So many comments missing the point. Feyerabend wasn’t against science, or even scientific method. He pointed out the historical inconsistencies in any claims asserting the hegemony of any given scientific method, that is, methodological dogmatism in science doesn’t strictly lead to the best scientific results. He suggests that ‘unscientific’ elements can ultimately get things moving and that eventually all the unscientific baggage will get pruned while the actual meaningful results remain, and he suggests that you won’t always obtain those same results by trying to maintain a purity of method.
All true and well and succinctly put! But what I find outrageous, is that we live in such a curious, bizarre time in the sciences, that even such a mild critique like the one Feyerabend wrote is considered to be "RADICAL! CRAZY!" etc etc. Or even "anti science" (yes, I've actually seen that). It's not that he's "radical", it's that the sciences (and indeed most of life in the G8) has become heavily institutionalized.
I found him through his video about credit cards, and I kept getting recommended his videos until I saw his video about the Logos, at which point I absolutely had to subscribe
Luke, I have a PhD exam in History and Philosophy of Science in a couple of days. This is insane timing. Now I’m praying that I get a question on the criticism of Logical Positivism.
Ren Tristan dela Cruz Typical French and continental literary gibberish. Nothing is more ugly than falsehoods, and nothing more noble than truth-telling before face.
Joshua Clark He was Swiss-French and typifies the French method: use of of feminine obscurantism and literary pseudoscientific prose to obscure the truth. Platonism is a cancer on the history of mathematics.
"A theory is not developed with the goal of it being beautiful, but if the final form is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." I don't remember off the top of my head which of the big science people said that last century, but I find it to be generally true. If a theory is accurate, but messy and kludgy, it will be inevitably be replaced with a theory that is cleaner and more beautiful. That's how we "figured out" quarks, after all. If you assume protons and neutrons are fundamental, there are hundreds of other exotic fundamental particles that have to be explained. Eventually things got so messy someone came up with the idea that nucleons and these other crazy particles might be constructed from other particles, and so we get 6 types of quarks that combine in all these fun and interesting ways. We've never managed to find one on its own, and the theory predicts that we never will, but it is simple and beautiful while remaining accurate, as well as predicting other particles that weren't seen until after the theory was developed. The same thing goes for software and mathematics. It's the main reason why I think we've been stuck on these millenium problems for so long: there's too much cruft and messiness around them, and nothing beautiful to latch on to when trying to find the answer. I'm still not fond of the proof by exhaustion of the 4-color theorem. We know it's true, but we have no idea _why_. Beauty of theory brings understanding, much like well-built data structures. Ugly theories and proofs are like flowcharts. They work, sometimes, but it's error prone and not very helpful.
Something that i think perfectly confirms the method of science and logic described in this video is an interview with Terry Tao, a mathematician with an "estimated" iq of 230 speaking about his strategy of problem solving in mathmatics and how it emerged. "You have that formalism, to help you eradicate one by one these misconceptions you had, but then once you have all of that formalism, then actually theres a post-rigorous phase where you sort of turn back to a more intuitive level. and now that all of your misleading intuition is gone (due to beng formally trained) You can now reason at an informal level. You say, oh okay, i can't prove this thing converges well lets just assume it does and keep going. This isn't really a square but lets pretend it's a square. You can make all these cheats which if you were doing it without your formal training you would just get a garbage answer. But you're sort of cheating strategically. You know what you can get away with to arrive faster at what you think is the right answer. Once you have some sketch of an argument then you go back with your formal training and convert your intuitive argument in to a form of proof." This guy is one of the best mathmaticians in the world right now. Here is the interview: th-cam.com/video/48Hr3CT5Tpk/w-d-xo.html
@@thinboxdictator6720 ah i meant luke is speaking about the general scientific method. Yes Terry Tao is speaking about math, specifically how his method of applying logic to math problems has evolved through his academic years. I just saw it as a great parallel to the video and a great nutshell explanation of the way logic is applied at the top levels of academic institutions. The lines of math and physics (which is at this point is mostly just observation and applied math) are blurred to non-existence at this point so i see it as applicable to both.
Just an Austrian here telling you that "Feyerabend" is just a old different way of writing "Feierabend" and is therefore pronounced the same way. (Just a minor thing, but as your German pronounciation is pretty spot on otherwise I just wanted to tell you) And nice vid, keep up your good work!
German swabian aproved. Btw; sending love to Austria! Ihr seid die Besten. Danke für die wunderschöne Kunst. Engel küssen das Gestirn eures frohen Geschlechts. Geniuse von Otto Wagner, Klimt bis Yung Hurn. Lang Lebe Wien.
These types of graphic changes were usually made to adapt the phonetic shift to the written form, it's the very basis of which Romance and Germanic languages have cognates with such set of diverse written significants, nothing like today's usage of the letters like mere representative tokens without logographic meaning.
Old sailors: **Claim they have seen rouge waves and giant squids** Scientist: Ok old man 😂😂😂 **Find evidence of both** Also scientist: Wow I can't believe we found these
Writhing around in bed with opiate withdrawels while listening to a boomer rip apart the fabric of my reality. I feel like I'm shedding my bugman shell in more ways than one.
Johannes Kepler is another example that could be used. Arthur Koestler noted in his biography of Kepler "The Watershed" that Kepler's calculations would frequently contain multiple errors that somehow cancelled each other out to give the results that he was looking for. Kepler's Laws are considered the stepping stone upon which Newton would later develop his laws on force and gravity.
Maybe I'm too smooth brained, or I misunderstood something at one point; but isn't Kuhns proposition that paradigm shifts arise from discoveries that currently don't fit our current understanding of the world? As in new discoveries that make the current paradigm less and less usable to explain new discoveries. At first you try to fit the new discoveries with the old paradigm, but over time you realise it just falls apart. I sadly haven't gotten around to reading Kuhn myself, so this is very much second hand knowledge.
In theory, but in reality people clinch to their notion of certainty like a pitbull to the neck of a poodle, it's after lengthy debate that society starts rejecting those individuals to the point of marginalization. There is also the danger of sophistry, the more dogma the more commoditization of "knowledge" and so the more bending of the semantics for social or economic profit, this is what happens with many "whymains" that try to push themselves as intellectuals under the premise of criminalizing anything that tells them "no", everything turns into rationalization.
The difference between science and pseudoscience is very clear and defined with rigor. Luke even explains it here. Science is trying to prove things false and accepting what we can not prove false is possible true. Pseudoscience is trying to prove something is true and dismissing anything that proves it is false. Pseudoscience is basically systemic conformation bias. If you want to go into a field that epitomized the scientific method go into chemistry. Some of the only things humans know with absolute certainty are contained within the fields of chemistry and electrical engineering. In these fields you can work with cold hard facts that have stood the tests of time for ages. They are also great places to apply perfect geometry.
I'm not sure if I'm missing the point here, but science has never been about being right or wrong. It's about the explanatory power of your model, i.e., how well you are able to predict outcomes. That is what gives scientific models value. The ptololmy model is better than nothing, but worse than the current model. The "wisdom" of Neolithic people chewing some plants for "magical benefits" is better than nothing, but worse than the models we have now where we can isolate the active ingredients. Advancement in science is finding models that more accurately predict outcomes and as such will be more useful and more accurate
let's say I offer to write you an algorithm that can ingest a few data points about a person and tell you whether or not they're a billionaire. my algorithm is almost never wrong, and for whatever reason you're trying to find billionaires, so you want to pay me to let you scan people with it. I have a proven track record with other billionaire spotters of nearly never returning a false negative, so you're willing to pay me. what you may have figured out by now, is that my hypothetical algorithm just takes any given input about a person it "scanned," pipes it to /dev/null, and prints "NO" to the console. my model has near-perfect predictive power, but it's garbage anyway. models that can predict things accurately are nice to have, but somehow it seems like there's got to be a better criterion for what constitutes "real" science.
I'm excited for the rest of the Not Related season 2! 😊 Also if you're interested in further research on similar topics I recommend you look into the Replication Crisis and epistemological anarchism. Great work, Luke. Keep it up! 👍🏽👏🏽
I am a physicist, and I have to say that there are some good points in there. If you are young (like me), and you get results that don't fit the current leading idea, and you and your supervisor are sure that there are no mistakes, you still have to think twice before publishing it, because it could end your career as a scientist. Why? Because the physicist that came up with the current idea are well known, well connected and popular. They could ruin your life, and I have heard from people that this has happened too. This is wrong! If you want more proof about this, look at a graph of the 'known' speed of light as a function of time with error bars. The reason the time it takes to correct the initial mistake takes so long, is because noone wanted to make such a bold claim to say that everyone before them were significantly off from the true value. On the other hand, in principle, the scientific method is the best method of how to get to truth when applied properly. If you want to argue that it isn't, let me ask you how you sent the message to argue that point.
Researchers are largely pussies. At the institute I worked, at all times every single senior was convinced every single other senior was a waste of time and money, and that their own brainchild should be valued and funded. So what do they do about it? Absolutely nothing. They wait as time goes by and every damn project is abandoned and abolished, because everyone is a fucking genius, and nobody will recede and put in the work required to obtain actual results. The tension was physically uncomfortable. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Academia is so corrupted it's not even funny. But most ordinary people believe it isn't, and everything that comes out a PhD's mouth must be the invariable truth, because "they are so smart". Yeah, I'll not argue the people I worked with are smart. They're just socially retarded at the same time. So much for being scientists. Evolution made them as cave dwellers, who shunned the torches and pitchforks to pursue their own unpopularly progressive ideas about things. You put them together in a room, and, lo and behold, you get a bunch of office dwellers on the defensive, unbelievably resentful towards the people who threaten and challenge the only thing they value. Just make them to work together already, geez.
