what distinguishes pseudoscience from science is its viability, which can either be directly observed or suggested by additional constructed models (less formal and concious ones) like the ones personal "who can i trust" model
About 1:24: Isn't saying that ''knowledge never is/never can be a representation of the real world a contradictory/paradoxical statement in that the statement claims to ''know'' how the world works/functions (or how we as human beings work)? Makes no sense to me, to make such a claim without a proper ontology to base it on.
The video is embedded in the website, so follow the link in the description. Or, you can find the references here: metconstructivism.weebly.com/references.html
It seems constructivism seems to follow, or is an extreme example of the old Idealism, by which I mean Berkeley's notion that the universe is really only our perceptions of it, and that it has no reality beyond those perceptions. Thus you had Sam Johnson, in the story, walk out of a lecture and make a show of kicking a rock (some people say it was a cat) and say "I refute him thus." A paraphrase, but the point is the same, that no, reality is not in our heads, it is out there and can be kicked. While Johnson is intentionally missing the point, he also makes his own rather well -- constructivism is a bit like solipsism run amok, if they really believe that all the world has simply been constructed in their own minds. Were they to think that literally, then it would be time for the nice men in white coats and giant butterfly nets to come gently knocking on the door.
0:55 All knowledge is presumably constructed in the brain, but what knowledge the brain constructs depends on the universe. And this knowledge can also be changed again by the universe. So the knowledge in our head depends on the universe and inevitably overlaps because we live in an ordered universe and not in a chaotic one, otherwise we would not exist.
great video. thought i might be a radical constructivist. but I am not. I believe through creative writing and strong imagination, you can re live the experience, almost similarly to the original experience. That is assuming you trust it. But that comes with subjectivity. If it is accurate than wouldn't that make it objective? I have come to most of my constructive understanding from reading on the internet until I understand what I'm researching. The act of reading itself can be an experience, with the right words.
You forgot to take into consideration that the foundation of Einstein's knowledge of physics was partially laid by a lot of books he read in his youth (which are based on scientific principles and tools), he read Newton for example. What this video is telling you, is that Einstein would never have come up with his theories solely based on his own experiences.
"Most the best pianists are self taught"? Chopin, Mozart, and Beethoven all had music teachers for parents; not sure that qualifies as self-taught. Yes, there are amazing self-taught pianists (Theolonious Monk for example), but MOST? Citation needed, please (note: even Monk had a mentor, pianist Mary Lou Williams)
what distinguishes pseudoscience from science is its viability, which can either be directly observed or suggested by additional constructed models (less formal and concious ones) like the ones personal "who can i trust" model
I would really appreciate a References sheet!
About 1:24: Isn't saying that ''knowledge never is/never can be a representation of the real world a contradictory/paradoxical statement in that the statement claims to ''know'' how the world works/functions (or how we as human beings work)? Makes no sense to me, to make such a claim without a proper ontology to base it on.
Thanks for the video. I don't think I see the references at the end you mention at 0:24 .
The video is embedded in the website, so follow the link in the description. Or, you can find the references here: metconstructivism.weebly.com/references.html
It seems constructivism seems to follow, or is an extreme example of the old Idealism, by which I mean Berkeley's notion that the universe is really only our perceptions of it, and that it has no reality beyond those perceptions. Thus you had Sam Johnson, in the story, walk out of a lecture and make a show of kicking a rock (some people say it was a cat) and say "I refute him thus." A paraphrase, but the point is the same, that no, reality is not in our heads, it is out there and can be kicked. While Johnson is intentionally missing the point, he also makes his own rather well -- constructivism is a bit like solipsism run amok, if they really believe that all the world has simply been constructed in their own minds. Were they to think that literally, then it would be time for the nice men in white coats and giant butterfly nets to come gently knocking on the door.
0:55 All knowledge is presumably constructed in the brain, but what knowledge the brain constructs depends on the universe. And this knowledge can also be changed again by the universe. So the knowledge in our head depends on the universe and inevitably overlaps because we live in an ordered universe and not in a chaotic one, otherwise we would not exist.
can you please be so kind, and link the article from the turkish fella you mentioned. I just was not able to find out, who this person is.
His references are at the link in the description:
metconstructivism.weebly.com/references.html
great video. thought i might be a radical constructivist. but I am not. I believe through creative writing and strong imagination, you can re live the experience, almost similarly to the original experience. That is assuming you trust it. But that comes with subjectivity. If it is accurate than wouldn't that make it objective? I have come to most of my constructive understanding from reading on the internet until I understand what I'm researching.
The act of reading itself can be an experience, with the right words.
So...who taught Einstein? This critique is flawed.👎Most of the best pianists are self taught.
You forgot to take into consideration that the foundation of Einstein's knowledge of physics was partially laid by a lot of books he read in his youth (which are based on scientific principles and tools), he read Newton for example. What this video is telling you, is that Einstein would never have come up with his theories solely based on his own experiences.
"Most the best pianists are self taught"? Chopin, Mozart, and Beethoven all had music teachers for parents; not sure that qualifies as self-taught. Yes, there are amazing self-taught pianists (Theolonious Monk for example), but MOST? Citation needed, please (note: even Monk had a mentor, pianist Mary Lou Williams)