ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Science vs Philosophy of Science (Distinction)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ส.ค. 2024
- A explanation of the difference between Science and Philosophy of science, their different projects, and how they interact with each other.
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
![PHILOSOPHY - Religion: Reason And Faith [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MTPHXNMi9tA/mqdefault.jpg)
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - อ้ายกินดอง น้องลาบงัว ft. สแน็ก อัจฉรีย์ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-OK--KaSPcI/mqdefault.jpg)
Great Job, as always Carneades! Love your channel!
No problem! Thanks for watching!
at :18 you said "... the difference between Philosophy and the Philosophy of Science." Based on the title I think you meant to say between Science and the Philosophy of Science.
Thanks for creating an excellent Philosophy channel.
+Kirby Wilkerson Haha, thanks for the correction. I put in an annotation. And I'm glad you enjoy! Thanks for watching!
I like your videos, you're great! Keep 'em coming!
+Mark Joshua Miguel Awesome! Thanks.
Can you give me another thoughts about the comparison and contrast of modern science and philosopy of science?
useful, thank you 😁👍
Well put! This is a crucial distinction that we must disseminate. Science is not scientific realism, rather scientific realism is a particular philosophy of science, just one of many.
+Gaining Understanding Thanks! I need to do a series on scientific realism one of these days.
+Carneades.org Oh you should, that's a great idea.
+Gaining Understanding Yeah that was a brilliant :)
Also GU do which one do you think is likely to be true out of these ultimately?
A type of monism or dualism?
Georges Lemaître Hey its you again, what's up!
I'm skeptical of metanarratives like monism or dualism. I'm leaning towards Orthodox Christianity so in western terms I'm a kind of mystic and I'm holistic rather than monistic or dualistic.
Gaining Understanding Yep it's me. And well I have just swapped over to studying physics and I've got to say it's so hard!
Also what type of mysticism are you talking about? Like what is it exactly? And ok cool I've never spoke to someone who's a holistic.
This is great! Have you done one on the induction problem yet?
+CosmoShidan Yep. Here's the problem of induction: th-cam.com/video/sd8cxXfPJU4/w-d-xo.html. And, to go one step further, here's the problem of underdetermination: th-cam.com/video/co8adINPCns/w-d-xo.html
Carneades.org Cool!
what's the difference between modern science and philosophy of science?
I had an interesting discussion with a commenter on another video, who used the phrase "evidentialism invokes an infinite regress." He was addressing these philosophical assumptions that the scientific method provides a means to truth. Indeed, it seems that nothing we know can be certain, there are always assumptions, it's just how we humans necessarily function. I found the phrase in this video: "theory that best fits the evidence" to be the key to the whole question of validity. Even if scientists do not offer a direct logical chain of proof from start to finish, they build such a strong case that it can hardly be questioned. In judicial terms, this would be beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps the greatest assumption of science is the constancy of natural law, i.e. the same mathematical equations that model reality, if true now, will be true later, and always were true. And then there's relativity which completely changes our picture of time, lol, but I digress. It certainly seems like a reasonable assumption, but that's not exactly a philosophical syllogism.
+DFPercush A good point.I'm always worried about assumptions, but I'm a philosophical skeptic, so that's my job. On a less skeptical note, within philosophy of science there are even worries with regard to whether or not we can find which theory best fits the evidence. My series on the problem of underdetermination explains why: th-cam.com/video/co8adINPCns/w-d-xo.html
I think, and even believe we're not philosophically justified in accepting those "common sense and experiential" assumptions, but what I can say is we seem to have no solid basis to doubt them either. That might be an insignificant distinction (that we can't prove them, but don't have a good reason to doubt them either) but I feel has to be considered seriously at some point, or at least in the pure academic context.
