. Everything is going to become politicized at that point.
@EbonyPope I don't know that he's aligned himself as such with a Party, or a populist movement. Certainly I think he's managed to keep more distance between himself and this US populist movement than a lot of other 'casters' about the place.
Personally I'd never heard of him until the trans lobby accosted him. I only know him, as does much of the world, as an inherently, if initially reluctant political figure. It's a bit like wishing that Martin Luther had stuck to religion I think. ( Though you might well respond that that's precisely what Luther wanted to do. )
@@aclifford652 Peterson is not Martin Luther King my dude. He is now openly supporting the Daily Wire. Martin Luther King never was shilling for any party. He even talked about it. He was not aligned with either one.
Can you imagine being a freshman in one his classes 😳😂
I can just watch and listen to know... but to be able to learn I can slow to .75 speed and replay twice 😂.
someone played computer games in some of the classes
crazy how that works; if you aren't ready to receive the message, it doesn't have that 'mana' element Christ speaks of.
yes. Not cause I was specifically, but bc my collegiate career ended in May 2thousand 6teen. I was among the last to receive an actual education from the liberal arts. They have abandoned the search for truth, but there are many of us young enough to remember how we used to demand the truth. We need complete education reform.
There are no “facts” is true science. It’s always just been the consensus of what is most likely happening, based on the collective works and understanding of the global scientific community. As a biology undergrad, a professor taught us this on day one. Science has to be able to change, as we learn more as time goes on, based on new technological advancements, exploration, and simply by running new experiments. It’s what makes science so honest. It’s always admitting that this is our best guess, but is supported by findings.
Science is ever changing. It is about the search for knowledge, not meanings. We only know a little, so the more we learn, the more the science changes.
The problem is claiming fact. Touting THEORY as fact. Huge red flags. Science will peddle any bullsh!t to gain funding. It's fraud. Furthermore, science is largely being used to plunder nature in one way or another as it stands. There is only one possible outcome for this scenario.
There were other issues with Newtonian Physics at the turn of the 19th century. One very major one is that the orbit of Mercury around the sun could not be predicted with the equations. This was solved with Relativity, and frame dragging. Facts do change with the advancing understanding shows that it is not what we perceive it to be. Many years ago it was a known fact that ulcers were caused by stress, hot foods, and needed surgery to fix. One person put that fact to rest, by infecting himself with the bacteria that caused the ulcer, produced one in his stomach, and then cured it by antibiotics. This fact did change, and we are better for it.
I am in agreement that the process of discovery of a "fact" is what does not change, and with advancements in the science, technology, theories, and understanding, these tools will provide the best knowledge that can be generated. The real issue is keeping that process true, and uncorrupted. That is the real challenge.
Surely it wasn't a known fact, it was a mistake ?
@@gary5799 I call it a limit of understanding. Does a child make a mistake in thinking the moon is this round face in the sky? It isn't till later in their development that they understand it to be a round body the orbits the earth. I think of mistakes as having the understanding, but not using the correct knowledge despite knowing otherwise. If someone today still believes that the ether is used as a medium to transmit light, and other forms of energy, that is a mistake. A theory or hypotheses that can be tested, will sometimes be validated, but never proven as a fact. You cannot prove something is a fact, you can only show that it cannot be falsified.
What maybe we should be talking about are not facts, but hypothesis, or theories that can be shown to be tested in a thorough, and systematic way. The more it is tested in various ways, the more complete and solid the foundation you have for it. As understanding, technology, and resolution increases, the theory, and hypothesis, may have to change because new things are found, that the original theory did not cover.
@@rpercifieldjr I would argue that ether as a universal medium most likely exists, but we just haven't (or maybe can't) really find a way to properly measure it. Think about how light "slows down" when it travels through a medium and has a new speed. Now if we apply that to light in a vacuum, if it truly was traveling through "nothing" then there should be no speed limit, but we know it does.
We are however, sticking to ideas that I think are much less plausible (the graviton), and ones that are completely pointless and absurd (string theory).
Remember that we have stuff like dark energy and dark matter even though we can't measure them, but just guess. Not to mention vacuum energy.
@@GameFuMaster If there was a medium that electromagnetic radiation traveled through out motion through it would be detected. When you look at all of the various motions that we as observers make, earth rotating on its axis, Moon orbiting around the earth, Earth and moon orbiting around the sun, and the solar system within the Milky Way traveling within the same medium, no change of the velocity of this radiation has ever been detected. So the chance of finding a medium that this EM radiation travels through is very close to zero.
