Scientific realism th-cam.com/video/a0UxFhKOiFg/w-d-xo.html Moral naturalism th-cam.com/video/Cw_a8NXZwMw/w-d-xo.html Is water H2O? th-cam.com/video/kQb7QBradfI/w-d-xo.html Conceptual engineering th-cam.com/video/5APi7E09OBQ/w-d-xo.html
What, really? Even within their own spaces, I think they are bit of a hack since they use self help more often rather than actual science. Edit: I am just saying about Jordan p rather than Sam Harris (since I know nothing about what people in his field think of him)
Cubism was originally an attempt to view an entire scene at once from every angle. A limit to our perception is that we can't see multiple angles at once. As with common sense and science, we often can't see one perspective as we look at another. If you look purely from a common sense perspective you can miss the underlying causes of what is happening, but if you look at a purely scientific perspective you can loose sight of the effect of the cause.
Many thanks from Iran. I'm learning much from your videos on philosophical subjects. specially your videos on modal logic paved the way for me to advance more in learning modal logic (Modal Logic for Philosophers book). Keep the good work mate :)
1. He don't know 2. He totally wrong 3. Political "science" is not science nor is it logical, he's a politician not a philosopher 4. Marx is a fraud whose ideas were both anti-science and anti-sense
@@niart4600 uhh 1. the outward appearance of something isn't the only quality of it. 2. Even if it were, verifying that they coincide is still valuable to understanding the whole thing. So no, it wouldn't be superfluous even if they did coincide. Idiot.
15:16 Science is *not* an _extension_ of common sense. While common sense provides _some_ useful intuition for the creative, inductive phase of science - the formation of a hypothesis, we scientists then dump common sense and test our hyphotheses with objective and repeatable measurements against reality, analysed deductively. _Common sense_ is a useful tool, but it tells us nothing useful.
@@Chicken_Little_Syndrome I never said it is ignored - I said it _could_ be useful, but as common sense is unreliable I do not rely on it. As an example: it is common sense that a force must be applied to keep an object in motion, yet it is not the case.
When he says common sense here he means something more like “the senses” than he does “a hunch.” While you are correct that science doesn’t really grow out of hunches, except in the generative phase as you say, it very much does grow out of the senses. After all, we have no way of taking measurements without using our senses. His point is that if you’re going to trust your senses then you don’t really have a reason to distrust the measurements you make with those senses, so you inevitably get led back to the scientific understanding.
@@jacksonletts3724 I was not suggesting that _common sense_ meant hunch, but the conclusions that we reach from our senses. Our senses are not reliable, which is why we scientists go to great lengths to make objective, reproducible measurements.
There is one object, which we call table, and there are different conceptual contexts to describe the specific identity of said table. Both the "common sense" and the "scientific" are the same thing but one has more detail and contextual links and hierarchy than the other. The table exists, and has a certain identity. How a consciousness that is aware of reality choices to describe the table has no effect on the fact that the table exists with those properties. Also, speaking now (modern) scientifically, if you were to shrink down to a size such that the old school Bohr modelers might say there is nothing but empty space, you'd actually be so small that you would not experience empty space but rather you'd experience a completely full plenum of interacting fields. And describing the table as such is just another description of the physical properties of the real existing table.