On the other hand, I do have my doubts (1) and call it sleep-depriving doubts and uncertainties that we may have "understood" the universe entirely wrongly. Such example has clearest manifestation at astronomical, pardon the pun, scales like space and time distances. What I mean is, how can we know (or practically be highly confident in pure technical and philosophical terms) that the quantities we consider constants (or functions we know only the access to their simplified versions) are so? Think of alleged constant of gravity. How can we br highly confident G doesn't change in terms of space and time, i.e., is %20 higher or lower in the far spatial or temporal distance, and we only have access to a very small portion of the universe's space and time data (given our tiny lifetimes even for a species) for us to gather enough information to observe such variations? And if you asked, and how come we don't see stars acting differently, first we may have a very tiny portion of the observable universe observable to us at this short space and time period, such that we have a poor pool of data to judge from whether thise values are constants or not, and second, what if we are so far away fron other oarts of the universe we see billions of years in the past, but whatever change taking "place" is propagating the observable universe simultaneously? Think of a stone thrown on a pond. From a local point around the water wave, every close point looks very similar to the local point itself. What if we live in a space time interval so small we can't observe those changes in the quantities we think now are constants (or instead of X = ABC * some constant, it's actually X = ABC * f(args)) where f(args) is changing so slightly we can't distinguish it from a constant? Think of secant in derivatives that we think quantity is constant but it's just changing ever so slightly. And those slight changes have barely any significance to the stars and galaxies behavior we can't really tell, and won't make any noticeable change for the stars to start collapsing or something due to change in electrons' charge or gravity failing to keep atoms together around each other rendering the stars unable to keep its atoms together, i.e. star would "disintegrate".
These are pragmatic assumption, I fully get it. But whatever physical constant I'm being told about, I can't shake the feeling it might not be actually constant but just our short space time window that makes us think it is such. We would be likely far gone at that point, but still terrifies me how little we would ever know justifiably.
(1) I'm not a scientist to have seen contexts where such assumption have dire consequences, but they do trigger and terrify me that I don't have any logical reason to believe all of the "laws" of the universe we know today may crumble and entirely collapse the next second or so.
I agree that philosophy of science is, “A discipline of philosophy that deals with the justification for the scientific method,” and the “justification” is only in regards to how it interacts with the human condition. However, science knows what is and is not science, and its truths are objective. The problem of demarcation, only exist for philosophy. The same is true for the problem of induction, Science is fully aware that human reasoning is suspect and does everything it can to remove it from the method. In fact, finding out what is truth without human existence, is a better description of what science does than anything philosophy has inferred it does. Ask a “philosopher of science” what is true and you’ll be waiting until the end of time for an answer. It only asks questions, questions that science didn’t ask or need it to ask.
+Mark William
*However, science knows what is and is not science, and its truths are objective.*
Whatever the case is, science (or rather scientists) doesn't get away with just stating such things. If it did, any methodology could be justified with the same kind of (non-)reasoning.
+MrUppmas
You ignored the context of that sentence, but I will admit it wasn’t obvious and I could have been more precise. How about. *Its truth assumptions strive to be objective. However, flawed methodologies will not produce predictive results, therefore it will be science that will not only recognize these flaws, it will be what discovers any potentially unknown flaws in our assumptions and methodologies.
+Mark William "Science knows what is and is not science."
Science is good for many, many things, but we absolutely cannot expect science to define itself. Thinking in that way, we'd be forced to see science as whatever scientists do, and if scientists do things that don't work, then there would be no one to tell them they are wrong.
This is not just a hypothetical problem. There's a vast number of pseudoscientists in the world. We've got people working with homeopathy, intelligent design, and countless other unscientific topics, and too many of them consider themselves scientists. Imagine you are in a room filled with those people and then I wonder how willing you would be to say that science knows what science is, because you could expect vast agreement. It's not the role of science to tell them that they are wrong about being scientists; that job belongs to philosophy of science.
Philosophy of science is exactly where people argue about what is and is not science. Philosophy of science deals purely with issues that exist only in our heads, while science studies the real world. Expecting science to have an opinion on an issue of philosophy of science is expecting too much from science.
+Mark William Let's look at your claims. "However, science knows what is and is not science" Then tell me, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for something being science (th-cam.com/video/ibjL90iY1d0/w-d-xo.html)? What field of science studies what is and is not science? How can you do the scientific method to determine whether or not something is science. It seems that if you can't use science to answer the question, it is a question that does not fall within the realm of science. And acting like the question is settled and done is not the solution as there are some real questions as to whether things like cosmology are science since they have unfalsifiable claims (th-cam.com/video/m5wqVMfjAvg/w-d-xo.html).
