วีดีโอ

You have chosen an excellent topic here. We live in a civilisation, which one of the dominating characteristic is that individuals have become deluged with "news." As a result, the search for criteria aiming at discriminating between true and false, believable and misleading, accurate and inaccurate, factual and baseless, rational and irrational, etc., has become increasingly needed for the individuals, this in order not to behave or act injustly as a result of having been mislead. If I had to add one piece of advice to those you've just described, I would say that the science that is interested first and foremost by truth is philosophy. Because the mind opened to philosophy,not to ideologies, is the most rarely mislead either by propaganda, fake news, or any kind of falsehood. Have a great day 😀.

Wonderful work, Victor 🙌🦋

I am from India, and I would like to pursue my research under you, if possible.

As you said yourself in the video: "Ahhmm..." Which is exactly what I would like to add... Ahhmmm or even Ahem. I hope you are doing well and not prioritizing the wrong things in life ;)

I expect there will be increasing interest in Kant now that Hawking and Hertog have carried Lamaitre to the point of obliterating any "God's Eye View" with their Worm's Eye View!

❤

This argument seems to be similar, perhaps running in parallel to J.S. Mill's arguments for a modern (as opposed to classical) Liberalism. Mill observes that ideas and knowledge that are beneficial to society are, due to their novelty the product of minority thinking. Majorities do not produce new ways of thinking and living. But we cannot know from what minorities or marginalised groups beneficial new insights might emerge. Consequently if we are to value enhancements in wellbeing, we need to ensure that minority groups are protected and be allowed to flourish in their own way, so long as in doing so they are not acting in ways that are substantively detrimental to others. Mill concludes that the protection of minorities, resisting oppression and countering social inequalities is a net benefit to the whole of society.

you should know you're not a brain in a vat because the sheer amount of information that would need to be simulated would require extreme technology and a power source nearly infinite.

I am wondering how it could be contingent that I exist but necessary that I came from my exact parents. Seem to be of the same cause and effect

I love this channel

This is top tier!

1

yeah, i agree that Kant dont hide reality from us. kant is realist for sure, i guess, but not naive and even a little bit more critical then hume and locke. husserl probably hide the reality behind transcendental scheme but even his (especially in late works) idealistic sceptical view on hidden distorted reality is just a method to get deeper into perceptions and sensations and all the stuff that's happening in our minds. idk Kant has found probably the best rational ground both for reality, subjectivity and this necessity of distortion.. like probably the best one imho.. dude had big bday also this year. hooray! i love him and he is not looney at all for me.. husserl probably is at some point

thank you very much. i ve read critique, schelling's system and husserls works... and i ve found so many good answers on questions of consiousness and subjective experience, but now i cant understand how to talk about time and reality..kinda outside of my poor finite mind 😂😭. i also find this system is quite good for ethic.

Why isn't space an object?

These are much better than robert paul wolff

So platonic sceptics were close to taoists

Yes, incommensurability claims are mostly dubious. In practice, a new outlook or shift in the paradigm is met with resistance. As the shift takes place there will be scientists who had worked with the paradigm who are particularly sceptical, but not outside the dialogue. I saw this as a student after Peter Mitchell had developed his chemiosmotic theory (also known as 'hypothesis' by the more sceptical) for how ATP is produced in mitochondria. Mitchell's revolutionary insights depended on an appreciation of chemistry within the context of biological structures, that had only recently been revealed by the development of electron microscopy. In the early 70s when I was a student there were still lecturers who were sceptical and proposed an alternative speculation that there might be a chemical intermediate involved that was yet to be found, but this did not mean that they were unable to engage and present Peter Mitchell's work. Nonetheless they were people whose outlook depended more on the chemistry involved without considering so much the biological structures involved. It is more that the paradigm creates a barrier for what turns out to be a very fruitful area of research. Peter Mitchell did encounter opposition to his work, but enterprisingly set up, with another scientist (Jennifer Moyle) a charitable research company (Glynn Research Ltd) in a remote region of Cornwall, where the theory was developed. Ultimately the scepticism improved the research, it uncovered errors which they were able to address and refine the theory. Oddly it is still current in higher school science to quote values for how much ATP can be generated from a glucose molecule that are really based on the old paradigm. The expected exam answer of 38 ATPs per glucose is actually a fiction since the point of the Mitchell theory is that the mechanism cannot assure a definite value. In reality the yield of DNA is roughly around 30 to 32 ATPs per molecule (but this answer will lose you marks in an exam!

I'd like to see you on cable TV

I'd like to see your take on Feyerabend. I think he solves a lot of the criticisms leveled against Kuhn while still achieving a critique of a universal scientific method.

Love this series, awesome video

15:04

Synthetic a priori knowledge - knowledge that doesn’t require experience but that increases our knowledge 1:03

both Dawkins and Haack are right, Harding is ridiculous... The entire passage doesn't help

All events have a cause? Does that mean that someone or something causes a group of event or that event in the group has some cause or other? If it means that the group has a cause, some group members, might be uncaused.

Wonderful as always. Will you be discussing related concepts like epistemic injustice?