Since EM radiation acts like both a particle and a wave a medium would imply a flow of some type. This flow has not been observed. Also current EM theory explains and predicts changes in medium velocities of EM radiation. There currently is no theory that has been tested for some type of medium, all so far have been falsified.
String theory has not shown any promise to date, and there is no real path at present to unify the large and small scale theories of the universe. There is a lot we don't know, and all we can do is to continue to improve the technology, gather higher resolution data, and work on better theories to explain the universe. This is how you progress in science. When something is hypothesized and tested, we can then start to decipher what we see.
@@rpercifieldjr So I'm obviously not that well versed in this subject, so this is just my uninformed hypothesis.
So we do know that light "bends" with "gravity". So we have made observation of its movement being changed.
We see light "refracting" in water, but that's only because we have a comparison as an outside observer. Imagine if we somehow lived inside a glass sphere, and the sphere rotates, we would see light moving without its velocity changing.
Remember in relativity that you cannot truly know who is actually moving if both parties are at "rest", as both can equally and validly say that the other is moving.
Facts and truth are not the same. My car is steel. The paint is green.
The method of science appears to consist in favoring the human sense of eyesight over powerful competing senses such as hearing, taste, smell, touch, and especially “personal feelings”.
Imagine asking a room full of 20 people to estimate the temperature in the room and to write it down. Then bring in a digital thermometer visible to all 20 and ask the same question. The first instance is “less scientific” than the second, and the first instance is relying upon “feeling” (skin temp or metabolic rate) rather than eyesight.
Understanding science as a process of subordinating other information sources to physical vision and the psychological processes related to vision helps to explain some things, such as
Why the scientific method rapidly accelerated historically only after the improvement of glass optics brought about the telescope and the microscope
Why science was a threat to an existing social order and required that feudalism be ended before science could greatly expand (“truth through observation and reason” conflicts with “truth through social status, tradition, and legal authority”)
Being a process of learning through visual observation, science is limited to never become Art, where vision comes from the inside, and will always be in a (hopefully fruitful) competition with things which are often more Art than science, such as philosophy, religion, politics, commerce.
His lectures are so good. Wonderful teacher and leader.
He doesn't believe in facts, he admitted he doesn't have a foundation of truth with Sam Harris in the dreadful podcast episode where Sam tried for an hour to get Jordan to agree with 1 simple fact, and he refused for 1 hour of simple simple questions. JD is a manifestation of what Half-truth would be if it was a person; He will act as if facts are true except when you ask him that way he can argue the facts. JD is amazing when he's right and appalling/misleading when he's trying to talk things into existence.
I hope he goes on to explain this, but facts don't change. Our understanding of reality changes, and with science (hopefully), that understanding gets better over time and closer to effectively explaining the facts. So to say that facts change over time is the wrong way to look at it.
It's just a mischaracterization of things. If the "fact" changes then it obviously wasn't an absolute fact and we shouldn't refer to it as such. It's manipulative and slimy. A better and more accurate description would be to call it an inference to best explanation or something along those lines. But to run around calling things fact that aren't i don't know why people engage in this sort of suspicious behavior.
@@swansonz3534 I love Jordan, and I suspect he's doing here what he does with almost everything, which is symbolizing the subject to death and using a more abstract definition of fact than we tend to actually attribute to the word. I think that kind of thinking is one of if not his greatest strengths, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't also often get in the way of clarity.
Thank you...
I was losing my mind listening to him repeat this over and over.
We discover electricity... But it was Always there. We developed the expression of the mathematical laws... But electricity was always doing what it was doing.
This is true. Real Facts do not change . However we often call theories fact when they are in fact very wrong.
Evolution and any understanding of time, geology etc more than about 6000 years ago are not fact but " educated guesses or theories". All kinds of new variables could and often do change what we think may be true about the past.
The trouble with Piaget is that many of his students come to the conclusion that truth merely a social construct -- infinitely mutable, and hence easily dismissed
This is way better than any college class I ever had.
In investing, success requires more than just technical analysis - it takes discipline and emotional resilience. The “time in the market vs. timing the market” mindset has kept me grounded through the market’s ups and downs. Thanks to Evelyn Infurna’s expert guidance and daily insights, along with my focus on learning, my portfolio has grown steadily. Here’s to continued progress!!