"its truths are objective" There is a question as to whether *any* truths are "objective". And once again it is not something that is studied by science, it is something that is studied by philosophy. Here's the series: th-cam.com/video/Cpl5jQpLomE/w-d-xo.html
"Science is fully aware that human reasoning is suspect and does everything it can to remove it from the method" Two things, first, the problem of induction is not predicated on flaws in human reasoning, but flaws in the scientific method itself. Second, simply because they do everything they can to remove problems from their method does not mean that they are successful in doing so. Imagine that you are trying to solve a long complicated math problem, lets say, multiplying two twenty digit numbers by hand. You are aware that you are going to make mistakes, but you do your best to mitigate those mistakes. Does that mean that your answer is going to be true, just because you tried really hard to not make a mistake? Hopefully not. Just because you try hard to ignore the failings of your method, it does not mean that they will just disappear. And the problem of induction is not the only problem for science. The problem of underdetermination applies as well (th-cam.com/video/co8adINPCns/w-d-xo.html)
"what is truth without human existence, is a better description of what science does than anything philosophy has inferred it does" It seems to me that you don't understand what truth is. Generally truth is considered as relating some statement to some state of affairs in the world. Do you think that statements can exist without humans? Or do you think that states of affairs are the things that are true, not statements? If you say that it is true that "The earth goes around the sun" what is the thing that "is true" the statement "The earth goes around the sun" or some state of affairs where there is an object that people refer to as the earth which goes around something that people call the sun. How do those objects exist without people to define them? Finally if you think that you can offer a description of what truth is, please offer necessary and sufficient conditions.
"Ask a “philosopher of science” what is true and you’ll be waiting until the end of time for an answer." There are many answers that philosophers have come up with for that question, truth is correspondence (th-cam.com/video/un0KbGfsdUM/w-d-xo.html), truth is identity (th-cam.com/video/_p9MYeuvzwE/w-d-xo.html), truth is coherence (th-cam.com/video/Oyf0vHpdIFs/w-d-xo.html), and many more. Watch the series if you are curious.
+MrUppmas Exactly. Simply because someone claims that their truths are objective, it does not means that they are.
Neat
+Evolved Ape Glad you enjoy. Thanks for watching!
This is what annoys me about individuals like Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, and Niel Degrasse Tyson, who are like, "You have fun doing philosophy, I'm going to be over here doing SCIENCE." Sure...insofar as we're willing to consider theoretical physics real science...
+sciencmath Let's not forget other cranks like Michio Kaku and Stephen Pinker as well.
Here's an blog post I found a while ago that talks about this topic.
rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html
sciencmath Dude, Massimo Pigliucci has got to be one of the most engaging philosophers of our time! Have you read his book Answers for Aristotle by any chance?
+sciencmath Great article. Here's another on the same subject www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?_r=0
+Carneades.org Thanks for the vid. and link to NYT article. I noticed it was written by 2 physicists which is good news, since it indicates refreshing epistemological humility on the part of these scientists. Perhaps thoughtful scientists can, and at times do, reflect on the theoretical underpinnings and assumptions regarding their knowledge claims. I think there has been a trend (from mid 20th century to present) of more and more scientists having a "philosophical blindspot", if you will. There's been a tendency to view scientific procedure as a self-validating substitute for epistemology, and to confuse well confirmed theories with true descriptions of "Reality" (i.e. to just assume realism without arguing for it). But the 2 articles cited above indicate some awareness of these and related problems within the scientific arena, which is good news.
Very good definitions about what science and philosophy of science are and are not.
In practice how are the two operationalized. I rarely see philosophers of science engage with scientist on a day to day.
Also, can I be educated where critical review papers, given no experiments are conducted, fall in the demarcations. Also, say something about where scientist having done experiments and obtained results difficult to immediately comprehend goes on to interrogate the findings at the metaphysical level. Do such discussions so arrived at make the work entirely philosophical (metaphysical) and by extension unscientific?
