The Supreme Irony of Science as Overarching Truth | Jonathan Pageau

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 114

  • @maxsiehier
    @maxsiehier 4 ปีที่แล้ว +93

    If the highest form of truth is found in a laboratory, then why would that truth even matter, because none of us actually spend time in a laboratory.

    • @Paul-A01
      @Paul-A01 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      What a strange thing to say on a computer that requires advanced technology and manufacturing techniques that were developed in laboratories.

    • @aramkaizer7903
      @aramkaizer7903 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      @@Paul-A01
      That doesn't really remove anything from his point.

    • @MicahMicahel
      @MicahMicahel 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      it's like a new form of gnosticism

    • @destruction1928
      @destruction1928 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@Paul-A01 Hypothesis does not emerge from lab, lab work is to test the hypothesis.

    • @patricksee10
      @patricksee10 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@Paul-A01 you mean like smoke signals, writing on sand or message boards, we have a trust in the medium. That is all you are saying, or you dazzled by the tech lords hype and PR?

  • @SymbolicallyMemeing
    @SymbolicallyMemeing 4 ปีที่แล้ว +50

    The mistake is to even begin to think that the theory of evolution can tell us something exhaustive about who we are. Scientists pretending to be philosophers but being embedded in a specific world view which the philosophers spend a lifetime trying to escape from and understand. This is related to consciousness. Something Jonathan discussed in his conversation with his brother on the main channel.

  • @mavericktheace
    @mavericktheace 2 ปีที่แล้ว +32

    The materialist says, "truth" and they refer to "that which can be known." The person of faith says, "Truth," and they refer to "that which is beyond what we (can) know."

    • @jacobbeers5889
      @jacobbeers5889 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Well said!

    • @SpencerTwiddy
      @SpencerTwiddy ปีที่แล้ว +2

      How can one know, without faith?

    • @brianreid5891
      @brianreid5891 ปีที่แล้ว

      Im following what Jonathan is saying here, and while listening it sounds “right” or “true” haha. But I can’t help myself from being dragged back into wanting scientific facts to ground me in reality, especially in the state of the world right now where people believe they can make “their own truth” and go against what is scientific fact. How does one stand up for truth, when it seems like this concept of truth or reality Jonathan is speaking about seems subjective without the notion of God. And with a misunderstanding of God or even the absence of God, this will inevitably lead to chaos and disorder.
      It’s late, I hope that made sense…any response would be appreciated. Just trying to work this out in my head lol.

    • @1214gooner
      @1214gooner 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yes, although a materialist doesn’t even have the means to know…

  • @alvarocoronel67
    @alvarocoronel67 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    It’s not about the artificial conditions of the lab. It’s about not being able to even start to think about it without the whole edifice of consciousness and hierarchy that they take for granted and indeed can’t even see, as they don’t see the air that we all breathe.

  • @RockAristote
    @RockAristote 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Je t’aime Jonathan. Continue ton excellent travail !

  • @FortYeah
    @FortYeah 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    Argument #3 is like the sound of post-modernism exploding.

  • @stephenmel8630
    @stephenmel8630 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    “Whatever research you want to do, make sure you connect it to climate change or you won’t get funding.” Wisdom bestowed to me by the Ecology PhD students while getting my degree. In science, ‘truth’ is what gets funded.

  • @MarcInTbilisi
    @MarcInTbilisi 3 ปีที่แล้ว +24

    I think you nailed it but I'll add, the scientific method usually followed is to try to isolate the phenomenon under investigation, to isolate and isolate such that we can determine exact cause and effect, eliminate all unkowns. This is distorting reality and calling it fact.

    • @BluegrassBarn
      @BluegrassBarn 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Yes, however, It is impossible to eliminate all unknowns. For example, when the passage of time results in undetected changes in previously unknown variables, incorrect conclusions about causation frequently arise.

    • @oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164
      @oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      How is that distorting reality?

    • @MarcInTbilisi
      @MarcInTbilisi 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 Because you've put the object of study in a vacuum. In reality, everything interacts with everything else and so if something has been separated from this reality, you are no longer studying reality.

    • @oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164
      @oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@MarcInTbilisi No, it's been separated from stimuli. "Everything interacts with everything else" That is not true. How does a Bumble Bee interact with a Whale? There maybe a connection, as them both being life forms, without interaction. Would the Moon orbit the Earth if you didn't exist?