Use her name to quickly conduct an internet search.
SHE’S MOSTLY ON TELEGRAMS APPS WITH THE BELOW NAME.
Infurnaevely1
I appreciate the professionalism and dedication of the team behind Evelyn’s trade signal service.
Evelyn Infurna Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's
Best thing Ottawa University did was release this man out into the public a much wider audience 😅 Is he perfect in all he say, no, but so much closer than most 😉
University of Toronto. And they didn't fire him per se, he took a sabbatical and then never went back because he didn't think it would be possible to teach normally after being embroiled in all the controversy.
He’s become a fame-hungry, power-hungry money lover.
I don’t auto-trust anyone making “truth” claims, but especially ones who are selling books doing it. Clear conflict of interest.
@@CMA418 yea earning money from hard work in trying to figure stuff out for decades of your life and then trying to help people with it? Perish the thought
@ Right, because famously, no great truth-seekers and philosophers have ever written books
@ That’s why Socrates was the GOAT. Peterson is a Sophist. He’s great at sounding smart to young people.
I was an atheist and science nerd all my life, but after experiencing many intense paranormal experiences starting in 2022 I came to understand that esoteric occult knowledge explains how reality works way better than science does.
Mine was the opposite! 🥴🙏
Is the best development for a child the most rapid?
I wonder if I was his student at which point my brain would explode because it couldn't keep up, would have loved to find out.
Well, they evolve just like everything else. However, the fitness function, by which they evolve might also change at times (not sure). Piaget's statements about the methods by which facts are sought appears to be simple functionalism. Finding facts involves performing procedures that generate them, simpliciter, and a fact is simply what is found and what it does; that then gets selected or not. Functionalism is the answer to everything in my experience. My second favorite answer is recursion. :^)
Thanks
Just like entities have identity, so do entities actions, For a man: walking is different activity from running, the same with jumping, standing, sitting, falling, laying on the floor, swimming, etc. Change is a fact just like inertness, i.e., change has identity to. If it didn't, the concept of change would be a cognitive and evaluative blank to you.
What, when, how and why. These answers have been pursued by humans since the beginning. Rarely are we satisfied with the answers we arrive at. Examining the root of that dissatisfaction can teach you a lot about yourself.
Man these videos are so good...
Density equals mass over volume. It's a fact that can never be changed or substituted. It forms a piece in the puzzle of complete physics knowledge. Theories can sometimes be misleading and the approach it takes is detrimental to science. Because we try to fit them with factual knowledge, which always bring confusion. An example is evolution which largely depends on historical evidence. Most of the claims are not factual, yet it is thought as a theory. Scientists should accept that only facts beget facts. It's as simple as that.
That's not a fact. It's a formula describing a law.
@Kevin-sr8yx Precisely. See Ohm's Law for another example. One must define terms and then remain consistent. This is why those pretending to be based in science surreptitiously change the meaning of words. Words like "gender," "vaccine," and "woman."
God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus is the only Truth you need.
Is that why he was so destructive in the old testament but now only comes out on a piece of toast
@@atherosclerosisheo3379 applying modern morality to bunches of savages in the desert. How very original, did Dawkins illuminate u on this?
@@atherosclerosisheo3379 yea should have just asked the nice peaceful reasonable people that lived in those civilized times "can't we all just get along?!" Very original thought, my friend. Is it perchance from the dawkins school of dogmatic belief?
Facts never change. Thats definition.
Theories change.
Most science works on theories, until facts prove it wrong. Otherwise, it’s assumed the theory is fact.
It’s the assumption that can sometimes be problematic.
theories are always going to be incomplete
I think physics provides by far the best examples when it comes to epistemology. Postmodern theories that deny reality as a whole have only been able to spread in Western educational institutions because knowledge of physics is gradually being lost.
Nice lecture... although I have my qualms about "facts" changing. (I'm a professor of physiology and epidemiology; the former is firmly footed in fact while the latter is notorious for being "overturned"... but not really.) In a couple of my recent videos, I talk about how misinformation is what changes. Here, I talk about study weaknesses (by breaking down a video game study): ua-cam.com/video/SIh84ya2QxQ/v-deo.html And here, I talk about Bill Maher as an influencer misinterpreting the scientific method, which leads to seeming contradictions: ua-cam.com/video/0oMClMUxw3s/v-deo.html Anyway...... your line about "we got this all wrapped up" is, as I see it, the problem. In other words: hubris is the problem. Not the facts themselves.