A shot in the dark would be for me to say it would remain an unformulated concept. Let's assume a metaphysical factor is involved in phenomenon X. If we perform an infinite number of experiments, we'd conclude our formula and mechanism can't account for the behavior of whatever object (or thing if we somehow observed something we can't call materialistic in the sense of space time thing but is on another dimension of some sort. It would be what we think as "exist", but outside our conventional space time aspect, but can't at the same time call it an abstract or purely conceptual.). We may call it randomness, undeterminestic unexplainable behavior, or something like that. We may even not be able to ever reach any conclusion at all throughout our entire species' lifetime or even the universe. But since we can't investigate it and test it, we may speculate about it philosophically (like string and multiverse "theories" in the linguistic sense of theory, not the scientific sense), but I don't think we'll ever put it under a scientific hypothesis let alone a scientific theory.
So I would say yes, as soon as we cross the boundaries of science's reach, we would speculate entirely philosophically, and can't call it "scientific" speculation beyond this point. But I personally would still be interested in the discussion, as if we went back to "our" (I'm not European to be involved) Greek roots where philosophy (1) was the be all and end all for attempting to understand reality. Like the thinking statue; how foolish were we to think we could break the code and understand reality's secrets. Perhaps 300 years of discovery was all that's possible to know for "certain", and pondering and speculation is all we could do if we were to understand reality beyond that point. Perhaps...
(1) not logic but the speculation about the universe sense of philosophy like the Platonic forms and 4 cosmic elements that were the place of what we now call the human endeavor of understanding the universe.
at 2:27 and on the screen you state that "Unless solutions to these problems are found even the best confirmed science will be invalid since its very methods are in question" the use of the word Invalid is poor here since if it were truly invalid we would not get truly consistent and predictive results from the method, it would be better to say "less reliable" rather than "invalid" to account for these philosophical problems being unsolved.
+the00zeus Incorrect. I am using invalid in the philosophical sense. An argument is invalid if there is some possible world in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false (th-cam.com/video/pMtMDypKYHU/w-d-xo.html). The reason that science falls under this heading is that its methods are inductive, not deductive (th-cam.com/video/mw8enYCKDaU/w-d-xo.html). In philosophy, an inductive argument with premises that imply the conclusion is likely (not guaranteed) is a strong argument. A strong inductive argument with true premises is a cogent argument. A valid deductive argument with true premises is sound. The problem of induction shows that inductive arguments cannot in principle be deductively valid. Therefore, the scientific method, as it uses induction, is invalid (th-cam.com/video/sd8cxXfPJU4/w-d-xo.html).
+Carneades.org i understand that science is inductive, i also recognize that is seems quite unlikely that there will be a solution to the problem of induction, but i disagree that because it is unsolved we should consider science invalid. induction tells us that the laws of Identity, Non-contradiction and the Excluded Middle hold throughout all of time a space, and are not temporary conditions. induction may be flawed but it is still valuable and has great utility is sussing out information about the world around us. strictly deductive logic is limited in what can be investigated with it, and accepting that absolute certainty is not something that is not reasonably attainable is, i think, reason to accept (with well deserved skepticism) that science can discover true things about the world. that science relies on induction does not always mean that what it claims is false only that some things may be false and interestingly science also tends to determine when this is.
my concern with valid and invalid in philosophy is many of the examples given to demonstrate this difference often have a problem with the premises where that do not necessarily follow from each other or, there is something false about one of the premises and example of this is from here www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/harrell/writingvocab.html
"Conversely, an invalid argument is one in which it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Consider the following argument:
Premise: If you earned an A on the final paper, then you earn an A in the class.
Premise: You earn an A in the class.
Conclusion: You earned an A on the final paper."
in this case if it is necessarily true that if you get an A on the final paper you will get an A in the class, the conclusion does follow, however if you use the conditional should, "If you earned an A on the final paper, then you SHOULD earn an A in the class" would make the argument invalid, this i think outlines some of my issue with what you are saying. induction does not allow for absolute certainty, nor do the findings of science claim to have that either, this i think is a red herring as it distracts from the utility of science. further possible world semantics do not necessarily glean truth about the real world as possible worlds exist with different conditions, it is useful in describing possible outcomes but you then must check against the real world for those to test the model in question for both the truth conditions and the failure conditions, this testing is the hallmark of good science and can nail down why the problem of induction can be side stepped when doing the work of science, and thus make its results valid.
I just wrote an assignment on this topic, I`ll let you know what grade I get!