Do you actually accept opinions in the comments? Everyone seems to be memeing here. I like this facts and logic debate, but I don't think that scientific method somehow refuses non institutionalized points of view 100% of the time. Scientists always do re-iterate their views, but it requires a lot of brainpower so they had to come up with heuristics to distinguish signal from noise. That leads to this problem where you have to be vastly respected for anyone to take a look at your unconventional ideas (Einstein-grade respected). It is understandable you are offended by academia, but pseudoscience can be harmful as well. People would die if there were unconventional aerodynamics field. I believe it boils down to imperfect terms of "science" and "pseudoscience". We should come up with a few grades in between and beyond.
"you have to be vastly respected for anyone to take a look at your unconventional ideas (Einstein-grade respected)." Einstein was a third rate clerk in some office, not a scientist, when he published his theory of relativity. Nobody respected him before that, yet his voice was heard. Milankovitch cycles were discovered by a janitor (James Croll). Granted, Milankovitch stole his idea, expanded on it and made a career out of it, but just the fact that he stole an idea of a janitor means that at least sometimes actual ideas matter more than where you are placed in the pecking order. Faraday had very little education as well, etc., etc. This whole book as reviewed here strikes me as a big pile of nonsense. Yes, actual science is not done in perfect accordance to the musings of some philosophers. The vast majority of scientists never read any philosophy to begin with, so no wonder they don't follow their recipes on how to cook a meal no philosopher ever managed to cook. Still, it does not mean that there is no difference between science and pseudoscience. It exists. And yes, institutionalized science sometimes is pseudoscience too, but that's maybe beside the point here.
You're conflating a couple of things here. There's "hard science" and "soft science". Hard science can be easily proved or disproved with proved with available tools. Aerodynamics is a hard science. If you're wrong your plane crashes, pretty simple. When you get into theories like "if we ship all of our manufacturing jobs to China we can change the weather for the better in a hundred years" and "if we don't quarantine all healthy people everyone's grandma is going to die" those are backed by soft science that use pseudoscience tools like the peer review system. Psychology is another example of a really soft, pliable science.
@@MonkeyPunchZPoker "hard science can be easily proved" look up Mochizuki's supposed "proof" of the abc-conjecture. It is pure mathematics, yet there is no consensus on whether it is correct or wrong, for almost 8 years now. It is a huge result in mathematics (if correct), but the majority of the mathematical community is unable to understand it, with a couple of extremely well respected mathematicians claiming it is wrong. On the other hand, there are well respected mathematicians vouching for its correctness (mochizuki himself being very well respected). It has been announced that the proof will be published earlier this year. There are other examples in mathematics, but none as grave and important as this one. While I agree that there is an important distinction to be made between hard science and "soft science" (which usually is not even that tbh), it's not so clear cut. String theory itself provides another example.
"I don't think that scientific method somehow refuses non institutionalized points of view 100% of the time. Scientists always do re-iterate their views, but it requires a lot of brainpower so they had to come up with heuristics to distinguish signal from noise" It does in the form of peer-review committees.
@@bakters well that’s just it. You don’t understand Feyerabend, so it’s probs best to read the book and also get up to speed on the relevant subject matter to contextualise his arguments
I listen to these on your website and come here to give an upcummy. This title actually represents the biggest problem that I have with college and a big reason why I dropped out. Being there myself, I almost immediately realized that it's an extremely regulated environment that doesn't allow certain ideas to be considered, and that it's an extremely regulated environment for the precise purpose of maintaining a status quo that shouldn't even exist, because all ideas are worthy of some amount of consideration. If you want to bring new ideas to the table, thinking rigidly and getting attached to ideas that you already have is detrimental. All ideas should be experimental. No personal investment allowed. If an idea seems to be wrong, well, then it seems to be wrong. No reason to have feelings about it. And if it could be right, then it should be experimented with in as many ways as possible. Really, you should try to both prove and refute everything. Even if an idea is generally incorrect, sometimes there is some truth in there. At this point, most academic discourse is about feeling good about yourself because you have this one idea and can express it in confusing ways that impress stupid people, while still being a good boy and following all the rules. That's what it's all about.
Great video, but i feel i could add a couple of points. 1) What Kuhn emphasized in his book, was that the current paradigm sort of degrades over time. From time to time things do appear for which current status quo can't account for or have no reasonable explanation. And these things accumulate to the point where completely new idea just might start to attract other scientists. And when majority of scientists change their view, that's when paradigm shift occurs (he gaves as example Kelvin's views on Maxwell theory i think). Kuhn basically views science as no more or no less than just the group of people. 2) Feyerabend also says that Galelio intentionally tried to trick people when demostrating telescope. The instrument itself was far from perfect, it had a lot of chromatic abberration, shapes were distorded, etc. But what Galileo did, is he got people to see city's landmarks from a hill, basically the stuff people already seen countless times, things which they could instantly recognize and ignore imprerfections of the image (it's well known cognitive effect i think). 3) Lakatos wasn't really "more conventional", he just tried his best to save "scientific method", whilst Feyerabend completely abandoned the idea. What Lakatos tried to do, is to set limits for applying Popperian demarcation criteria. Instead of a scientific theory he presented the idea of "research program" which has a "hard core" that cannot be disproven and it is rational to defend it no matter what, and sort of a "soft shell", which can be falsified and then modified. He gives copenhagen interpretation as an example, and uses Bohr as Feyerabend used Galileo, emphasizing the actual knowledge available to Bohr at that time, instead of modern views on the matter. Feyerabend said that Lakatos rationalism is so thin that he consider him "fellow anarchist". Other works of Feyarabend are also great, i like "Farewell Reason" the most i think. I read it back to back back when i was in college, i started with an interest towards science and how research works, but his works gave me exposure to other areas like anthropology (Farewell Reason has whole chapter about Evans-Pritchard field work on Nuer people; i think it also mention Malinowski somewhere). Anyway, good podcast as always. It would be nice to cover Giordano Bruno and other renaissance scientists/occultists like Tycho Brahe or John Dee next time.
I do enjoy odd and interesting theories but how would you protect people from scammers that use sciency sounding words to sell 200 dollar stickers that create 5g force fields? Its a very hard line to draw but there has to be one somewhere.
You're assuming that what is called pseudoscience is more dangerous than current mainstream science, which isn't true at all. Just as an example, the field of nutritional science has been popularizing unstable plant oils for cooking (like Canola®) for a hundred years (partially because industries funded them to do the research so they could sell their byproducts as "food"). There emerged a cottage industry to rationalize why they should be healthy and basically creating models of nutrition that are only now being formally rejected after massive damage. This literally kills hundreds of thousands of people in this country every year. Oh well. The "modern 'diet'" was openly formulated by Seventh Day Adventists and vegetarians who had ideological reasons to want people to not eat meat. That's the basis of the modern "science" of nutrition. 100% of mainstream theories would be "odd and interesting" if they weren't mainstream. The point is there is no way to free yourself from delusion if you think that everyone who disagrees with you is "not even science" because they have a different methodology. In fields like nutrition, it's literally an issue of life and death.
@@LukeSmithxyz i just don't think complete anarchy is the answer. The current system has some BIG flaws, people fighting for grants or tenure who cant go against predetermined ""facts"" and pop science that make science seem always certain of everything, but you cant throw it all away. Any time a soccer mum wants to know the effects of eating chickpeas you cant just throw her 300 different theories and expect her to waste 2 years researching. That used to be the job of peer reviews and meta analysis, there has to be some kind of trust wordy or at least flexible system that allows multiple viewpoints and sees discussions as a good thing.
Your criticism is predicated on the idea that rejecting the demarcation problem (which only existed for political reasons) somehow means that we believe anything and have not standards. No. Look at the historical example of science before WWI. There's a difference between rejecting an idea for actual reasons and refusing to even address it because of some confabulated technicality of "it's not real Science®." It's only in institutionalized modern science that we can have systematically and continually wrong "science" because it systematically immunizes itself against this external criticism. Peer review is simply formalized confirmation bias. It's only existed at an extended level since the second world war. Nor did it begin because there was a need to "improve" standards, but it originated after the US started mass-funding science and it was a way to decide which of your friends gets paid. On your comment on chickpeas, only a literal moron would take advise from a scientist on anything, especially on their own "field." Tradition exists for a reason. Any soccer mom should be eating what her great-grandmother ate. Trying to intellectualize basic life decisions is exactly the problem with modern Science®.
@@LukeSmithxyz Then science is pointless because you can't trust any scientist in their own field, let's all die from polio and eat pine bark, medicine is a lie and computers don't actually need electricity (I don't actually trust a lot of farmaceuticals lol) I wouldn't trust any single human to justify their own job but that doesn't discount the job itself, a craftsman is always going to say he's needed but that doesn't automatically turn what he makes into crap How can a group of people know anything if no one thrusts or believes anything they say? We can't just stop all uni research and go live of traditions, even traditions are based on a hierarchy where the elders are wise and should be trusted.
@@LukeSmithxyz "Any soccer mom should be eating what her great-grandmother ate" who should be eating what her great-grandmother ate who should be eating what her great-grandmother ate who should be eating what her great-grandmother ate who should be eating what her great-grandmother ate...?