Every man has his own religion. A set of beliefs and ideological visions that shape his actions in the world. Those who pursue science are no different, and their beliefs can be just as strong as any man of the cloth.
"trust the science" is a phrase with as much religious zeal as "trust in the Lord".
Scientific facts don't keep changing. What happens is that new facts come along that force a re-examination of the *explanations* that existed for the previous set of facts. Newtonian physics did a great job of explaining gravity, but some observations [facts] did not fit the model. That showed that Newton's theories, while powerful, were incomplete. Einstein came up with a new model that not only incorporated Newtonian physics, but also accounted for the facts [observations] that Newton could not account for.
you are splitting hairs over the meaning of facts; new facts coming in means that facts are changing
Because science proves itself wrong every other year 🤣 great video
In the end, we’re all taught by God and He does a much better job.
because scientific facts are only as good as the science during that time period and are up for review as time goes on and new studies are brought forward i assume
Newtonian physics is not a "subset of Einsteinian physics". Newtonian physics operate at a different level than Einsteinian physics. For the most part, Newtonian physics are fine, and in fact are used every day. But in the extremes of the physical world, Newtonian physics breaks down. Things happen that Newton cannot explain.
Einstein thought about that, and came up with a theory to explain that which Newton couldn't. Remember though, the Einstein himself realzied his theory wasn't "complete", in that it had no explanation for quantum phenomenon. Relativity deals with the universe, quantum physics deals with the particles that make up the universe.
Think of it as image resolution, like he mentioned. A blurry picture is "a subset" of a clear picture; you can produce the blurry picture from the clear one, but not the other way around.
Is a blurry picture wrong? Is the clear picture wrong, if it can be made clearer? (there's no right answer, since this is a philosophical debate)
@@jacobshirley3457 But the difference between Newton and Einstein is not a picture becoming more clear. They are two very different pictures.
It's not like finding the speed of light, getting closer and closer to the final result.
Newtonian physics can be derived from relativity by making certain assumptions about certain things. Any result that can be obtained using Newtonian physics can be achieved using relativity. Newtonian physics are a special case of general relativity and hence a subset
I think you accidentally reasoned why Newtonian is a subset of Einstenian.
@@AlbertBalbastreMorte I think you're wrong.
Piaget and by extension Peterson is overthinking things. Physics is easy to understand by following the timeline of scientists without trying to explain what each scientist was abstractly trying to do. Peterson seems to enjoy using 20 words to explain simple concepts. Isaac Newton collected the current theories, pondered them, and derived his Laws of Motion which explained the world of moving objects better than the previous explanations. But then the discovery of Mercury orbiting the Sun didn't follow Newton's Laws of Motion, and so scientists accepted Bewtonian Relativity because it worked perfectly well for everything OTHER than Mercury, until Einsteinian Relativity correctly explained Mercury's motion. Scientists observe Nature, and attempt to explain it better than the explanations that came before. They devise theories, make predictions, and suggest experiments to test both. The experiments either demonstrate the theory is correct, or they don't. There's no need to expound upon anything beyond that.
Because science is not inflexible like religion.
Because it isn't absolute. Never was
Science is the study and apprehension of reality by rigorous observation and the elimination of error. Theories and paradigms are only valuable insofar as they assist in accurately projecting reality. They keep changing over time not because reality is different or because it is relative but only as our understanding of reality changes and erroneous ideas keep getting put to the wayside.
Great summary✅
Not sure you can demonstrate that reality is not relative. The common meaning of the phrase is that "reality is relative to my preferences", which is obviously an adolescent mindset. But objects in motion are relative to each other, matter is relative to energy, time is relative to space, and God is relational....so what do you mean by 'reality is not "relative'?
Christ Jesus is the way, the truth and the life 🙌
I view the bible as a steel axe. Not to be controversial or anything lol
Translation: "We don't know nothin' about the world we live in. Not really."
Science is a bought enterprise, has been for a lifetime
Love your work, happy thoughts from Ontario... Hopefully you get a chance to turn your brain off and go fishing and just listen to nature . Your always busy.
Absolutely brilliant, as usual. His line about facts being the fact’s about how we discover facts should be on a t-shirt. 🤪🥸