I feel like distinction between “helpful/unhelpful models” and “precise/imprecise models” should be made. With the example of the table, I think it’s not accurate to say that science and common sense are disagreeing. Firstly, I challenge the assumption that “matter” in common sense and “matter” in science are the same word. Clearly common sense matter refers not to individual quarks and electrons, but the macroscopic emergent materials like “wood” and “stone”. Science and common sense don’t disagree here, because science would agree that the table is “solid wood” and common sense makes no statements about the portion of that wood which is quarks. In this sense, many “common sense” ideas is an emergent property of scientific models, and is merely “less precise” than science, not wrong. With color, it’s not as if science says that color is a lie, color is merely the result of how our photosensitive eye cells and light interacts (and then brain stuff too). Science can (by more complicated means) emulate the emergent property of “color”, by using other “more fundamental” properties like wavelength, electrochemical reactions, etc. The difference between still used common sense ideas like “table and color” and abandoned ones like “demonic possession” is their usefulness. (just like scientific theories) common sense ideas which are more useful than their alternatives in some situations stay around, and ones which are never most useful are abandoned. The reason that scientific models of mental health have superseded demonic possession is that there are very few problems where demonic possession is a faster route to an effective solution than mental health. “Table and color” make many fairly accurate predictions and importantly, with much less effort than molecular mechanisms. Many human problems can be solved best using them. In contrast, “demonic possession” only rarely (and largely by coincidence) offers helpful solutions to problems. Sometimes high precision isn’t useful, because high precision isn’t helpful. Rational agents (should) always prefer to use the most helpful model, one that is precise enough for the task at hand, but not so expensive to use as to be wasteful. “Color and table” aren’t nearly as precise as chemistry or particle physics, but they are precise enough for many tasks. Demonic possession is not precise enough for any task (that humans are currently interested in doing).
I don’t understand why we’re saying that science claims the universe is deterministic. The universe in fundamentally random at a quantum mechanical level, making the future fundamentally unpredictable and unknowable. Now perhaps that still doesn’t leave room for humans to have free will in the sense of actually making choices that change the future, but it’s a little different than saying there’s one knowable absolute future. I guess my personal feeling is that we don’t really know for sure how human consciousness is formed or connects back to biology, chemistry and physics, so we don’t really know if free will exists. But if I in my everyday life feel on an emotional level that I am making choices and it is useful to live with this belief, then maybe the true answer to the free will question isn’t that important.
I think the scientific and manifest images are both models. People have models in their heads, they translate observations into objects in either model and may update either model. They can have both models and use them in different situations. I'm not sure what it means for a model to be right, or if that's a thing that applies to these models. Maybe each model has its own account of reality.
This is such a coincidence... I was just reading about Harold Garfinkel who is a sociologist that studies the everyday practices of people creating a 'common sense' social order that works to guide their social actions
It seems to me that all the people talking about "common sense" are making an awful lot of assumptions about what sensibilities are in actuality common. We forget our early education and of course we can't interrogate anyone without any education-- we wouldn't share a language to communicate the concepts, and by the time we did, we would find our subject educated. I think there is a strong possibility that there is no such thing as actually common sense, and that we will find in the far future that many concepts we consider commonly sensible are no longer considered so. Is it common sense that things fall? We eventually come to *similar* conclusions on this fact; we also eventually come to similar conclusions upon being faced with the fact that although dogs have four legs, not all things with four legs are dogs; and we eventually come to similar conclusions when we see that light seems to behave as both a wave and a particle. I am not sure that this distinction between common sense and science is so distinctive, and we might say of someone that has not yet come to the conclusion that things fall, or that things in orbit *don't* fall, or even that if they want to perform noisy experiments that they'd be well served to correct for multiple comparisons, is that they simply haven't lived long enough yet. Eventually, they will find all of these propositions equally sensible. (BTW, I'm in the exact same position regarding understanding free will compatibilism. Is there a way out?)
Fully agree, it doesn't remotely jive with my common sense that a table is a smooth continuum of matter because of my education. Ever since I was a small child, the explanation given for matter was always "its made up of little chunks called atoms and molecules which are made of almost pointlike fundamental particles, therefore everything is mostly empty space" I just never had a sense that matter Would be continuous. And that's just one example. It was common sense for certain Mesoamerican civilizations that the sun's light was the Deliberate Act of a God, and that god required human sacrifice to keep producing sunlight (might be butchering the mythology somewhat, and it's definitely the case that Aztec human sacrifices were exaggerated and mischaracterized by Europeans to further colonialism, but they still were still Definitely a cultural tradition, so my point stands). That sounds absurd to us now. Frankly, I would challenge not only the truth of common sense, but the coherence of "common sense" as a notion, since it can vary from culture to culture and individual to individual.