Great! I hope the video was helpful.
Milicia What grade you got?
how philosophy of science criticize the work of science? can someone explain or answer this question.
Philosophy of science sets the standards for what kinds of things are science and what kinds of things are not science. If a field that claims to be scientific is not epistemically justified, it is the job of philosophy of science to critique it. The field of cosmology is a great example. Philosophy of science often criticizes cosmology as as pseudo-science because it makes unverifiable and unfalsifiable assumptions, here's a video on these arguments: (th-cam.com/video/m5wqVMfjAvg/w-d-xo.html).
"Yeah, you could have the philosophical interpretation of it, but I am talking about the _actual_ fact, y'know, science!"
One of the most annoying statements...
For real lmao what does it even mean
Philosophical statements can never be confirmed or disconfirmed, as philosophical arguments and counter-arguments never cease. Insofar as philosophical statements CAN be confirmed or disconfirmed, they are reducible to scientific statements. For what it’s worth, I have a graduate degree in philosophy. But as Wittgenstein says, I have thrown away the ladder now that I have used it to reach the roof
@@craigknepley6021 I'd argue the exact opposite; philosophy is the absolute certain and as confirmed as something can be, while scientific is the inductive and highly confident yet can never reach absolute certainty. What I think you mean to say is, rightly so, philosophy deals with abstract concepts, but has very little, if any, explanatory power when it comes to empirical reality. Philosophy cam tell you for certain how much 1 + 1 is, but is absolutely paralyzed at telling your where an object would move if left on air, without prior experience. The latter has philosophy do nothing of value with experience, but with such can adjust your confidence level of coming predictions.
Just another Failosopher thats triggered by the fact that his entire world view is complete and utter bullshit
Did you notice that you began your explanation by saying that you are looking to explain the differences between PHILOSOPHY and PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE?
Haha! So I did. Good catch. Accursed Cartesian deceivers. :)
Science is proven to be true by predictions and evidence.
Science is a method not a claim. It is not the kind of thing that can be true. The great thing about science is that it changes its claims as new evidence arrives. Science proves itself wrong every day, it is not right because it is ever proven right, it is amazing because it is constantly proven wrong and it moves on the the newer better theory, it does not stick dogmatically by old claims that have been proven false. The scientific method was created by philosophers and the epistemic justification for science rests on philosophy.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Absolutely. It annoys me how people still think science is the building and accumulated knowledge itself we gathered, when it's just the hammers and tape measures, the process and tools themselves, that built the structure we call it our understanding of the universe.
Real science is not inductive. This video is promoting a particular philosophy of science opinion in the guise of merely clarifying the differences, and it's not even a good opinion. A video like this should highlight that there are many opinions about the nature of science because that is the nature of philosophy of science. Especially, let's not forget Karl Popper who very famously rejected induction in science and is still well respected.
+Ansatz66 What happened to Thomas Samuel Kuhn then? His conception of Unique Theory Choice is a far better thesis than what Popper came up with to answer his own problem of demarcation.
CosmoShidan Popper hit the nail exactly on the head and so there is no such thing as a better answer to the problem of demarcation. Popper solves the problem in the pure skeptical way, with no need for contamination with dogmatic thinking. Any alternative must necessarily be more dogmatic, and more dogma is never an improvement.
In Popper's view, as long as you are being skeptical, you are being scientific. This successfully rules out astrology, intelligent design, homeopathy, and all other things we would want to exclude from science, so it is perfect.
Ansatz66 We've gone past Popper now. The problem with his notion of Falsification is that it's too simple, and it does not allow for the modification of a scientific hypothesis. In fact, Popper's model for scientific progress is the application of philosophical progress to science. It does not work with science because progress in philosophy is about the modification and improvement of a model, and if it can't be modified or improved, then it is to be discarded. For such methods could not work in science as it would mean to discard a hypothesis and not considering tweaking the model. Thereby sticking with induction.
Also, I have to question your study of Popper. insofar as you are speaking in the form of belief qua falsification inasmuch as you are acting like a religious fundamentalist who does not wish to consider the advancements made in the philosophy of science, since the days of Kuhn.