    • @MarcInTbilisi
      @MarcInTbilisi 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 a bee can interact with a whale, the question is, to what degree? For the whale it is 'in the noise' but maybe not for the bee. If I didn't exist the moon would orbit differently but of course we can't measure the difference.

  • @Obilio222
    @Obilio222 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I think the word “agreement” is key here. The truth that people have agreed upon has always been something …fluid. Thinking that the world will fly apart without “facts” we can all agree on is a very modern phenomenon, and it shrinks actual truth to something that does not allow people to live really well. I’m just waiting for one of these guys (like Bret or Harris) to fully define “better”. It can’t be done without diving into the metaphors they claim to live without. Sigh….

  • @mditt7
    @mditt7 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    You're on to it Jonathon. Keep fighting the Good Fight!

  • @ALLHEART_
    @ALLHEART_ 2 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    2:16 Bret just conceded to Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism lol

  • @theostapel
    @theostapel ปีที่แล้ว

    I didn't really know what this series is about and reading the comments is hard woik.
    This truth - personal/universal /contextual - can be experienced practically - without all the religious/scientific/technical jargon (bordering on dogma).
    If one - reclaims the human heart - as one's spiritual centre ...... this same wonderful heart - can be worthily used and relied upon - to answer - truthfully - all the questions - minute and mighty.
    The heart - has to cleaned up and loved - for what it really is - the Divine core - within humans.
    It is a matter of practical experience, of course. It is the truth - lived - closest to oneself.
    (Hint from meditation aspirant) Fare thee well.

  • @kimobush2287
    @kimobush2287 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow you philosophy of science is divine. May the lord bless you, you are truely holy person

  • @gabrielorville821
    @gabrielorville821 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I think a good metaphor is the difference between analogue and digital information in computer science, the first is nature as is and the second is an approximation. Scientific truth is the safe range where we can be sure -- Though it's not the god of the gaps argument, just pointing out an aspect --

    • @MissPopuri
      @MissPopuri 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      There is an analogue computer science? I have never heard of that.

  • @jamesmaclachlan6595
    @jamesmaclachlan6595 3 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    The laboratory is the most artificial conceivable environment. Most of experimental design is about figuring out how to shoehorn reality into the lab. We don't live in the laboratory, where scientists do backwards handstands trying to isolate a specific variable. The idea that the lab is a higher order of truth than human experience is untenable.

  • @gmjsimmons
    @gmjsimmons 2 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    The problem was noted by Piaget. To realize that truth is based on trust you must compart two formal operational concepts. Truth and trust are abstractions, so abstract must be compared to abstract. The scientist will attempt to operationalize the abstract into physical procedures that can be measured. They think in terms of concept plus something physical (concrete operations). If you remove the physical part they are completely lost. Weinstein is a scientist and cannot make the transition. To be fair the super-genius scientist Hawking made the same mistake in one of his final books. When he talked about something coming from nothing in the creation of the universe, he was never able to conceive of the philosopher's definition of nothing, e.g., that of which rocks dream. He always defaulted to a quantum vacuum, something that philosophers would say is much more than nothing.

  • @newdrug1880
    @newdrug1880 ปีที่แล้ว

    Nailed it!

  • @andrew3249
    @andrew3249 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This reminds me a lot of the logical positivism movement of philosophy. Part of its structure was the verification principle: everything that is cognitively meaningful can be verified through a scientific experiment. This was used to attack universal statements. The problem was that the verification principle is ITSELF a universal statement. How do you prove that everything true is provable? Godels theorems show that's quite unlikely. As A. J. Ayers said: "The greatest defect of positivism was that nearly all of it was false."

  • @bandie9101
    @bandie9101 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    even if you yourself do the lab experiments, you still have to trust your tools to work well and your eyes to sense and intellect to reason well.

    • @adamvano3459
      @adamvano3459 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      And if you dont trust your instruments and reason, you go insanely doubting everyting in Cartesian steps led by the prideful luciferian intellect that wants to base existence upon itself and trusts no one and nothing. Sadly satan is so opossing that he doesnt trust even himself. Ending in the self consuming loop of death.

    • @foodchewer
      @foodchewer 6 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Wow, man. Your pfp really brings me back...incredible.

  • @heatherwhitehead3743
    @heatherwhitehead3743 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    SCIENCE- give me one free miracle and I'll explain the rest"
    Rupert Sheldrake.