Around minute 28, you/Kant say we are "required to be aware of the very act of synthesis". Why do I need to be "aware" of the act of synthesis. This I do not understand. As long as I have a single unified consciousness to which objects are presented as a unity, why do I need to be aware of how they were unified?

Whoa! At 0:37 I say that Aristotelian science is still alive in the 7th century AD, but of course I meant to say that it was still alive in the 17th century AD!

You are right to contrast Aristotle with Descartes, though you could have also included Galileo, Locke, Newton and many others. It may be unfair to pin the blame on Aristotle, that I suppose belongs to his fervent medieval advocates, but it has been the rejection of Aristotelian teleological dogmas that invoke causes, forms and ends that has led to the explosion of scientific and technological knowledge over the last 400 years. This can be seen to have happened one by one in all the major fields of science starting with Physics, then Chemistry, followed by Biology and yes also today in Psychology. I do not know how it is in the Netherlands, but my daughter's course of Experimental Psychology at Oxford certainly had no time for anything like Aristotelian thinking. I dare say it is possible to find some off beat 'new age' wannabee scientists or 'pop' psychologists who do entertain all sorts of ideas, but they stand out as odd balls rather than serious contributors. What is interesting from our perspective and perhaps romanticised by our perspective are the activities of the Ionian presocratics such as Thales, Leucippus and Democritus who appeared to have an approach much more in tune with post renaissance thinking. They seemed to be more concerned with finding inviolable patterns in the natural world. For Aristotle this approach was lacking in goals and soulless and for him unacceptable. Unfortunately the ideas of Aristotle held sway for the next two millennia.

I hope this is one of many videos. Thank you! I would differentate Aristotelian science vs. modern science as seen in our development of tools. Without the microscope or telescope, modern science would not have developed as it is today. Modern philosophy / science needed to develop the tools to explore the universe in the context of matter vs. form. Again, thank you for all your content.

In summary, Aristotelian science kant be blamed for "the purposeless chaos of matter" in which we now find ourselves. If here we plan to dwell, and "we attain to dwelling, so it seems, only by means of building," then perhaps it is true that "only a god can save us" now. Thus in so building we may have to "deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." 😉

What is the status of the four elements (fire, water, earth, air) given that species are fundamental?

I very much enjoy and appreciate your work, but I'm sorry to say that this video is subpar for you, Dr. Gijsbers. You have misrepresented Aristotle rather grossly, in that you presented his complex view only from the aspect of the formal cause. Further, you have inserted a bias against his system by stating that a norm is equivalent to "an ought to be" or a "proper" way of being, both of which are laden with judgement not inherent in the formal cause. You do slip into the final cause, but again, you insert your own ethical judgments into what is supposedly Aristotle's framework.

It occurs to me that substance must not only have a certain form it also needs to have the right origins (history, genealogy). This would prevent androids or clones that have the form of a human being from counting as human. 3:41

I’m using this idea as my main argument against Bakers constitution view on person on my c-essay right now (Bakers kind concept)

will you further develop on aristotelian physics, and on his distinction btw practical and theoretical philosophy ?

i'm confused. In Descartes, isnt the most fundamental thing the cogito ? Which isnt matter ? Or did he also try to explain the cogito as emerging from matter ?

amazing topic, thank you !

As many have said before me: These explanations are brilliant, thank you very much! I have not been through all the comments in the series, so you might have already answered the question I'm about to ask, and if that is the case (no pun intended), I apologize. What do you think about the Tractatus English translation made by the Gutenberg Project ?

take a cue from the venerable Graham Oppy - he appears online with an empty bookshelf behind him ,... or populated only with children's board games.

i just find it problematic that knowledge gained previously through sense data experience i.e. learning the axioms of geometry, and then later manipulating mental images to reach a conclusion, should be called a priori. in the process of imagining, there is also a witnessing awarenesss to which that imagining is an experience. it's not without experience it's just an experience that doesn't have physical stuff involved. i could just as easily demonstrate with lines in the sand. it's no different than using the canvas of my mind.

Construct for this man a temple

Did pyrrho invent pyrrosol?

'shortest line BETWEEN 2 points' 'straight line BETWEEN 2 points' it's analytical. you can't just take the meaning of 'straight', 'shortest', 'line', and 'point'. you need to analyze it as a whole. in which case 'between' is what gives the whole a concrete meaning.

this whole notion of a priori knowledge just strikes me as nonsensical. even in the case of arithmetic/mathmatics i would have to have previous experience learning the meaning of the numerals and operators and the rules of operation.

The replication crisis in science is taken seriously because, as you said, science cannot function if published results cannot be trusted.

Berkeley could have been an easy victim for theft. If he wasn't looking, he couldn't be certain of what happen with his things.

I'm a simple man with simple needs. I see Victor Gijsbers' notification, I click.

Hi Victor. I hope you receive this well. I have a Popper question and no one seems to have a an answer for me. I want to know if Ai and big Data fly in the face of Popper problem with Historicism? I cringe every time I hear people talk about making PREDICTIONS with big data. Is this something other Popper enthusiasts have thought about?

Sir, would you please suggest some essential readings in this topic? I am interested to know further about the debate.