Logical positivist shave gone too far: rather than staying silent on subjects they can’t measure, now they claim the unmeasurable doesn’t exist. You know, unimportant things like consciousness.
Newton was a lot of things, but he was never an astrologist and specifically rejected it in his writings: D.T. Whiteside, M.A. Hoskin & A. Prag (eds.), The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), vol. 1, pp. 15-19.
43:18 ¿Cuándo será que este boomer de treinta años nos mostrará el arsenal de rifles de asalto que ha acaparado para defender su freedumb de usar Lincucks y quejarse de la ciencia y la tecnología?
I think this is problematic. The problem when we say "anything goes" is that we leave the filter out. Should we use the Bhagavad Gita as source of data for scientific pursuits? Should we use alchemy as source of data for current day chemistry? It isn't to say that these are invalid. The Gita is good for spiritual and philosophical questioning, and alchemy is good for religious endeavors. However, some aspects of these bodies of knowledge are at odds with what we know are "true", or, that is, "not currently supposed to be wrong". And when we say that this is so just because we are defining the one we use as right because it is current, we tend to fall into epistemological relativism: there is no true basis for the discovery of what is true. Of course, frameworks will change, but frameworks change in accordance to how we correct ourselves. Institutional science is a method of searching for trustworthy knowledge. It isn't meant to say, as some do, that there is good knowledge and useless drivel. Religion is still good and useful, and those who claim that religion is unscientific is simply trying to measure religion with science's rule. In a like manner, we can't judge medicine using the methods of Brazilian spiritualist witch doctors and expect to yield good results. The purpose of science is to find that which is trustworthy in accordance to what we currently understand. Institutional science won't understand the metaphysical aspects of alchemy because metaphysics isn't within its scope. Falsefiabilty is a problem, but it's a tool we have to separate wheat from chaff. Sometimes we throw away some wheat as a result of our method, but then this is better than spoiling the field with poisonous waters. Science is not a synonym of truth. Truth goes around, in, and beyond science. We should keep science a discrete, separate thing, but we should also look for the truth elsewhere. Let us not mix science with whatever.
Will _consoom_ dis, plz moar RATED: 9/11 (In a scale NPC - InfoWars) Now seriously, I'm glad I found you mate. I think I did because someone mentioned your video of re-dividing the USA in a 'superchat' on Academic Agent's stream (I think). VERY glad I did...
According to what I've read on Kant and Hegel, the concept of positivism is not rejection in itself of methaphysics, but the ever changing nature of perception by the individual the more esoteric and equanimous it gets, or better to say that science, specially physics, serves as an extension of semantics or a historical discipline that is detached from the individuals experience, except for those that look for said equanimity; i.e. the change in perception of the subject change the interpretation of reality and so the nature of metaphysics so the underlying understanding of this ineffable reality transcends the function of scientific language and the principles of it: epistemology; this is the rupture between theosophy, philosophy and modern sciences.
I think, it's all a matter of lower order rationality vs higher order rationality. The Chinese get it better, attaining the art or on-hand experience is more important and so the diverse methods to attain said experience to elevate consciousness. The fixation of modern society to reduce experience to the "minimum", as if it's possible, have permeated less into countries like Japan or China/Taiwan and so they have been able to approach learning in a more Confucian manner, ceasing notion - like an skeptic - and acquiring standard data to perform procedures and operations; conversely reducing perception has disserviced people in the west given this fixation generates chaos given that understanding is actually momentary, there is a rhythm to things and this notion used to exist in the west.
wait wait wait wait wait... 1. Galileo did know about momentum (see Galileo's ship experiment [underline _experiment_]) 2. Galileo did not propose the heliocentric model, he just found corroborating evidence for it using his telescope and 3. he did not invent the telescope, he just built a decent one (meaning it wasn't a spooky unknowable science machine, it was just this thing someone else discovered a couple of years back)
@@steviewonder417 no, not at all, my issue is that, he characterized Gallileo's adoption of the heliocentric model as something one can only do if you ignore the overwhelming evidence for the geocentric model. There were already good reasons for the heliocentric model to be proposed, and those were geometric reasons (the motion of the planets becomes much less whimsical). But by using his telescope (which, again, he did not invent and keep a secret, but rather produced one that worked well enough) he found evidence to support Copernicus' theory. And not only that, he also did figure out a proxy for momentum through his notion of relativity, which he did test and it promptly solved the question of "why don't things fall at an angle then?". All I'm really saying here is that characterizing Galileo as someone who was working against the scientific method and ignoring evidence, is not really accurate.
@@carvas18 Yeap. He does not mention any form of mathematics in this podcast. Strange in my humble opinion. But anyway, I will think for a moment and read the book until i give a final conclusion.
To be honest, I think what you have been describing is how modern „tysonsian“ science is supposed to work in the first place, it’s just that people tend to think they are adhering to their standards universally while they are not. Not out of ill intend, but just because that’s human nature. Since I’m a second time viewer of this channel, I guess I’m just not big brained enough (yet lol), but from my memory Tyson and the likes go out of their way to state that exploring new directions and daring to defy the current world view is the way forward. It’s just that these approaches need some dedicated minds that „prove“ their ground first. But quantum field and string theory are wildly known to have their incompatibilities with general relativity for the time being, yet they could still establish themselves into the „non pseudo“ fields of science after all.
You need a little more of Kant: the notion of "subjectivity" comes from the individuals perception or experience influenced by the notion that comes from the culture, the obscure "objectivity". People in general can't see "possitivism", "realism", "postmodernism", "pragmatism", etc. are mere aspects of the same debate, overlapping on the same things with different perspective and focus. Phyrroan skepticism deals with this directly, just like Esoteric Taoism and Confucianism (I-Ching), given that the real "issue" is the judgement of semantics and language, not the object.
I finally took some time to listen in-depth to this Not Related. I'm around minute 11 while making this comment. Oh boy... I think I commented this somewhere on this channel before (I think it was related to wikipedia), but science is viewed as a religion in today's society. Science is a religion because when people listen to phrases like "studies show that" or "scientists found proof that", their brains shutoff and just assimilate the information as is, without any critical thinking, effectively reverting to "because god says so" arguments. This is very well related to the topic of science at hand. I am a "hard facts" advocate and the only scientific method I know of to be working is the following: > 1) discover a phenomenon or research something ("ask a question"); > 2a) do lots of testing to verify some level of consistency ("do simulations"); > 2b) acquire knowledge on the subject ("do background research"); > 3) come out with a hypothesis about what's going on ("construct hypothesis"); > 4) do lots of testing to verify the hypothesis ("do experiments"); > 4.1) if experiments fail, go back to step 4); > 4.2) if hypothesis is correct, you've got a theory and you can proceed to 6); > 5) report results and allow others to peer review and experiment to check your results; In my book, I'm adding the simulation part, because people are _very quick to jump to conclusions_ and * _beg the question_ * (the fallacy). Obviously there are (many) times when people don't introduce their biases, but also many cases when they do. Instead of coming out with a question ("what's happening here?") and doing experimentation in pursuit of knowledge, people assume the conclusion ("x is happening") and are doing experiments trying to prove or disprove their premise. Inserting the conclusion inside the premise is the exact definition of begging the question. I also mentioned in the wiki video comment that science and knowledge are processes and may change, like it happened in physics with classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. """Scientists""" today are adding biases to experimentation: "x is happening and here's the proof" or "x cannot possibly happen, because" usually followed by statistics (taken without considerations for other factors, therefore no adjustments made to them), that lead to complete non-sequiturs. The worst offenders are people who claim to be scientists trying to acquire knowledge about social sciences using scientific methods. The field of social sciences is filled to the brim with "hard facts" (funny, because social sciences are part of the soft science category) and people claiming to have "the truth". This was just a quick opinion before I finish the video.
@@dawkot6955 For one, the fact that statistics are flawed, unless you manage to check each and every data point possible, not just averages and random numbers from random locations. Random numbers are probably the worst math one can use. Secondly, the fact that humans are dynamic. You could have the perfect data collection, but by the time you have that data, it would already be historical data, because that's how fast humans change. Scientific experiments are necessarily reproducible. You don't get that with humans.
Not gonna lie it's weirdly enough that the conslusion of the video is the problem of modern academia that has nothing to do with ideas of logical positivism and falsification. It actually left an impression that you misinterpreted the logical positivism. As it requires to define terms of your 'scientific' theory in terms of observable phenomena, so that more complex theoretical statements are always explain relations between events that can be confirmed or disproved by empirical evidence, as opposed to metaphysics. The last sentence of Tractatus Logico-philosophicus claims that you must stay silent unless the condition explained above is met. So this clarification should resolve 'the issue of existence' you mentioned, as 'Hydrogen exists' is a scientific claim in the sense that term hydrogen is defined in terms of observable phenomena, however 'God exists' is not scientific because you cant possibly define the term 'God'. As logical positivism and procedure of falsification allows us to build and 'scientific' theories that are close to reality in some degree, the missing part of the puzzle (and the point that is unfortunately omitted by your podcast) is the practical application of theory in development. I.e. bizarre theories have right to exists for a logical positivist (as myself), however the question is what we should choose among all theories as a current paradigm. So in order to turn the odds in your favor in 'scientific' community you should ideally explain the reason why the paradigm shift should happen, therefore to explain phenomena that contradicts the current paradigm or provide a simple method of solving current issues withing the current paradigm. For instance, while classical mechanics was epistemologically debunked by theory of relativity and quantum mechanics it is still a solid tool for engineering because it offers a simpler model suitable for practical applications and still is considered as viable model of reality. So your theory has rights to exists and be called sience as long as it provides a viable model that acutally has practial application in any given moment. If it doesn't then why even bother. Anyway that is the physicist's point of view on the current topic, and I think I perfectly understand your point because your background is linguistics. Linguistics is not a clear scientific field according to logical positivism because it's devoid of empiricism, much like history. And lack of tools to back or debunk a theoretical statement must've really make academical field stagnant. I hope I didn't make my comment too scary it's 3 a.m. here amd im really sleep deprived.
