This is so insane to read. How do you think scientific progress works? All the insane technology around you? How do you verify which chemicals binds to helium under heat or how to create a database on a silicone chip without an institution?
@@GingerDrums The scientific method is what procures knowledge. This has nothing to do with rules, norms, and institutions, which are all social conventions that deviate from the scientific method substantially by necessarily embedding their ideology and hermeneutics in the process empirical and rational thought are dynamic processes that are independent of institutions and norms you're either using the best available evidence or you're not
political freedom...and respect for the law...do you want to tell that to Amnesty, or to the UN, how much respect we as a country have for the law? citizens united?
Complex problems and complex solutions. Part of this answer lies in forming organizations or an organization or principled approach to forming organizations throughout the planet, is to form a body similar to both Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon. The twelve step approach, greater power basis .. a space for all to tell their story and to come together as an anonymous collective, may help in part to grow individuals, communities, and subsequently all those organizations on the planet that manifest from those individuals and communities. This definitely wouldn't subtract from the problem spoken of here.
Nigel Biggar is WRONG about cultural hegemony being a recent development please refer to Noam Chomsky's manufacturing consent please refer to Gramsci this is not a new development cultural hegemony is the norm
@@GingerDrums There are many, many questions you are not allowed to ask. And there are even more questions you're not allowed to meaningfully ask because you'll have no hope of having the inquiries funded
@@jonathantrautman So you agree that free inquiry has existed in capitalism and the question is one of degree. Edit: which nobody would argue against. JS Mill argued this in On Liberty.
As the right side of the dualistic political spectrum has become authoritarian and anti-intellectual, a left-sided political homogeneity among academics isn't surprising nor is it a problem of re-organizing intellectual communities to include more people on the right. The problem is that political opinion is such a strong force that the community could crystallize around politics and lose its original integrity and focus.
@@RabornTau Hostility toward intellectuals is one definition of anti-intellectualism. You can argue that intellectuals are dishonest, if that's what you believe.
I'm amazed at the amount of faith Rauch has in the institutions of the US, and the rest of the world. Begs the question-whose facts? Why, of course, Rauch's facts!
this is the most disgusting lecture I have ever seen I find this particularly offensive after the the most recent Trump election this is insanity and fantasy
Offensive? Your use of the word means you are attempting emotional manipulation. Especially because you gave no facts. The lecture is talking exactly how the mindset you have is about forcing your views upon America through cancel culture. If you had the facts you would have used them.
@@GingerDrums No it does not! In fact, the word epistemic/epistemology doesn't come up once in the lecture as I recall, nor does empiricism or rationalism for that matter! Empiricism and rationalism are the processes by which knowledge is created; knowledge creation has nothing to do with contracts abstract or otherwise
@@GingerDrums what's offensive about it is ignoring that liberalism has itself destroyed the very fundaments it supposedly established from: a legacy of the holocaust, to human rights, war crimes, rules based international order, a 'rule of law', etc. etc. replace this with the cultural hegemony of the billionaire corporatocracy beginning in 71 and you begin to have a coherent model liberalism: the legacy of human rights, the idea of linear/semi linear-scientific/social progress , the idea of moral agency, these ideas are in the rubble with the ghosts of Gaza's children
@@davesockett I didn't get 15 minutes before I'd had enough. All I heard was "Rah, Rah, we can make mistakes faster than we ever could! Hurrah!" Maybe it got better, but life's too short.
Thanks for the important speech
Essential viewing. I would wish YT would learn from this.
Great lecture!
Rules norms and institutions have far less to do with veritable knowledge production than they have to do with the maintenance of cultural hegemony
This is so insane to read. How do you think scientific progress works? All the insane technology around you? How do you verify which chemicals binds to helium under heat or how to create a database on a silicone chip without an institution?