Also, on the subject of compatibilism, I take the position that the typical definition of free will used in philosophy is flawed. Like, the typical philosophical definition of free will is something like "Free will means that, for any action you make, there was a possibility that you could have acted otherwise." But, you can relatively easily construct a scenario that fits this definition, but still doesn't free us from being fully determined by physical laws. Consider the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: in a world where it's true, every single action could (and does) turn out every way it could have which is consistent with the laws of physics. But, if you look only at a single branch of this multiverse, then it looks like a single deterministic sequence of events. This implies that using the possibility of alternate action to define free will isn't a good way of defining free will. Instead, I would define free will, in the most general sense, as acting so that your actions follow your intent, where intent is thought of as a mental state. This definition is compatible with determinism, since even in a fully deterministic world, people still have a mental state we can describe as intent, and their actions can follow such a mental state.
@@gh0stcassette Thanks, yeah I saw another one of his videos where he answered a question and said much the same thing re: compatibilism, so now I take it that compatibilists aren't talking about free will so much as they're trying to rescue the concept of responsibility. I think that's a whole different can of worms (how real is intent, vs high level, after-the-fact description of events, vs. god-of-the-gaps that stands in for our ignorance of causes? can a rock have intent, and if not, why not?) but in a way, it doesn't much matter to me, because I haven't found a way to believe that my systems of morality are ultimately justified anyways-- it doesn't matter if I build a tall, elegant tower of moral reasoning or a ramshackle shantytown of special cases if both are equally founded on vapor; and if one person's justifications turn to vapor earlier than another's, well, all that means is that their tower is a little shorter than they thought. I mean, I'm still moral myself, I am still a human, I just can't justify my morality in any ultimate sense, so why even bother trying to justify it proximately?
Imo the important distinction between common sense and science is that science has methods for validation and bias checking, where common sense seems to be presupposing accuracy. Science acknowledges there are many ways our reasoning or perceptions can go wrong, and tries to account for this. Common sense doesn't even try.
No. Common sense indicates logic. If you do not apply reason to your scientific musings, you end up having faith in a secular religion, whether you know it or not. And you end up believing in ideas that have no demonstrable basis in reality. 2+2 is 4. This is an example of common sense. 4 is not equal to 5. This is another example.
@@Chicken_Little_Syndrome 2 + 2 = 4 could be seen as a hypothesis. Science validates the hypothesis by getting two things, and another two things, and checks to see if there are 4 things. The common sense method has no validation step. If you find someone who has a different conclusion to their common sense, the two of you just get louder and louder about who is right. Adding the validation step isn't fool proof, but it is better than not doing it.
I think that the issues with eliminativism are not plausible unless we're eliminativists about the mental, or something. Like, consider the claim that "the table is mostly empty space". That *doesn't* undermine all the experiments done which suggest that the table is mostly empty space; the experiments did not actually need to presuppose that the instruments are substantial - they just needed to presuppose that the instruments are resistant enough to pressure from the experimenter's hands, for example. Something similar would go for color: say that we see color as a mental phenomenon, not as a property of surfaces or even of light rays. We think of light rays as having the *disposition* to stir up some sensation in the brain. That still wouldn't undermine experiments that established that conclusion: the surface reflectance of our instruments (or, the light emitted by our instruments, if they're screens) are reliably tracked by the sensations caused by the rays, so the experiments work out, despite the naivety of common sense.
The very fact that you could have a table of the same volume that has a higher density proves that there’s empty space within the table. Didn’t even need science to figure that one out.
Not necessarily, what if it were the case that matter is continuous, but some substances had more inertia than others? Mass is inertia, in the typical Newtonian sense of mass, and if you have a 1cm cube of each substance, and one is harder to accelerate, you'll measure it as having more mass, and therefore more density, since the volumes are the same.