Theories literally are metaphysics. "Propositions" are just a theory's head poking above the water. This is ultimately why logical positivism is, in a literal sense, pretentious. It pretended to provide a formalism to modeling the world without metaphysics, but it can only do so by making its proponents ignorant of the metaphysics behind every proposition. Postivism/post-positivism are tactically blind. The only issue that logical positivism still causes is that its successors have the idea that metaphysics, which is literally the true goal of science, is somehow bad. It also encourages blind modeling, the idea that science is supposed to be a butterfly collecting of data and not a search for underlying principles. I don't really think you understand what "linguistics" is either. It's is substantially more empirical than physics, the later of which is basically impossible to even talk about without substantial metaphysical assumptions. Propositions/"facts" in physics change substantially depending on one's theoretical framework. "Facts" in linguistics are fairly constant.
@@LukeSmithxyz To be honest I don't understand your first sentence. If your theory explains relationships between well-defined terms that boil down to empirical evidence, then it's not metaphysics according to logical positivism. For the latter there's really no room for debate as positivism primary serves as a tool that helps you to build provable models of reality, which in fact has nothing to do with epistemology. Sadly it seems that you throw this tool into a dumpster for no actual reason than it being pretentions. I find it quite the opposite of that. I also agree with your second paragraph as materialistic approach is only suitable for enigeering disciplines. > I don't really think you understand what "linguistics" is either. True, but your statement about physics is not correct imo as well. By 'fairly empirical' discipline I understand the one that allows you to make a forecast based on your theoretical framework and to confirm it by experimentation. So physics have privilege to test their models in reality, while social scientists and historians really cannot do it (you don't have access to parallel universes with tons of different humanities to work on for experimentation). According to derrivatives of logical positivism this is where the difference between hypothesis and theory is defined. I.e. we are dealing with theories in physics, and hypoteses in social sciences, while this is really nothing more than a choise of terminology. Thus, in physics, it does not matter how you arrange asbtract entities or relationships in propositions to describe your theoretical framework, because at the end of the day it boils down to empirical test and only it can decide whether your model is correct.
I don't understand your issues with falsification. You claim that "Hydrogen exists" and "god exists" are equivalent statements, but they are diffetent precisly because of falsifictation. To be clear when we say "hydrogen exists" we are claiming that the axioms of QM and GR are true, and that which is defined as hydrogen from those axioms exist. It's something productive to say because it predicts stuff that can be falsifiable (matter of fact counter evidence exists, but the point is that those theories explain the most). God on the other hand is something that is outside time and space, inconvenient but i suppose we can work with something as he interacts in the world, so we could investigate him like category theory, but then a second property of him, is that he works in mysterious ways, I.E. no falsifiable interaction can be observed. That's why science should be falsifiable; yeah God might exists, but we can't predict anything about the universe using that fact, Occam's razor.
I believe the real distinction should be made between more theoretical and exploratory science and more applied and practical areas. There's a huge difference between, say, chemical research regarding properties of some specific construction material used for bridge building, and cosmological or other far-reaching fields with no actual practical application (at least currently). No fringe idea should ever be "banned" from scientific discourse, but the hardcore stuff applied in real-life situations with real consequences should have strict methods and ALWAYS should be testable and falsifiable. You gotta be able to test the integrity of your steel alloy before building a public train bridge out of it.
About the issues of falsificationism stuff on minute 16:00, I think that statement falsiability depends on definition and that means you will need a formal system to even try to formulate an statement, let alone prove it falsifiable and thus "worth of discussion". If you ask me "Does god exists?" I would answer: what are the axioms and the rules of the formal system on what are we standing on to ask that question? That makes the truth value of an statement framework-dependant; so which "framework" or formal system should we use? I dunno, but personally, I think reproducibility and approximation capabilities are generally good signs. There is a well defined formal system on which the question about the existence of god actually makes sense? I also do not know, but I haven't came across a single one. Existence as an unitary statement-operator-thingy does not makes any sense anyway.
Newton have tons of books about metaphysics and i love them. I find it kinda funny that old science was kinda looking into hermetic laws and they where building everything around it I was interested in how they find out about Ether or where it could be coming from and the later versions or understandings of ether where mostly like this "this is my own understanding of this it was much more complicated" basically there is universal law that is saying "As above so below" and that's where it all started everything even math was proposed into this law where you can see as it start from 0 and it goes to both sides -1 +1 -2 +2. So they come of idea if this is a thing then this must be something found in realty too if there is a space then there must be counter-space or (space where cartesian coordinate system don't exist and so it's kinda connecting every point in universe) later it was explained as medium. It was kinda fun to observe how they use this methods of thinking to create a rules for reality it's fun that everybody even Tesla,Heavyside or Newton all these peoples where peoples who where interested in metaphysics and they take it simply as part of life. Maybe peoples who are called crazy would be able to talk with this peoples without out problems.
Michelson Morley experiment proved the earth doesn't spin, so Einstein dispensed with the aether, something that was known to exist got a long long time
@@joem9124 TBH i think they hide it completely because if you learn how to tap in to ether you will be able to get infinite amount of energy and probably they got scared of this that they wouldn't be able to keep peoples as slaves.
the most important thing in science is probably truly trying to fight the biases that makes humans so bad at determining reality seeking for the truth, by making sure you really know it, and to do this by making reproductible predictions of behavior or such methods that are independant from the experimenter's wishies it seems the main issue of pseudoscience is the lack of just that
I always thought science was making observations of the universe then trying to figure out what the fuck is happening. How can you make a claim on something you have never seen before? It has to be something that you observe and you are making a guess (a claim) then seeing if that guess will hold water against several arguments and when you get it wrong you just change the guess to envelop the exception? I might be going on my "own what is science" rant, but if you make a claim you need to show an observation that made you come to the conclusion. To me, science is observations of nature and then making a guess and then experimenting it to death until you can rule out all of the exceptions. Always start with observations and end with being able to predict natural phenomenon with a high degree of accuracy. Everything else is pseudoscience. If you get accurate prediction that means you're on the right track and you should look deeper there, because the things you don't understand now might be answered later. If you look at climate change models they have absolutely terrible predictions success they always run hot, which is why many people don't trust them. If you had a quantum machine and you could predict things happening and you could show it, then yes some of your argument holds water. That doesn't mean people should throw everything away, one should stand on their platform of knowledge and experiment until failure or until another platform appears.
it's quite a coincidence you're talking about this book. i just got lakatos's book a few months ago at the recommendation of Iversen's book called Arithmetic. Arithmetic uses Iversen's programming language J to explore ideas in basic arithmetic. (;
![ไปอยู่ไสมา - ช๊อปเปอร์ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sWuVNbRTJbc/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the weirdest Arch tutorial I've ever seen.
LOL
Lmoo
It's not Arch, it's Scientific Linux.
TempleOS but for purists. A new kind of walled garden.
I love it too.
I am going to consume this content
I am consuming your comment.
AAAHHH I am consooming
That's awesome, I encourage you to do it and so am I.
Based and contentpilled
Holy shit I knew I’d find a ducking alk sub in here.
So many comments missing the point. Feyerabend wasn’t against science, or even scientific method. He pointed out the historical inconsistencies in any claims asserting the hegemony of any given scientific method, that is, methodological dogmatism in science doesn’t strictly lead to the best scientific results. He suggests that ‘unscientific’ elements can ultimately get things moving and that eventually all the unscientific baggage will get pruned while the actual meaningful results remain, and he suggests that you won’t always obtain those same results by trying to maintain a purity of method.
Science didn't invent itself, thus its very difficult to counter that.
All true and well and succinctly put! But what I find outrageous, is that we live in such a curious, bizarre time in the sciences, that even such a mild critique like the one Feyerabend wrote is considered to be "RADICAL! CRAZY!" etc etc. Or even "anti science" (yes, I've actually seen that). It's not that he's "radical", it's that the sciences (and indeed most of life in the G8) has become heavily institutionalized.
consoomed content
left obligatory comment to the algorithm gods
left positive audience rating
awaiting next piece of media to consoom
UwU
I don't remember how I found this channel but this is just gold. Rarely do I watch a one hour video thinking afterwards that it was just too short.
If you are like me, you came from the "look at this dude" video about that bald election forecaster. Ironically I too enjoy more these podcasts.
I found him through his video about credit cards, and I kept getting recommended his videos until I saw his video about the Logos, at which point I absolutely had to subscribe
Terry Davis -> Luke Smith pipeline for me
I found him because the comment section of Mental Outlaw's videos wouldn't stop making jokes comparing the two
the virgin Linux Luke "Software commie" Smith vs the Chad Philosopher Luke
Virgin Newton Physicist vs Chad Newton Alchemist vs Chaddest Newton Bible Scholar
the virgin positivist: "so you think the bible is science lol xddd"
the chad Feyerabend: "Yes."
Pretty much
Luke, I have a PhD exam in History and Philosophy of Science in a couple of days. This is insane timing. Now I’m praying that I get a question on the criticism of Logical Positivism.
