I had to come back and watch this again! I realized the “certainty vs. uncertainty” part is exactly what Erich Fromm’s ‘Escape from Freedom’ (1941) is about. Fromm describes how people would rather be secure than free. I am now reading his follow-up ‘The Sane Society’ (1951) and both would be a great topic to share now as they have aged quite well and apply as much today than in Fromm’s time. Thank you again!
It's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with the people who are not thinking rationally. More info on how to have that conversation, please? Or do we just wait for them to come to reality on their own?
I have always thought that there are two kinds of people. One type believes tangible facts, has critical thinking and prefers to verify something before espousing it. The other kind are faith based, that is that they can believe something because some other people or organisation however marginal have said it is so. They don’t need hard evidence because they have faith, wether it is believing in religion or a conspiracy., added to that the comforting feeling that they are “ in the know” or “ part of the chosen ones to whom the truth has been revealed”. That is why it is useless to discuss these subjects with that group, rationally has no part of any discussion.
Bad thinking is when people "rationalize" away the evidence that doesn't support what they already believe. I have seen this happen over and over. I present evidence that is contrary and they come up with logical (to them) reason why my evidence holds no weight.
The strict form of scientific definitions for the observable universe follows; a "law" is a fixed immutable truth (law of gravity [newtonian], ohm's law [standard model], etc.), "theory" is a less formal 'proof' and can be examined within the scope of the scientific method and may range from empiricism to functional/formalized or a combination. Theories may lack causal understanding but is not required if repeatability is demonstrated. And continuing, a "hypothesis" is a formed rational 'opinion' that is unexamined to any or some detail, this is often the basis for exploring a theory.
Remember when the moderator of a Republican presidential debate asked if the candidates believe in evolution. Only one said yes. Funny they stopped asking after that.
@@Blonde111…. … advertisers spend a huge amount money to persuade customers to buy useless products. Think tanks come up with dubious data presented to politicians persuading them to pursue policies which enrich the ultra rich 🤑 these think tanks often funded by those who benefit … Socialism which merely means a fairer world, has been demonised… to the extent the working man is persuaded to vote against their interests … Never ending list of examples…
Unfortunately the people who need to watch this, won't.
I had to come back and watch this again! I realized the “certainty vs. uncertainty” part is exactly what Erich Fromm’s ‘Escape from Freedom’ (1941) is about. Fromm describes how people would rather be secure than free. I am now reading his follow-up ‘The Sane Society’ (1951) and both would be a great topic to share now as they have aged quite well and apply as much today than in Fromm’s time. Thank you again!
It's nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with the people who are not thinking rationally. More info on how to have that conversation, please? Or do we just wait for them to come to reality on their own?
I have always thought that there are two kinds of people. One type believes tangible facts, has critical thinking and prefers to verify something before espousing it. The other kind are faith based, that is that they can believe something because some other people or organisation however marginal have said it is so. They don’t need hard evidence because they have faith, wether it is believing in religion or a conspiracy., added to that the comforting feeling that they are “ in the know” or “ part of the chosen ones to whom the truth has been revealed”. That is why it is useless to discuss these subjects with that group, rationally has no part of any discussion.
Bad thinking is when people "rationalize" away the evidence that doesn't support what they already believe. I have seen this happen over and over. I present evidence that is contrary and they come up with logical (to them) reason why my evidence holds no weight.
Oh the irony. Our most important moral obligation is to think clearly. (An informed conscience is the final arbiter of the moral life.)
The strict form of scientific definitions for the observable universe follows; a "law" is a fixed immutable truth (law of gravity [newtonian], ohm's law [standard model], etc.), "theory" is a less formal 'proof' and can be examined within the scope of the scientific method and may range from empiricism to functional/formalized or a combination. Theories may lack causal understanding but is not required if repeatability is demonstrated. And continuing, a "hypothesis" is a formed rational 'opinion' that is unexamined to any or some detail, this is often the basis for exploring a theory.
I tuned in to listen to the philosophers. Why did you not let them speak more?
This was great. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Remember when the moderator of a Republican presidential debate asked if the candidates believe in evolution. Only one said yes. Funny they stopped asking after that.
I've been to Ohio the earth seems pretty flat there.
Very weak arguments by these three. Sophistry really. No talk of the toxic corrupting effect of big money and power on opinion shaping.
Can the dead be counted? Are the hospitals dealing with Covid? The medical professionals say Covid is real. That’s evidence enough for me.
The effect of money and power is not the subject of the talk…
🎯
@@Blonde111…. … advertisers spend a huge amount money to persuade customers to buy useless products.
Think tanks come up with dubious data presented to politicians persuading them to pursue policies which enrich the ultra rich 🤑 these think tanks often funded by those who benefit …
Socialism which merely means a fairer world, has been demonised… to the extent the working man is persuaded to vote against their interests …
Never ending list of examples…