@@gh0stcassette you could condense a seemingly solid object right in front of you using force, which implies air within the structure. You could also have two tables of the same volume made out of the same material, but one you processed by compressing it beforehand. Then you’d have two tables of the same volume, same material, but different densities as shown by different weight. Or even just soaking things. You could have a desk that’s much heavier than the last even when all the specs are the same if one was just also soaked. Where did the water go? The air in the solid object.
@@ExistenceUniversity well, fields aren’t usually considered, when talking about “things”. You could just as well say that there is gravitational field everywhere.
Reconstruction and compatibilism are the two main ways in which I think of this distinction. First yeah on the scales of humans the wood table is solid on the scale of bacterium the table is spongy, on the scale of atoms the table is composed of particles held in place by the forces between them. Furthermore each of these models only estimates reality. The idea that the scientific view is complete is simply not held by most scientist. Scientist are concerned with that which is falsifiable and that is reflected on the modern experiment that attempts to falsify the null hypothesis rather than maintain some posative-hypothesis. Yes the universe is determined but what we call free will is the nearly uncountably many determined interactions that result in an action. It is imposible to satisfy the idea that free will is the result of reasons without a deterministic point of view. Ultimately if your decisions are do to reasons these reasons where determined by your current state that was determined by the past. As for morality it exist outside the realm of the falsifiable. One cannot falsify the notion slavery is good. Therefore science cannot determine that slavery is bad. Rather moral arguments start from some axiomatic belief held by faith or pleasure, obtaining that which is desired. Self autonomy is good or desirable. Therefore restrictions of self autonomy are bad and therefore slavery is bad. As it restricts some ones self autonomy.
Argument about color not being property of an object is wrong. What wavelengths will get reflected by the object is indeed its property, the surface works like a filter so color represents its properties while our eyes just act as an detector of those properties.
Is something yellow if its made up of millions of pixels, of which there are equal parts pixels transmitting wavelengths of 630nm and 532nm (red and green pixels on a screen), or is it yellow if the light that gets transmitted from it has a wavelength of 575nm (the single wavelength that produces an identical respons in both the red and green cones)? If you argue that theyre the same colour, then colour does not, in fact, reduce down to wavelength alone in a way that is intrinsic to the object, but is instead a psychophysical phenomena that exists in the interaction between what an object tends to emit or transmit ib a certain context, and the human eye and brain. If you argue they arent actually the same colour, then you are not talking about colour in the way almost all people talk about it, which is at the level of perception. Furthermore what if there is an object that reflects and transmitts light in different ways? Take a dull green apple with a white light inside it. Under white external light, the green apple would look identical in colour to another, less dull, green apple that lacks the internal light. On the otherhand, under direct red light, the apple that contains a white light will still transmit some green, while the normal apple will look completely reddy-brown. Evene if you consider the colour to be JUST the emitted and transmitted wavelengths, there is not one "intrinsic" colour of an object.
Scientific realism
th-cam.com/video/a0UxFhKOiFg/w-d-xo.html
Moral naturalism
th-cam.com/video/Cw_a8NXZwMw/w-d-xo.html
Is water H2O?
th-cam.com/video/kQb7QBradfI/w-d-xo.html
Conceptual engineering
th-cam.com/video/5APi7E09OBQ/w-d-xo.html
Great, now do a video about Sense Vs Common Science.
or sense science vs common
You are one of the few TH-cam channels, who put actual philosophy out here. Masses now consider likes jordan peterson and sam harris as philosophers.
What, really? Even within their own spaces, I think they are bit of a hack since they use self help more often rather than actual science.
Edit: I am just saying about Jordan p rather than Sam Harris (since I know nothing about what people in his field think of him)
My favourite philosopher is Joe Rogan
@@Bhuyakasha I’ve never heard more nuanced thoughts given in animal noises
The best philosopher out there at the moment is yogi bear
Might I suggest the channels Carefree Wandering and Political Philosophy with Dr Laurie Johnson?