Oh the irony, it's Linguistics. Have been doing it for seven years and still have no idea why. Are you in academia?
@@MaxCuberful how did the exams go? I hope you did well, friend. 😱🤓
Stick to the book.
I hope you did well man, God bless.
Dirac on mathematical beauty and experimental 'facts': "It is more important to have beauty in one’s equation than to have them fit experiment.”
I unironically agree.
Ren Tristan dela Cruz Typical French and continental literary gibberish. Nothing is more ugly than falsehoods, and nothing more noble than truth-telling before face.
@@ashleigh3021 Are you saying Dirac is "continental literary gibberish"? Or are you saying he's French? Or both?
Joshua Clark He was Swiss-French and typifies the French method: use of of feminine obscurantism and literary pseudoscientific prose to obscure the truth.
Platonism is a cancer on the history of mathematics.
"A theory is not developed with the goal of it being beautiful, but if the final form is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." I don't remember off the top of my head which of the big science people said that last century, but I find it to be generally true. If a theory is accurate, but messy and kludgy, it will be inevitably be replaced with a theory that is cleaner and more beautiful.
That's how we "figured out" quarks, after all. If you assume protons and neutrons are fundamental, there are hundreds of other exotic fundamental particles that have to be explained. Eventually things got so messy someone came up with the idea that nucleons and these other crazy particles might be constructed from other particles, and so we get 6 types of quarks that combine in all these fun and interesting ways. We've never managed to find one on its own, and the theory predicts that we never will, but it is simple and beautiful while remaining accurate, as well as predicting other particles that weren't seen until after the theory was developed.
The same thing goes for software and mathematics. It's the main reason why I think we've been stuck on these millenium problems for so long: there's too much cruft and messiness around them, and nothing beautiful to latch on to when trying to find the answer. I'm still not fond of the proof by exhaustion of the 4-color theorem. We know it's true, but we have no idea _why_. Beauty of theory brings understanding, much like well-built data structures. Ugly theories and proofs are like flowcharts. They work, sometimes, but it's error prone and not very helpful.
Something that i think perfectly confirms the method of science and logic described in this video is an interview with Terry Tao, a mathematician with an "estimated" iq of 230 speaking about his strategy of problem solving in mathmatics and how it emerged.
"You have that formalism, to help you eradicate one by one these misconceptions you had, but then once you have all of that formalism, then actually theres a post-rigorous phase where you sort of turn back to a more intuitive level. and now that all of your misleading intuition is gone (due to beng formally trained) You can now reason at an informal level. You say, oh okay, i can't prove this thing converges well lets just assume it does and keep going. This isn't really a square but lets pretend it's a square. You can make all these cheats which if you were doing it without your formal training you would just get a garbage answer. But you're sort of cheating strategically. You know what you can get away with to arrive faster at what you think is the right answer. Once you have some sketch of an argument then you go back with your formal training and convert your intuitive argument in to a form of proof."
This guy is one of the best mathmaticians in the world right now.
Here is the interview:
th-cam.com/video/48Hr3CT5Tpk/w-d-xo.html
you know he wasn't talking about science ,right?
@@thinboxdictator6720 he was talking about the general modern scientific method
@@aisians435 it is pretty clear he is talking directly about math.
in original video and in that extra you quoted.
@@thinboxdictator6720 ah i meant luke is speaking about the general scientific method. Yes Terry Tao is speaking about math, specifically how his method of applying logic to math problems has evolved through his academic years. I just saw it as a great parallel to the video and a great nutshell explanation of the way logic is applied at the top levels of academic institutions. The lines of math and physics (which is at this point is mostly just observation and applied math) are blurred to non-existence at this point so i see it as applicable to both.
@@aisians435 except in science you care about predictive power,so it is not analogous at all...
Best Part @ 28:23 "Galileo, he did ... you know... he learn science ... and you know ... own them EPIC STYLE with FACTS and LOGIC ..."
Proto r/atheism member.
>unironically being a heliocuck in 2020
>he thinks the earth is spherical
@@27spiff >thinks space exists, and the sky is not a roof.
Redditors and bugmen eternally btfo.
What's the difference?
@@redd_cat one is a bugman, and the other is an incel bugman
Just an Austrian here telling you that "Feyerabend" is just a old different way of writing "Feierabend" and is therefore pronounced the same way. (Just a minor thing, but as your German pronounciation is pretty spot on otherwise I just wanted to tell you)
And nice vid, keep up your good work!
German swabian aproved. Btw; sending love to Austria! Ihr seid die Besten. Danke für die wunderschöne Kunst. Engel küssen das Gestirn eures frohen Geschlechts. Geniuse von Otto Wagner, Klimt bis Yung Hurn. Lang Lebe Wien.
@@donig4854 chill
I pronounce it fire-a-bend
Not many Australians speak German. Good for you.
/s 😎
These types of graphic changes were usually made to adapt the phonetic shift to the written form, it's the very basis of which Romance and Germanic languages have cognates with such set of diverse written significants, nothing like today's usage of the letters like mere representative tokens without logographic meaning.
Old sailors: **Claim they have seen rouge waves and giant squids**
Scientist: Ok old man 😂😂😂
**Find evidence of both**
Also scientist: Wow I can't believe we found these
A scientist has to question the Holocaust. I on the other side believe anything I'm legally obligated to believe.
(CHING)... a shekel...
Obviously, Galileo's treatise on the heliocentric model should have had an appendix on how to build a telescope.
Somewhere, deep in the woods, Luke is building a "tiny house".
Writhing around in bed with opiate withdrawels while listening to a boomer rip apart the fabric of my reality. I feel like I'm shedding my bugman shell in more ways than one.
Praying you bud.
How you doing?
Hope your fine and dandy now mate
Hope your doing ok brother, God bless.
are u still alive?
Publisher: 'New Left Books'
Luke: 'BASED'
On this channel, video descriptions are gold. An academic who gives sources is a miracle nowadays
That should be a law, at least for journalists: specially when stating "experts".
Johannes Kepler is another example that could be used. Arthur Koestler noted in his biography of Kepler "The Watershed" that Kepler's calculations would frequently contain multiple errors that somehow cancelled each other out to give the results that he was looking for. Kepler's Laws are considered the stepping stone upon which Newton would later develop his laws on force and gravity.
Maybe I'm too smooth brained, or I misunderstood something at one point; but isn't Kuhns proposition that paradigm shifts arise from discoveries that currently don't fit our current understanding of the world? As in new discoveries that make the current paradigm less and less usable to explain new discoveries. At first you try to fit the new discoveries with the old paradigm, but over time you realise it just falls apart.
I sadly haven't gotten around to reading Kuhn myself, so this is very much second hand knowledge.
In theory, but in reality people clinch to their notion of certainty like a pitbull to the neck of a poodle, it's after lengthy debate that society starts rejecting those individuals to the point of marginalization. There is also the danger of sophistry, the more dogma the more commoditization of "knowledge" and so the more bending of the semantics for social or economic profit, this is what happens with many "whymains" that try to push themselves as intellectuals under the premise of criminalizing anything that tells them "no", everything turns into rationalization.
The difference between science and pseudoscience is very clear and defined with rigor. Luke even explains it here.
Science is trying to prove things false and accepting what we can not prove false is possible true.
Pseudoscience is trying to prove something is true and dismissing anything that proves it is false.
Pseudoscience is basically systemic conformation bias.
If you want to go into a field that epitomized the scientific method go into chemistry. Some of the only things humans know with absolute certainty are contained within the fields of chemistry and electrical engineering. In these fields you can work with cold hard facts that have stood the tests of time for ages.
They are also great places to apply perfect geometry.
I'm not sure if I'm missing the point here, but science has never been about being right or wrong. It's about the explanatory power of your model, i.e., how well you are able to predict outcomes. That is what gives scientific models value.
The ptololmy model is better than nothing, but worse than the current model. The "wisdom" of Neolithic people chewing some plants for "magical benefits" is better than nothing, but worse than the models we have now where we can isolate the active ingredients.
Advancement in science is finding models that more accurately predict outcomes and as such will be more useful and more accurate
reddit spacing
let's say I offer to write you an algorithm that can ingest a few data points about a person and tell you whether or not they're a billionaire. my algorithm is almost never wrong, and for whatever reason you're trying to find billionaires, so you want to pay me to let you scan people with it. I have a proven track record with other billionaire spotters of nearly never returning a false negative, so you're willing to pay me.
what you may have figured out by now, is that my hypothetical algorithm just takes any given input about a person it "scanned," pipes it to /dev/null, and prints "NO" to the console.
my model has near-perfect predictive power, but it's garbage anyway.
models that can predict things accurately are nice to have, but somehow it seems like there's got to be a better criterion for what constitutes "real" science.
I'm excited for the rest of the Not Related season 2! 😊 Also if you're interested in further research on similar topics I recommend you look into the Replication Crisis and epistemological anarchism. Great work, Luke. Keep it up! 👍🏽👏🏽
I am a physicist, and I have to say that there are some good points in there. If you are young (like me), and you get results that don't fit the current leading idea, and you and your supervisor are sure that there are no mistakes, you still have to think twice before publishing it, because it could end your career as a scientist. Why? Because the physicist that came up with the current idea are well known, well connected and popular. They could ruin your life, and I have heard from people that this has happened too. This is wrong! If you want more proof about this, look at a graph of the 'known' speed of light as a function of time with error bars. The reason the time it takes to correct the initial mistake takes so long, is because noone wanted to make such a bold claim to say that everyone before them were significantly off from the true value.