    • @chrisparker2118
      @chrisparker2118 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I think that quote originally came from Terence McKenna but I have heard Sheldrake use it also.

  • @PrometheusMonk
    @PrometheusMonk 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    "He shall fall down into a pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason."
    "Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise."
    -Liber Al vel Legis II:27 and 32.

  • @densaakaldte1
    @densaakaldte1 ปีที่แล้ว

    "There is exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere "becoming", leaving no place for the changeless and permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this same "becoming", denying by implication true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, by which we mean the transcendent and universal principles." - Rene Guenon
    "The Vedantic and Buddhist distinction of empirical knowledge (valid for practical purposes, and prob-able) from the intellectually valid and axiomatic truth of first principles is the same as that of "opinion" from "truth" in Greek philosophy; opinion corresponding to "becoming", and truth to "Being"; opinion having to do with "that which begins and perishes" and truth with "that which ever is, and does not begin". - Ananda Coomaraswamy, Time and Eternity

  • @PViolety
    @PViolety 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Nice.

  • @johannakunze3300
    @johannakunze3300 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    This aged well.❤

  • @TheAnimationCow
    @TheAnimationCow 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    The thing with athiest type is they tend to have some what superior conplex like theyre so sure they're right from the get go. Bret Weistein is one of the few that doesnt seem like so. And with that they're pretty much close off from ever expanding their comtemporary understanding beyond physical/ material reality. It'd rather dull to live in that world honestly.

    • @oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164
      @oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      "The thing with atheist type is they tend to have a (somewhat) superior(ity) complex" I find the exact same attitude in those that are NOT atheist.
      No we are NOT closed off to anything. We can experience many levels of Transcendence and experience the Luminous and beauty in life. It seems you don't really know anyone who is Atheist, you're just checking off boxes of what you think we're supposed to be like. No, we're not sure of many things, so we continue to search and learn. Unlike many NON atheists, who, without so much as analysing what they "believe" and why they believe it, think they know it all and condemn those who don't think the same way.
      PS: I corrected your spelling, grammar and syntax in quoting you.

    • @revermightstar8004
      @revermightstar8004 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164 You don't seem to be a materialist that the op is talking about.

    • @theostapel
      @theostapel ปีที่แล้ว

      A subtle point. Agree.@@revermightstar8004

    • @theostapel
      @theostapel ปีที่แล้ว

      Your reply has been openly and fairly expressed. Learnt something.
      This reply from a Raja Yogi meditator.. Fare thee well (PS There are 2 full stops)@@oldmanfromscenetwentyfour8164

  • @tgrogan6049
    @tgrogan6049 7 หลายเดือนก่อน

    "Patterns of being"?

  • @GITAHxgCoo
    @GITAHxgCoo 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    "Factual truth is the overarching truth (aka other forms of truth are nested inside it)" Could you not make a case for this actually because symbolism and spiritual language and so on are emergent from the physical world, the technical description of which is what people mean by the phrase "factual truth"? If I were explaining it I would choose a metaphor that represents it below as more of a foundation (like the bottom layer of a pyramid) rather than an arch but it's the same idea in the end.

    • @Obilio222
      @Obilio222 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I’m really not trying to start an argument, but to provide food for thought… “ and so on are emergent from the physical world” . What did the physical world emerge from? How do you know? What is a “force” like gravity or electro-magnetism (or strong\weak atomic) and how is it physical?
      No. What Johnathan is talking about is far deeper than you are understanding, I think. It is not anarchy to let go of materialism - it’s just difficult and something most people aren’t used to. :) ✌🏼

    • @GITAHxgCoo
      @GITAHxgCoo 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Obilio222 I don't suppose it emerged from anything, that's why I would put it as the bottom. Does that make me a materialist? I don't think non-physical things are "not real" like some people but they must have some ground in the physical (even if we don't understand it).

    • @Obilio222
      @Obilio222 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@GITAHxgCoo , I guess (for me) that would depend on your definition of “physical “. We all trust something, that is our true common ground. Like I said, I’m not looking for an argument. Thanks for the answer. : )

    • @olgakarpushina492
      @olgakarpushina492 ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@GITAHxgCooI hope you realize that once you start talking about "emergent qualities'', you can as well start talking about fairies. With the exception that the existence of the fairies is actually documented.