Cubism was originally an attempt to view an entire scene at once from every angle. A limit to our perception is that we can't see multiple angles at once. As with common sense and science, we often can't see one perspective as we look at another. If you look purely from a common sense perspective you can miss the underlying causes of what is happening, but if you look at a purely scientific perspective you can loose sight of the effect of the cause.
Many thanks from Iran. I'm learning much from your videos on philosophical subjects. specially your videos on modal logic paved the way for me to advance more in learning modal logic (Modal Logic for Philosophers book). Keep the good work mate :)
"All science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided"
-Karl Marx
1. He don't know
2. He totally wrong
3. Political "science" is not science nor is it logical, he's a politician not a philosopher
4. Marx is a fraud whose ideas were both anti-science and anti-sense
@@timmyt1293 In what way is this quote wrong
@@niart4600 uhh
1. the outward appearance of something isn't the only quality of it.
2. Even if it were, verifying that they coincide is still valuable to understanding the whole thing.
So no, it wouldn't be superfluous even if they did coincide. Idiot.
15:16 Science is *not* an _extension_ of common sense. While common sense provides _some_ useful intuition for the creative, inductive phase of science - the formation of a hypothesis, we scientists then dump common sense and test our hyphotheses with objective and repeatable measurements against reality, analysed deductively. _Common sense_ is a useful tool, but it tells us nothing useful.
The fact that you ignore common sense explains a lot.
@@Chicken_Little_Syndrome I never said it is ignored - I said it _could_ be useful, but as common sense is unreliable I do not rely on it.
As an example: it is common sense that a force must be applied to keep an object in motion, yet it is not the case.
When he says common sense here he means something more like “the senses” than he does “a hunch.”
While you are correct that science doesn’t really grow out of hunches, except in the generative phase as you say, it very much does grow out of the senses. After all, we have no way of taking measurements without using our senses.
His point is that if you’re going to trust your senses then you don’t really have a reason to distrust the measurements you make with those senses, so you inevitably get led back to the scientific understanding.
@@jacksonletts3724 I was not suggesting that _common sense_ meant hunch, but the conclusions that we reach from our senses. Our senses are not reliable, which is why we scientists go to great lengths to make objective, reproducible measurements.
Your videos are great. I find philosophy to be a great palate cleanser after studying a bit of math/physics before bed.
There is one object, which we call table, and there are different conceptual contexts to describe the specific identity of said table. Both the "common sense" and the "scientific" are the same thing but one has more detail and contextual links and hierarchy than the other. The table exists, and has a certain identity. How a consciousness that is aware of reality choices to describe the table has no effect on the fact that the table exists with those properties.
Also, speaking now (modern) scientifically, if you were to shrink down to a size such that the old school Bohr modelers might say there is nothing but empty space, you'd actually be so small that you would not experience empty space but rather you'd experience a completely full plenum of interacting fields. And describing the table as such is just another description of the physical properties of the real existing table.
I feel like distinction between “helpful/unhelpful models” and “precise/imprecise models” should be made.
With the example of the table, I think it’s not accurate to say that science and common sense are disagreeing. Firstly, I challenge the assumption that “matter” in common sense and “matter” in science are the same word. Clearly common sense matter refers not to individual quarks and electrons, but the macroscopic emergent materials like “wood” and “stone”. Science and common sense don’t disagree here, because science would agree that the table is “solid wood” and common sense makes no statements about the portion of that wood which is quarks.
In this sense, many “common sense” ideas is an emergent property of scientific models, and is merely “less precise” than science, not wrong.
With color, it’s not as if science says that color is a lie, color is merely the result of how our photosensitive eye cells and light interacts (and then brain stuff too). Science can (by more complicated means) emulate the emergent property of “color”, by using other “more fundamental” properties like wavelength, electrochemical reactions, etc.