On the other hand, in principle, the scientific method is the best method of how to get to truth when applied properly. If you want to argue that it isn't, let me ask you how you sent the message to argue that point.
Are you in your master's degree ?
Researchers are largely pussies. At the institute I worked, at all times every single senior was convinced every single other senior was a waste of time and money, and that their own brainchild should be valued and funded. So what do they do about it? Absolutely nothing. They wait as time goes by and every damn project is abandoned and abolished, because everyone is a fucking genius, and nobody will recede and put in the work required to obtain actual results. The tension was physically uncomfortable.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Academia is so corrupted it's not even funny. But most ordinary people believe it isn't, and everything that comes out a PhD's mouth must be the invariable truth, because "they are so smart". Yeah, I'll not argue the people I worked with are smart. They're just socially retarded at the same time. So much for being scientists. Evolution made them as cave dwellers, who shunned the torches and pitchforks to pursue their own unpopularly progressive ideas about things. You put them together in a room, and, lo and behold, you get a bunch of office dwellers on the defensive, unbelievably resentful towards the people who threaten and challenge the only thing they value.
Just make them to work together already, geez.
Big bang theory anyone?
How to almost completely miss the point: Master's Degree level
Hi Luke, thank you for going the decentralized way, having your podcast appear in my RSS is really nice.
Do you actually accept opinions in the comments? Everyone seems to be memeing here.
I like this facts and logic debate, but I don't think that scientific method somehow refuses non institutionalized points of view 100% of the time. Scientists always do re-iterate their views, but it requires a lot of brainpower so they had to come up with heuristics to distinguish signal from noise. That leads to this problem where you have to be vastly respected for anyone to take a look at your unconventional ideas (Einstein-grade respected).
It is understandable you are offended by academia, but pseudoscience can be harmful as well. People would die if there were unconventional aerodynamics field.
I believe it boils down to imperfect terms of "science" and "pseudoscience". We should come up with a few grades in between and beyond.
"you have to be vastly respected for anyone to take a look at your unconventional ideas (Einstein-grade respected)."
Einstein was a third rate clerk in some office, not a scientist, when he published his theory of relativity. Nobody respected him before that, yet his voice was heard. Milankovitch cycles were discovered by a janitor (James Croll). Granted, Milankovitch stole his idea, expanded on it and made a career out of it, but just the fact that he stole an idea of a janitor means that at least sometimes actual ideas matter more than where you are placed in the pecking order. Faraday had very little education as well, etc., etc.
This whole book as reviewed here strikes me as a big pile of nonsense. Yes, actual science is not done in perfect accordance to the musings of some philosophers. The vast majority of scientists never read any philosophy to begin with, so no wonder they don't follow their recipes on how to cook a meal no philosopher ever managed to cook.
Still, it does not mean that there is no difference between science and pseudoscience. It exists. And yes, institutionalized science sometimes is pseudoscience too, but that's maybe beside the point here.
You're conflating a couple of things here. There's "hard science" and "soft science". Hard science can be easily proved or disproved with proved with available tools. Aerodynamics is a hard science. If you're wrong your plane crashes, pretty simple.
When you get into theories like "if we ship all of our manufacturing jobs to China we can change the weather for the better in a hundred years" and "if we don't quarantine all healthy people everyone's grandma is going to die" those are backed by soft science that use pseudoscience tools like the peer review system. Psychology is another example of a really soft, pliable science.
@@MonkeyPunchZPoker "hard science can be easily proved" look up Mochizuki's supposed "proof" of the abc-conjecture. It is pure mathematics, yet there is no consensus on whether it is correct or wrong, for almost 8 years now. It is a huge result in mathematics (if correct), but the majority of the mathematical community is unable to understand it, with a couple of extremely well respected mathematicians claiming it is wrong. On the other hand, there are well respected mathematicians vouching for its correctness (mochizuki himself being very well respected). It has been announced that the proof will be published earlier this year. There are other examples in mathematics, but none as grave and important as this one.
While I agree that there is an important distinction to be made between hard science and "soft science" (which usually is not even that tbh), it's not so clear cut. String theory itself provides another example.
"I don't think that scientific method somehow refuses non institutionalized points of view 100% of the time. Scientists always do re-iterate their views, but it requires a lot of brainpower so they had to come up with heuristics to distinguish signal from noise"
It does in the form of peer-review committees.
@@bakters well that’s just it. You don’t understand Feyerabend, so it’s probs best to read the book and also get up to speed on the relevant subject matter to contextualise his arguments
always come away from this podcast with a new perspective on something I didn't even know I had implicit assumptions about, really great stuff
I listen to these on your website and come here to give an upcummy. This title actually represents the biggest problem that I have with college and a big reason why I dropped out. Being there myself, I almost immediately realized that it's an extremely regulated environment that doesn't allow certain ideas to be considered, and that it's an extremely regulated environment for the precise purpose of maintaining a status quo that shouldn't even exist, because all ideas are worthy of some amount of consideration.
If you want to bring new ideas to the table, thinking rigidly and getting attached to ideas that you already have is detrimental. All ideas should be experimental. No personal investment allowed. If an idea seems to be wrong, well, then it seems to be wrong. No reason to have feelings about it. And if it could be right, then it should be experimented with in as many ways as possible. Really, you should try to both prove and refute everything. Even if an idea is generally incorrect, sometimes there is some truth in there.
At this point, most academic discourse is about feeling good about yourself because you have this one idea and can express it in confusing ways that impress stupid people, while still being a good boy and following all the rules. That's what it's all about.
Great video, but i feel i could add a couple of points.
1) What Kuhn emphasized in his book, was that the current paradigm sort of degrades over time. From time to time things do appear for which current status quo can't account for or have no reasonable explanation. And these things accumulate to the point where completely new idea just might start to attract other scientists. And when majority of scientists change their view, that's when paradigm shift occurs (he gaves as example Kelvin's views on Maxwell theory i think). Kuhn basically views science as no more or no less than just the group of people.
2) Feyerabend also says that Galelio intentionally tried to trick people when demostrating telescope. The instrument itself was far from perfect, it had a lot of chromatic abberration, shapes were distorded, etc. But what Galileo did, is he got people to see city's landmarks from a hill, basically the stuff people already seen countless times, things which they could instantly recognize and ignore imprerfections of the image (it's well known cognitive effect i think).
3) Lakatos wasn't really "more conventional", he just tried his best to save "scientific method", whilst Feyerabend completely abandoned the idea. What Lakatos tried to do, is to set limits for applying Popperian demarcation criteria. Instead of a scientific theory he presented the idea of "research program" which has a "hard core" that cannot be disproven and it is rational to defend it no matter what, and sort of a "soft shell", which can be falsified and then modified. He gives copenhagen interpretation as an example, and uses Bohr as Feyerabend used Galileo, emphasizing the actual knowledge available to Bohr at that time, instead of modern views on the matter.
Feyerabend said that Lakatos rationalism is so thin that he consider him "fellow anarchist".
Other works of Feyarabend are also great, i like "Farewell Reason" the most i think. I read it back to back back when i was in college, i started with an interest towards science and how research works, but his works gave me exposure to other areas like anthropology (Farewell Reason has whole chapter about Evans-Pritchard field work on Nuer people; i think it also mention Malinowski somewhere).
Anyway, good podcast as always. It would be nice to cover Giordano Bruno and other renaissance scientists/occultists like Tycho Brahe or John Dee next time.
Awesome video. This is just what I needed to listen to while my students show up for their test today. Cheers.
I do enjoy odd and interesting theories but how would you protect people from scammers that use sciency sounding words to sell 200 dollar stickers that create 5g force fields?
Its a very hard line to draw but there has to be one somewhere.
You're assuming that what is called pseudoscience is more dangerous than current mainstream science, which isn't true at all.
Just as an example, the field of nutritional science has been popularizing unstable plant oils for cooking (like Canola®) for a hundred years (partially because industries funded them to do the research so they could sell their byproducts as "food"). There emerged a cottage industry to rationalize why they should be healthy and basically creating models of nutrition that are only now being formally rejected after massive damage. This literally kills hundreds of thousands of people in this country every year. Oh well.
The "modern 'diet'" was openly formulated by Seventh Day Adventists and vegetarians who had ideological reasons to want people to not eat meat. That's the basis of the modern "science" of nutrition.
100% of mainstream theories would be "odd and interesting" if they weren't mainstream. The point is there is no way to free yourself from delusion if you think that everyone who disagrees with you is "not even science" because they have a different methodology. In fields like nutrition, it's literally an issue of life and death.
@@LukeSmithxyz i just don't think complete anarchy is the answer. The current system has some BIG flaws, people fighting for grants or tenure who cant go against predetermined ""facts"" and pop science that make science seem always certain of everything, but you cant throw it all away. Any time a soccer mum wants to know the effects of eating chickpeas you cant just throw her 300 different theories and expect her to waste 2 years researching.
That used to be the job of peer reviews and meta analysis, there has to be some kind of trust wordy or at least flexible system that allows multiple viewpoints and sees discussions as a good thing.
Your criticism is predicated on the idea that rejecting the demarcation problem (which only existed for political reasons) somehow means that we believe anything and have not standards. No. Look at the historical example of science before WWI. There's a difference between rejecting an idea for actual reasons and refusing to even address it because of some confabulated technicality of "it's not real Science®."