@@GingerDrums The scientific method is what procures knowledge. This has nothing to do with rules, norms, and institutions, which are all social conventions that deviate from the scientific method substantially by necessarily embedding their ideology and hermeneutics in the process
empirical and rational thought are dynamic processes that are independent of institutions and norms
you're either using the best available evidence or you're not
what a fantastic tale this is! a 'reality based community' I'm going to throw up
political freedom...and respect for the law...do you want to tell that to Amnesty, or to the UN, how much respect we as a country have for the law? citizens united?
Complex problems and complex solutions. Part of this answer lies in forming organizations or an organization or principled approach to forming organizations throughout the planet, is to form a body similar to both Alcoholics Anonymous and Al-Anon.
The twelve step approach, greater power basis .. a space for all to tell their story and to come together as an anonymous collective, may help in part to grow individuals, communities, and subsequently all those organizations on the planet that manifest from those individuals and communities.
This definitely wouldn't subtract from the problem spoken of here.
Nigel Biggar is WRONG about cultural hegemony being a recent development
please refer to Noam Chomsky's manufacturing consent
please refer to Gramsci
this is not a new development
cultural hegemony is the norm
how could one argue that free inquiry has existed in capitalism when researchers have to beg for grant money? the proposition is absurd on its face
Funding is not the same as freedom of inquiry. How is this distinction not obvious to you?
@@GingerDrums There are many, many questions you are not allowed to ask. And there are even more questions you're not allowed to meaningfully ask because you'll have no hope of having the inquiries funded
@@jonathantrautman So you agree that free inquiry has existed in capitalism and the question is one of degree. Edit: which nobody would argue against. JS Mill argued this in On Liberty.
As the right side of the dualistic political spectrum has become authoritarian and anti-intellectual, a left-sided political homogeneity among academics isn't surprising nor is it a problem of re-organizing intellectual communities to include more people on the right. The problem is that political opinion is such a strong force that the community could crystallize around politics and lose its original integrity and focus.
Just sounds like echos from the echo chamber.
They're not anti intellectual, they're anti- being lied to
@@RabornTau Hostility toward intellectuals is one definition of anti-intellectualism. You can argue that intellectuals are dishonest, if that's what you believe.
I'm amazed at the amount of faith Rauch has in the institutions of the US, and the rest of the world. Begs the question-whose facts? Why, of course, Rauch's facts!
Probably a russian bot. Facts are not personal, that's how they differ from opinions.
this is the most disgusting lecture I have ever seen
I find this particularly offensive after the the most recent Trump election
this is insanity and fantasy
Offensive?
Your use of the word means you are attempting emotional manipulation. Especially because you gave no facts. The lecture is talking exactly how the mindset you have is about forcing your views upon America through cancel culture. If you had the facts you would have used them.
What is offensive about it? It states very calmly the importance of basic epistemic processes and the principals of empirical thought.
@@GingerDrums No it does not! In fact, the word epistemic/epistemology doesn't come up once in the lecture as I recall, nor does empiricism or rationalism for that matter!
Empiricism and rationalism are the processes by which knowledge is created; knowledge creation has nothing to do with contracts abstract or otherwise
@@GingerDrums what's offensive about it is ignoring that liberalism has itself destroyed the very fundaments it supposedly established from:
a legacy of the holocaust, to human rights, war crimes, rules based international order, a 'rule of law', etc. etc. replace this with the cultural hegemony of the billionaire corporatocracy beginning in 71 and you begin to have a coherent model
liberalism: the legacy of human rights, the idea of linear/semi linear-scientific/social progress , the idea of moral agency, these ideas are in the rubble with the ghosts of Gaza's children
@@jonathantrautman I'll restate the question: what is offensive about the lecture?
Lol bro is this serious?
Let me guess... You didn't watch even a single minute and think liberalism is a synonym for leftist.
@@davesockett I didn't get 15 minutes before I'd had enough. All I heard was "Rah, Rah, we can make mistakes faster than we ever could! Hurrah!" Maybe it got better, but life's too short.
Bots that you said, Troll?