CosmoShidan "The problem with his notion of Falsification is that it's too simple, and it does not allow for the modification of a scientific hypothesis."
Falsification should be simple; that's how you know it's right. Mistakes can hide in complex details, but simple things are easy to understand.
Where did Popper ever say that you cannot modify a hypothesis? That would be a very strange thing for him to say, but supposing he did say it, the value of Popper is in his big ideas, not in the little moments when he says a few crazy things. Just ignore the crazy bits and take the good stuff.
"You are speaking in the form of belief qua falsification inasmuch as you are acting like a religious fundamentalist."
Falsification is the activity of skeptics who choose to try to demonstrate how every idea is wrong instead of building up trust through verification. Fundamentalism of falsification is a belief in nothing, trusting no one, testing everything. The only alternative is credulity, and I prefer less credulity rather than more.
+Ansatz66 I will agree that there are a great deal of opinions as to exactly how the methods of science work, and whether or not science is inductive. I did not in this video want to give a full summary of all of the possible positions that one could take in philosophy of science, simply offer a common view that science takes and demonstrate how it is dependent on philosophy. More specifically to Popper, I am concerned that nothing can be falsified because of the problem of underdetermination. th-cam.com/video/-9NuFeNoFeo/w-d-xo.html
Is gender studies considered science based on the philosophy of science? As an engineer who studied quite a lot of science, it should not be science, but I'm interested in what the philosophy of science stand is on that in your opinion.
The fact that some field of study isn't technically scientific (assuming worst case scenario about any field) shouldn't repel or discourage us from treating it respectfully as a useful tool for understanding reality.
I think most social studies (like psychological amd sociological) are almost always self reported or self experienced (which are by definition untestable, unverifiable empirically other than taking someone's word for it). And even if was objectively observed, like what we colloquially, but not scientifically, a social phenomenon, I find it very difficult to quantify a factor or a behavior by any means. That however should not lead us to devalue those fields or think of them as less than we did think of them after realizing this fact.
Neither should it discourage us from keeping them as useful tools for understanding ourselves (and perhaps other soecies in the future if we seek to understand their behavior as well), and managing our resources (like saying sadness is a result of mainly 5 factors and we go through them as has been demonstrated before as the cause behind %99 of sadness, and solve this problem systematically. Any unfitting data will still be recorded for further investigation).
I admit, I'm biased against gender studies as I personally have a really critical opinion of them. I know I'm gonna offend many with this, and I'm genuinely voicing my opinion constructively not just to offend someone, but I feel we're promoting character/personality superficiality and victimhood mentality.
I do respect these topics have a real place and deserve a serious discussion about them, but categorizing them as a study field is something that doesn't register for me.
I'd rather discuss someone's football obsession, interest in a videogame' lore, their interest in math or history. What I don't care about, in the context of discussion, not the personal aspect, is what it means for them to be white, black, man, woman, nonbinary, short, tall, smart (I'm 14 and it's too deep subreddit included), and even Christian, Muslim or atheist. I don't care who you are; what I care about are the ideas (skills, etc...), stories of moral kr experiences you have.
I'm genuinely curious what people of those walks of life have to say. But what I fail to understand is, how does your sex, gender or sexual orientation (maybe race, 10 maybe qualifiers) bring any depth to your personality. I doubt you would be interested in what color my clothes are rn, but I suspect you'd interested to hear my story or experience about topic X or why I'm interested in it.
I know that was uncalled for and such addition was irrelevant, but if someone can demonstrate how such identity adds a depth to your personality, like your interest in Roman civilization or interest in skydiving, add such depth to your personality and make the conversation interesting, I'd be more than happy to engage with. After all, I'm interested in psychology and understanding such human phenomenon.
just wrong in its basics and especially concerning the acclaimed dualism. did you read some actual serious literature on this topic?
If you have an argument against my claims, or evidence that they are wrong feel free to offer it. If you are just here to insult and deride please take you contempt elsewhere.
This shows a shallow grasp of the subject and an annoyingly reductionist set of definitions as it purports to draw out the contrasts between the fields as subjects and practices. If you are going to attempt a three minute video on such a topic you have to do better by your viewers. Please.
Na ah.
+Paul TheSkeptic What?
Carneades.org XD Just messin witcha.