It's only in institutionalized modern science that we can have systematically and continually wrong "science" because it systematically immunizes itself against this external criticism. Peer review is simply formalized confirmation bias. It's only existed at an extended level since the second world war. Nor did it begin because there was a need to "improve" standards, but it originated after the US started mass-funding science and it was a way to decide which of your friends gets paid.
On your comment on chickpeas, only a literal moron would take advise from a scientist on anything, especially on their own "field." Tradition exists for a reason. Any soccer mom should be eating what her great-grandmother ate. Trying to intellectualize basic life decisions is exactly the problem with modern Science®.
@@LukeSmithxyz Then science is pointless because you can't trust any scientist in their own field, let's all die from polio and eat pine bark, medicine is a lie and computers don't actually need electricity (I don't actually trust a lot of farmaceuticals lol)
I wouldn't trust any single human to justify their own job but that doesn't discount the job itself, a craftsman is always going to say he's needed but that doesn't automatically turn what he makes into crap
How can a group of people know anything if no one thrusts or believes anything they say?
We can't just stop all uni research and go live of traditions, even traditions are based on a hierarchy where the elders are wise and should be trusted.
@@LukeSmithxyz "Any soccer mom should be eating what her great-grandmother ate" who should be eating what her great-grandmother ate who should be eating what her great-grandmother ate who should be eating what her great-grandmother ate who should be eating what her great-grandmother ate...?
Very interesting podcast. Thanks for uploading. Will watch closely for the rest of Season 2!
Logical positivist shave gone too far: rather than staying silent on subjects they can’t measure, now they claim the unmeasurable doesn’t exist. You know, unimportant things like consciousness.
you know that thing that's the basis of the Cogito? meh, that's an epiphenomenon. 🙃
$ Science
Permission denied
$ sudo Science
ok this is epic but i might have to play several smash games while vaping to get through this
Newton was a lot of things, but he was never an astrologist and specifically rejected it in his writings: D.T. Whiteside, M.A. Hoskin & A. Prag (eds.), The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), vol. 1, pp. 15-19.
Make a video on Michael Polanyi next
Germany 🇩🇪 here. Your pronounciation at 6:26 is great!! 💪
why no CC on this video, can't understand ?
i took an IQ test once. i scored a 168, but now i wonder if im actually intelligent or just a parrot with a bigger repetoir.
The dialog writing style is basically the medieval version of Soyjak vs Gigachad memes.
43:18 ¿Cuándo será que este boomer de treinta años nos mostrará el arsenal de rifles de asalto que ha acaparado para defender su freedumb de usar Lincucks y quejarse de la ciencia y la tecnología?
Jamás en mi puta vida se me hubiese cruzado por la cabeza la imaginaria idea de que apareciera un comentario de este video escrito en español
Pronto mi amigo, pronto...
Finally, FINALLY
I think this is problematic. The problem when we say "anything goes" is that we leave the filter out. Should we use the Bhagavad Gita as source of data for scientific pursuits? Should we use alchemy as source of data for current day chemistry?
It isn't to say that these are invalid. The Gita is good for spiritual and philosophical questioning, and alchemy is good for religious endeavors. However, some aspects of these bodies of knowledge are at odds with what we know are "true", or, that is, "not currently supposed to be wrong". And when we say that this is so just because we are defining the one we use as right because it is current, we tend to fall into epistemological relativism: there is no true basis for the discovery of what is true.
Of course, frameworks will change, but frameworks change in accordance to how we correct ourselves. Institutional science is a method of searching for trustworthy knowledge. It isn't meant to say, as some do, that there is good knowledge and useless drivel. Religion is still good and useful, and those who claim that religion is unscientific is simply trying to measure religion with science's rule. In a like manner, we can't judge medicine using the methods of Brazilian spiritualist witch doctors and expect to yield good results.
The purpose of science is to find that which is trustworthy in accordance to what we currently understand. Institutional science won't understand the metaphysical aspects of alchemy because metaphysics isn't within its scope.
Falsefiabilty is a problem, but it's a tool we have to separate wheat from chaff. Sometimes we throw away some wheat as a result of our method, but then this is better than spoiling the field with poisonous waters.
Science is not a synonym of truth. Truth goes around, in, and beyond science. We should keep science a discrete, separate thing, but we should also look for the truth elsewhere. Let us not mix science with whatever.
So in conclusion earth is flat
Will _consoom_ dis, plz moar
RATED: 9/11 (In a scale NPC - InfoWars)
Now seriously, I'm glad I found you mate. I think I did because someone mentioned your video of re-dividing the USA in a 'superchat' on Academic Agent's stream (I think).
VERY glad I did...
According to what I've read on Kant and Hegel, the concept of positivism is not rejection in itself of methaphysics, but the ever changing nature of perception by the individual the more esoteric and equanimous it gets, or better to say that science, specially physics, serves as an extension of semantics or a historical discipline that is detached from the individuals experience, except for those that look for said equanimity; i.e. the change in perception of the subject change the interpretation of reality and so the nature of metaphysics so the underlying understanding of this ineffable reality transcends the function of scientific language and the principles of it: epistemology; this is the rupture between theosophy, philosophy and modern sciences.
I think, it's all a matter of lower order rationality vs higher order rationality. The Chinese get it better, attaining the art or on-hand experience is more important and so the diverse methods to attain said experience to elevate consciousness. The fixation of modern society to reduce experience to the "minimum", as if it's possible, have permeated less into countries like Japan or China/Taiwan and so they have been able to approach learning in a more Confucian manner, ceasing notion - like an skeptic - and acquiring standard data to perform procedures and operations; conversely reducing perception has disserviced people in the west given this fixation generates chaos given that understanding is actually momentary, there is a rhythm to things and this notion used to exist in the west.
wait wait wait wait wait... 1. Galileo did know about momentum (see Galileo's ship experiment [underline _experiment_]) 2. Galileo did not propose the heliocentric model, he just found corroborating evidence for it using his telescope and 3. he did not invent the telescope, he just built a decent one (meaning it wasn't a spooky unknowable science machine, it was just this thing someone else discovered a couple of years back)
Reddit bugmen rejoice for you have been vindicated.
@@steviewonder417 ... whatever that means...
João Carvas when he mentions that Galileo came after Copernicus did you think he was referring to when they ran a train?
@@steviewonder417 no, not at all, my issue is that, he characterized Gallileo's adoption of the heliocentric model as something one can only do if you ignore the overwhelming evidence for the geocentric model. There were already good reasons for the heliocentric model to be proposed, and those were geometric reasons (the motion of the planets becomes much less whimsical). But by using his telescope (which, again, he did not invent and keep a secret, but rather produced one that worked well enough) he found evidence to support Copernicus' theory. And not only that, he also did figure out a proxy for momentum through his notion of relativity, which he did test and it promptly solved the question of "why don't things fall at an angle then?".
All I'm really saying here is that characterizing Galileo as someone who was working against the scientific method and ignoring evidence, is not really accurate.
@@carvas18 Yeap. He does not mention any form of mathematics in this podcast. Strange in my humble opinion. But anyway, I will think for a moment and read the book until i give a final conclusion.
This is excellent, do you have any other videos on the philosophy of science? Can you do a video on peer-reviewed process?
"A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window" - Gilles "Chad-Postmodernist" Deleuze
based
To be honest, I think what you have been describing is how modern „tysonsian“ science is supposed to work in the first place, it’s just that people tend to think they are adhering to their standards universally while they are not. Not out of ill intend, but just because that’s human nature. Since I’m a second time viewer of this channel, I guess I’m just not big brained enough (yet lol), but from my memory Tyson and the likes go out of their way to state that exploring new directions and daring to defy the current world view is the way forward. It’s just that these approaches need some dedicated minds that „prove“ their ground first. But quantum field and string theory are wildly known to have their incompatibilities with general relativity for the time being, yet they could still establish themselves into the „non pseudo“ fields of science after all.
You need a little more of Kant: the notion of "subjectivity" comes from the individuals perception or experience influenced by the notion that comes from the culture, the obscure "objectivity". People in general can't see "possitivism", "realism", "postmodernism", "pragmatism", etc. are mere aspects of the same debate, overlapping on the same things with different perspective and focus. Phyrroan skepticism deals with this directly, just like Esoteric Taoism and Confucianism (I-Ching), given that the real "issue" is the judgement of semantics and language, not the object.
I finally took some time to listen in-depth to this Not Related. I'm around minute 11 while making this comment. Oh boy... I think I commented this somewhere on this channel before (I think it was related to wikipedia), but science is viewed as a religion in today's society. Science is a religion because when people listen to phrases like "studies show that" or "scientists found proof that", their brains shutoff and just assimilate the information as is, without any critical thinking, effectively reverting to "because god says so" arguments. This is very well related to the topic of science at hand. I am a "hard facts" advocate and the only scientific method I know of to be working is the following:
> 1) discover a phenomenon or research something ("ask a question");
> 2a) do lots of testing to verify some level of consistency ("do simulations");
> 2b) acquire knowledge on the subject ("do background research");
> 3) come out with a hypothesis about what's going on ("construct hypothesis");
> 4) do lots of testing to verify the hypothesis ("do experiments");
> 4.1) if experiments fail, go back to step 4);
> 4.2) if hypothesis is correct, you've got a theory and you can proceed to 6);
> 5) report results and allow others to peer review and experiment to check your results;
In my book, I'm adding the simulation part, because people are _very quick to jump to conclusions_ and * _beg the question_ * (the fallacy). Obviously there are (many) times when people don't introduce their biases, but also many cases when they do. Instead of coming out with a question ("what's happening here?") and doing experimentation in pursuit of knowledge, people assume the conclusion ("x is happening") and are doing experiments trying to prove or disprove their premise. Inserting the conclusion inside the premise is the exact definition of begging the question. I also mentioned in the wiki video comment that science and knowledge are processes and may change, like it happened in physics with classical mechanics and quantum mechanics. """Scientists""" today are adding biases to experimentation: "x is happening and here's the proof" or "x cannot possibly happen, because" usually followed by statistics (taken without considerations for other factors, therefore no adjustments made to them), that lead to complete non-sequiturs. The worst offenders are people who claim to be scientists trying to acquire knowledge about social sciences using scientific methods. The field of social sciences is filled to the brim with "hard facts" (funny, because social sciences are part of the soft science category) and people claiming to have "the truth".