The difference between still used common sense ideas like “table and color” and abandoned ones like “demonic possession” is their usefulness. (just like scientific theories) common sense ideas which are more useful than their alternatives in some situations stay around, and ones which are never most useful are abandoned. The reason that scientific models of mental health have superseded demonic possession is that there are very few problems where demonic possession is a faster route to an effective solution than mental health. “Table and color” make many fairly accurate predictions and importantly, with much less effort than molecular mechanisms. Many human problems can be solved best using them. In contrast, “demonic possession” only rarely (and largely by coincidence) offers helpful solutions to problems.
Sometimes high precision isn’t useful, because high precision isn’t helpful. Rational agents (should) always prefer to use the most helpful model, one that is precise enough for the task at hand, but not so expensive to use as to be wasteful. “Color and table” aren’t nearly as precise as chemistry or particle physics, but they are precise enough for many tasks. Demonic possession is not precise enough for any task (that humans are currently interested in doing).
I don’t understand why we’re saying that science claims the universe is deterministic. The universe in fundamentally random at a quantum mechanical level, making the future fundamentally unpredictable and unknowable. Now perhaps that still doesn’t leave room for humans to have free will in the sense of actually making choices that change the future, but it’s a little different than saying there’s one knowable absolute future. I guess my personal feeling is that we don’t really know for sure how human consciousness is formed or connects back to biology, chemistry and physics, so we don’t really know if free will exists. But if I in my everyday life feel on an emotional level that I am making choices and it is useful to live with this belief, then maybe the true answer to the free will question isn’t that important.
I think the scientific and manifest images are both models. People have models in their heads, they translate observations into objects in either model and may update either model. They can have both models and use them in different situations. I'm not sure what it means for a model to be right, or if that's a thing that applies to these models. Maybe each model has its own account of reality.
I like the thumbnail! It’s kind of pretty, maybe even beautiful.
This is such a coincidence... I was just reading about Harold Garfinkel who is a sociologist that studies the everyday practices of people creating a 'common sense' social order that works to guide their social actions
13:45 is a great endorsement of Dualism
It seems to me that all the people talking about "common sense" are making an awful lot of assumptions about what sensibilities are in actuality common. We forget our early education and of course we can't interrogate anyone without any education-- we wouldn't share a language to communicate the concepts, and by the time we did, we would find our subject educated. I think there is a strong possibility that there is no such thing as actually common sense, and that we will find in the far future that many concepts we consider commonly sensible are no longer considered so. Is it common sense that things fall? We eventually come to *similar* conclusions on this fact; we also eventually come to similar conclusions upon being faced with the fact that although dogs have four legs, not all things with four legs are dogs; and we eventually come to similar conclusions when we see that light seems to behave as both a wave and a particle. I am not sure that this distinction between common sense and science is so distinctive, and we might say of someone that has not yet come to the conclusion that things fall, or that things in orbit *don't* fall, or even that if they want to perform noisy experiments that they'd be well served to correct for multiple comparisons, is that they simply haven't lived long enough yet. Eventually, they will find all of these propositions equally sensible.
(BTW, I'm in the exact same position regarding understanding free will compatibilism. Is there a way out?)
Fully agree, it doesn't remotely jive with my common sense that a table is a smooth continuum of matter because of my education. Ever since I was a small child, the explanation given for matter was always "its made up of little chunks called atoms and molecules which are made of almost pointlike fundamental particles, therefore everything is mostly empty space" I just never had a sense that matter Would be continuous.
And that's just one example. It was common sense for certain Mesoamerican civilizations that the sun's light was the Deliberate Act of a God, and that god required human sacrifice to keep producing sunlight (might be butchering the mythology somewhat, and it's definitely the case that Aztec human sacrifices were exaggerated and mischaracterized by Europeans to further colonialism, but they still were still Definitely a cultural tradition, so my point stands). That sounds absurd to us now.
Frankly, I would challenge not only the truth of common sense, but the coherence of "common sense" as a notion, since it can vary from culture to culture and individual to individual.