    • @theostapel
      @theostapel ปีที่แล้ว

      I cannot even give a raging reply. Fare thee well@@Obilio222

  • @random_person6041
    @random_person6041 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Jonathan so cute when rolling his eyes!😂😂😂

  • @actually_a_circle
    @actually_a_circle 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    I got my BS in Conservation, I was taught that science deals in fact never truths

    • @_VISION.
      @_VISION. 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      What is the distinction? That's interesting.

    • @TheRKae
      @TheRKae 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@_VISION. "Hamlet" is truth, but it is not fact. "I ate corn flakes for breakfast at 8:14 AM" is a fact, but it is not truth, meaning that it carries no philosophical power. It's just something that happened.

    • @_VISION.
      @_VISION. 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@TheRKae hmm okay; thanks

    • @TheRKae
      @TheRKae 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@_VISION. Wow. You've never before heard the difference between "truth" and "fact"? You just think the two words are interchangeable? Damn. You need better books to read.

    • @_VISION.
      @_VISION. 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@TheRKae Huh?

  • @na_haynes
    @na_haynes ปีที่แล้ว

    I'm just going to hedge and say the truth lies solely in the category of that which I don't know that I don't know.

  • @neversurrender6112
    @neversurrender6112 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    The purpose of truth is to give you an evolutionary advantage? And people have a tendency to believe in the truth because it provided their ancestors with an evolutionary advantage? Are you out your mind, man? You can't explain everything with this silly evolutionary paradigm that you so love. Complex realities require profound explanations. You can't just say that people believe in truth because it offers them an advantage over those who don't. How about nietzsche's critique that a Will to Truth isn't even a primary motivation in people? There are so many powerful questions about these things and you can't just explain it away in terms of evolution.
    For eg "A psychopath manipulated naive innocent people to commit atrocities that they otherwise wouldn't have" can explain the manson family murders but not nazi germany

    • @G-Rockman
      @G-Rockman 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      The will to truth seems like it inevitably becomes The primary motivation in the people who do have even an inkling of it, and almost totally absent in everyone else. Neitzsche was right in terms that most people only have a will to truth insofar as they can maintain their place in a mainstream moral narrative + maintain that narrative itself, but obviously Neitzsche himself wasn't like that, and let his desire to understand everything pretty much destroy his own life.

    • @neversurrender6112
      @neversurrender6112 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@G-Rockman Destroy his own life? As opposed to all the people who don't? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what you think the aim for a human being is. It's an open question

    • @G-Rockman
      @G-Rockman 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@neversurrender6112 I like nietzsche's writing but he didn't seem like a happy dude. I always got the impression that his whole dionysian ideal was just kind of the way he wished he could be irl, but thats just my personal take.

    • @SymbolicallyMemeing
      @SymbolicallyMemeing 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@G-Rockman Nietzsche would've probably laughed had he still been alive and read that comment. Life is not about being "a happy dude". A happy dude would be the last man. His life was intense and inspiring to a degree that almost nobody can even begin to imagine. He was well aware that he would "destroy his own life" if that means that he would never settle down but keep on going into chaos. But that was the point. To face reality. To make way for even greater things to come. He has written pretty explicitly about these things. He didn't care about what ordinary people called 'to be sick'.

    • @G-Rockman
      @G-Rockman 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@SymbolicallyMemeing Ok forget happy but self-satisfied. He doesn't seem like he was really able to manifest the stuff he wrote about in his own life, more like he was writing it for someone else. I don't think that invalidates his ideas though.

  • @_VISION.
    @_VISION. 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    All you gotta do with scientist is approach them from an epistemological angle. They truly believe they understand knowledge but really they only understand scientific knowledge.

  • @IndyDefense
    @IndyDefense 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    In the thumbnail, Pageau looks like the excited Pepe lol

  • @Gr_F_M_iR_
    @Gr_F_M_iR_ 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    What were you thinking with the thumbnail, Jonathan

  • @patrickvernon2749
    @patrickvernon2749 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    I have no respect for gatekeepers like Brett Weinstein or Jordan Peterson

  • @perun814
    @perun814 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Yes science is nested in religion,They clash but also motivated each other.
    That’s the duality,,,,like ying yang

  • @joer9156
    @joer9156 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    This is pretty damn funny given his recent stance on covid and the jabs.

  • @stephenpaccone8120
    @stephenpaccone8120 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Clout

  • @KRGruner
    @KRGruner 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Nonsense...