Also, on the subject of compatibilism, I take the position that the typical definition of free will used in philosophy is flawed. Like, the typical philosophical definition of free will is something like "Free will means that, for any action you make, there was a possibility that you could have acted otherwise."
But, you can relatively easily construct a scenario that fits this definition, but still doesn't free us from being fully determined by physical laws. Consider the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: in a world where it's true, every single action could (and does) turn out every way it could have which is consistent with the laws of physics. But, if you look only at a single branch of this multiverse, then it looks like a single deterministic sequence of events.
This implies that using the possibility of alternate action to define free will isn't a good way of defining free will. Instead, I would define free will, in the most general sense, as acting so that your actions follow your intent, where intent is thought of as a mental state. This definition is compatible with determinism, since even in a fully deterministic world, people still have a mental state we can describe as intent, and their actions can follow such a mental state.
@@gh0stcassette Thanks, yeah I saw another one of his videos where he answered a question and said much the same thing re: compatibilism, so now I take it that compatibilists aren't talking about free will so much as they're trying to rescue the concept of responsibility. I think that's a whole different can of worms (how real is intent, vs high level, after-the-fact description of events, vs. god-of-the-gaps that stands in for our ignorance of causes? can a rock have intent, and if not, why not?) but in a way, it doesn't much matter to me, because I haven't found a way to believe that my systems of morality are ultimately justified anyways-- it doesn't matter if I build a tall, elegant tower of moral reasoning or a ramshackle shantytown of special cases if both are equally founded on vapor; and if one person's justifications turn to vapor earlier than another's, well, all that means is that their tower is a little shorter than they thought. I mean, I'm still moral myself, I am still a human, I just can't justify my morality in any ultimate sense, so why even bother trying to justify it proximately?
Hey Kane! Do you have a PO box where ppl can send u stuff by chance? Kinda sounds creepy asking that lol
I'm afraid not. Anybody who wants to go full Kaczynski on me will just have to figure out my actual address.
@@KaneB Ight totes fine Dr. Bro-choch-cho. Understandable tho, these presups r getting crazier and crazier......
Imo the important distinction between common sense and science is that science has methods for validation and bias checking, where common sense seems to be presupposing accuracy. Science acknowledges there are many ways our reasoning or perceptions can go wrong, and tries to account for this. Common sense doesn't even try.
No. Common sense indicates logic. If you do not apply reason to your scientific musings, you end up having faith in a secular religion, whether you know it or not. And you end up believing in ideas that have no demonstrable basis in reality.
2+2 is 4. This is an example of common sense. 4 is not equal to 5. This is another example.
@@Chicken_Little_Syndrome 2 + 2 = 4 could be seen as a hypothesis. Science validates the hypothesis by getting two things, and another two things, and checks to see if there are 4 things.
The common sense method has no validation step. If you find someone who has a different conclusion to their common sense, the two of you just get louder and louder about who is right.
Adding the validation step isn't fool proof, but it is better than not doing it.
I think that the issues with eliminativism are not plausible unless we're eliminativists about the mental, or something. Like, consider the claim that "the table is mostly empty space".
That *doesn't* undermine all the experiments done which suggest that the table is mostly empty space; the experiments did not actually need to presuppose that the instruments are substantial - they just needed to presuppose that the instruments are resistant enough to pressure from the experimenter's hands, for example.
Something similar would go for color: say that we see color as a mental phenomenon, not as a property of surfaces or even of light rays. We think of light rays as having the *disposition* to stir up some sensation in the brain. That still wouldn't undermine experiments that established that conclusion: the surface reflectance of our instruments (or, the light emitted by our instruments, if they're screens) are reliably tracked by the sensations caused by the rays, so the experiments work out, despite the naivety of common sense.
Ah, this seems to just be something close to the reconstruction view.
The conflict is better described as being between intellect and wisdom.
So, it's all just perception as a result of perspective. Got it.
Exellente Darstellung.
Tx.
Welcher Zusammenhang besteht zwischen Erklären und Verstehen (Explaining and Understanding)?
TY Dr. Baker
The very fact that you could have a table of the same volume that has a higher density proves that there’s empty space within the table. Didn’t even need science to figure that one out.
Not necessarily, what if it were the case that matter is continuous, but some substances had more inertia than others? Mass is inertia, in the typical Newtonian sense of mass, and if you have a 1cm cube of each substance, and one is harder to accelerate, you'll measure it as having more mass, and therefore more density, since the volumes are the same.
@@gh0stcassette you could condense a seemingly solid object right in front of you using force, which implies air within the structure. You could also have two tables of the same volume made out of the same material, but one you processed by compressing it beforehand. Then you’d have two tables of the same volume, same material, but different densities as shown by different weight. Or even just soaking things. You could have a desk that’s much heavier than the last even when all the specs are the same if one was just also soaked. Where did the water go? The air in the solid object.
Interesting video !
Is it actually true that matter is mostly empty space though ? 🤔
Yes.
As far as we know, yeah
No! The universe is a plenum of existing quantum fields where there is always something where nothing isn't.
@@ExistenceUniversity well, fields aren’t usually considered, when talking about “things”. You could just as well say that there is gravitational field everywhere.
@@fullfungo Yes there are! They have physical properties. You are just uninformed on this matter.
Reconstruction and compatibilism are the two main ways in which I think of this distinction. First yeah on the scales of humans the wood table is solid on the scale of bacterium the table is spongy, on the scale of atoms the table is composed of particles held in place by the forces between them. Furthermore each of these models only estimates reality. The idea that the scientific view is complete is simply not held by most scientist. Scientist are concerned with that which is falsifiable and that is reflected on the modern experiment that attempts to falsify the null hypothesis rather than maintain some posative-hypothesis. Yes the universe is determined but what we call free will is the nearly uncountably many determined interactions that result in an action. It is imposible to satisfy the idea that free will is the result of reasons without a deterministic point of view. Ultimately if your decisions are do to reasons these reasons where determined by your current state that was determined by the past. As for morality it exist outside the realm of the falsifiable. One cannot falsify the notion slavery is good. Therefore science cannot determine that slavery is bad.
Rather moral arguments start from some axiomatic belief held by faith or pleasure, obtaining that which is desired. Self autonomy is good or desirable. Therefore restrictions of self autonomy are bad and therefore slavery is bad. As it restricts some ones self autonomy.
emergent properties
Argument about color not being property of an object is wrong. What wavelengths will get reflected by the object is indeed its property, the surface works like a filter so color represents its properties while our eyes just act as an detector of those properties.
Is something yellow if its made up of millions of pixels, of which there are equal parts pixels transmitting wavelengths of 630nm and 532nm (red and green pixels on a screen), or is it yellow if the light that gets transmitted from it has a wavelength of 575nm (the single wavelength that produces an identical respons in both the red and green cones)?
If you argue that theyre the same colour, then colour does not, in fact, reduce down to wavelength alone in a way that is intrinsic to the object, but is instead a psychophysical phenomena that exists in the interaction between what an object tends to emit or transmit ib a certain context, and the human eye and brain. If you argue they arent actually the same colour, then you are not talking about colour in the way almost all people talk about it, which is at the level of perception.
Furthermore what if there is an object that reflects and transmitts light in different ways? Take a dull green apple with a white light inside it. Under white external light, the green apple would look identical in colour to another, less dull, green apple that lacks the internal light. On the otherhand, under direct red light, the apple that contains a white light will still transmit some green, while the normal apple will look completely reddy-brown. Evene if you consider the colour to be JUST the emitted and transmitted wavelengths, there is not one "intrinsic" colour of an object.
Pretty bad sound quality, sounds like tin can on phone and muffled on BT speaker
Solipsism always wins
My friend, Science is common sense, perhaps you should try common vs faith.
The ought comes from evolution i guess