This was just a quick opinion before I finish the video.
What makes social science so special that it can't be studied using statistics?
@@dawkot6955 For one, the fact that statistics are flawed, unless you manage to check each and every data point possible, not just averages and random numbers from random locations. Random numbers are probably the worst math one can use. Secondly, the fact that humans are dynamic. You could have the perfect data collection, but by the time you have that data, it would already be historical data, because that's how fast humans change.
Scientific experiments are necessarily reproducible. You don't get that with humans.
me as a german after workday is over: endlich FeiYEAHabend
(dont hate on me :( )
When speaking English, one says words in English.
@@LukeSmithxyz
@@LukeSmithxyz Was man nicht aussprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Wow, you put chapter marks here in TH-cam! That's awesome, thanks. Are you also able to put them in the podcast (RSS)?
Not gonna lie it's weirdly enough that the conslusion of the video is the
problem of modern academia that has nothing to do with ideas of logical
positivism and falsification.
It actually left an impression that you misinterpreted the logical positivism.
As it requires to define terms of your 'scientific' theory in terms of
observable phenomena, so that more complex theoretical statements are always
explain relations between events that can be confirmed or disproved
by empirical evidence, as opposed to metaphysics. The last sentence of Tractatus
Logico-philosophicus claims that you must stay silent unless the condition
explained above is met. So this clarification should resolve 'the issue of
existence' you mentioned, as 'Hydrogen exists' is a scientific claim in the
sense that term hydrogen is defined in terms of observable phenomena, however
'God exists' is not scientific because you cant possibly define the term 'God'.
As logical positivism and procedure of falsification allows us to build and
'scientific' theories that are close to reality in some degree, the missing part
of the puzzle (and the point that is unfortunately omitted by your podcast) is
the practical application of theory in development.
I.e. bizarre theories have right to exists for a logical positivist (as myself),
however the question is what we should choose among all theories as a current
paradigm. So in order to turn the odds in your favor in 'scientific' community
you should ideally explain the reason why the paradigm shift should happen,
therefore to explain phenomena that contradicts the current paradigm or provide
a simple method of solving current issues withing the current paradigm. For
instance, while classical mechanics was epistemologically debunked by theory of
relativity and quantum mechanics it is still a solid tool for engineering
because it offers a simpler model suitable for practical applications and still
is considered as viable model of reality. So your theory has rights to exists
and be called sience as long as it provides a viable model that acutally has
practial application in any given moment. If it doesn't then why even bother.
Anyway that is the physicist's point of view on the current topic, and I think I
perfectly understand your point because your background is linguistics.
Linguistics is not a clear scientific field according to logical positivism
because it's devoid of empiricism, much like history. And lack of tools to back
or debunk a theoretical statement must've really make academical field stagnant.
I hope I didn't make my comment too scary it's 3 a.m. here amd im really sleep
deprived.
Theories literally are metaphysics. "Propositions" are just a theory's head poking above the water. This is ultimately why logical positivism is, in a literal sense, pretentious. It pretended to provide a formalism to modeling the world without metaphysics, but it can only do so by making its proponents ignorant of the metaphysics behind every proposition. Postivism/post-positivism are tactically blind.
The only issue that logical positivism still causes is that its successors have the idea that metaphysics, which is literally the true goal of science, is somehow bad. It also encourages blind modeling, the idea that science is supposed to be a butterfly collecting of data and not a search for underlying principles.
I don't really think you understand what "linguistics" is either. It's is substantially more empirical than physics, the later of which is basically impossible to even talk about without substantial metaphysical assumptions. Propositions/"facts" in physics change substantially depending on one's theoretical framework. "Facts" in linguistics are fairly constant.
@@LukeSmithxyz To be honest I don't understand your first sentence. If your theory
explains relationships between well-defined terms that boil down to empirical
evidence, then it's not metaphysics according to logical positivism.
For the latter there's really no room for debate as positivism primary serves as
a tool that helps you to build provable models of reality, which in fact has
nothing to do with epistemology. Sadly it seems that you throw this tool into a
dumpster for no actual reason than it being pretentions. I find it quite the
opposite of that.
I also agree with your second paragraph as materialistic approach is only
suitable for enigeering disciplines.
> I don't really think you understand what "linguistics" is either.
True, but your statement about physics is not correct imo as well.
By 'fairly empirical' discipline I understand the one that allows you to make a
forecast based on your theoretical framework and to confirm it by
experimentation. So physics have privilege to test their models in reality,
while social scientists and historians really cannot do it (you don't have
access to parallel universes with tons of different humanities to work on for
experimentation). According to derrivatives of logical positivism this is where
the difference between hypothesis and theory is defined. I.e. we are dealing
with theories in physics, and hypoteses in social sciences, while this is really
nothing more than a choise of terminology.
Thus, in physics, it does not matter how you arrange asbtract entities or
relationships in propositions to describe your theoretical framework, because at
the end of the day it boils down to empirical test and only it can decide whether
your model is correct.
@@LukeSmithxyz
"metaphysics, which is literally the true goal of science"
Unless you're literally not an idealist
Your thumbnails are gold.
do you follow coom's scientific objectivism hypothesis?
Haha, cyrillic X is pronounced as an H. Although I didn't even expect a shoutout. Just donated a little after trying out MuttWizzard and larbs.
Damn Uncle Luke's pronunciation skills in foreign languages do be getting hella impressive doe
Not that I do not enjoy any of your other work, but I do enjoy this the most. God bless.
I don't understand your issues with falsification. You claim that "Hydrogen exists" and "god exists" are equivalent statements, but they are diffetent precisly because of falsifictation.
To be clear when we say "hydrogen exists" we are claiming that the axioms of QM and GR are true, and that which is defined as hydrogen from those axioms exist. It's something productive to say because it predicts stuff that can be falsifiable (matter of fact counter evidence exists, but the point is that those theories explain the most).
God on the other hand is something that is outside time and space, inconvenient but i suppose we can work with something as he interacts in the world, so we could investigate him like category theory, but then a second property of him, is that he works in mysterious ways, I.E. no falsifiable interaction can be observed.
That's why science should be falsifiable; yeah God might exists, but we can't predict anything about the universe using that fact, Occam's razor.
Hydrogen depends on an atomistic idea that can't really be verified. It could be implied that it exists, but this depends on certain experiences.
@@nik8099
It doesn't have to exist to provide tangible benefits from it's description achieved purely by the scientific method.
Love the content but that's genuinely a ridiculous amount of ads
Woah dude... bookshelves in the still frame? That's just like in minecraft
commenting to help with the algorithm. Thanks for the videos, Luke. You've given me a lot to think since I found your channel.
Basically old Science is Rolling Release
AHHHHHH good free content CONSUME.
This is your best video, utterly fascinating
I believe the real distinction should be made between more theoretical and exploratory science and more applied and practical areas. There's a huge difference between, say, chemical research regarding properties of some specific construction material used for bridge building, and cosmological or other far-reaching fields with no actual practical application (at least currently). No fringe idea should ever be "banned" from scientific discourse, but the hardcore stuff applied in real-life situations with real consequences should have strict methods and ALWAYS should be testable and falsifiable. You gotta be able to test the integrity of your steel alloy before building a public train bridge out of it.
What you're talking about seems something like what I refer to as my "epistemological jury rigging"
I recently got into learning big-brain topics. So this is a welcome surprise, especially since I'm already competent in using Linux.
About the issues of falsificationism stuff on minute 16:00, I think that statement falsiability depends on definition and that means you will need a formal system to even try to formulate an statement, let alone prove it falsifiable and thus "worth of discussion". If you ask me "Does god exists?" I would answer: what are the axioms and the rules of the formal system on what are we standing on to ask that question?
That makes the truth value of an statement framework-dependant; so which "framework" or formal system should we use? I dunno, but personally, I think reproducibility and approximation capabilities are generally good signs.
There is a well defined formal system on which the question about the existence of god actually makes sense? I also do not know, but I haven't came across a single one. Existence as an unitary statement-operator-thingy does not makes any sense anyway.
Truth v Freedom
Truth wins in the long run
I consoom, therefore I am
Feyerabend is one of us.
I dig Micheal Cremo's subdued way of saying insane things
Basically you are talking of Epistemology (how do we know what we know?)
Okay but what actually is a Body without Organs?
I'm putting this on watch-later.
Reading is faster than listening, but listening at 2-3x speed is faster than listening at 1x speed.
This is now a Voodoo channel.
Careful, most of its fans will take that as a compliment!
Have you read Evola's work on alchemy called "the hermetic tradition" it might be something youd enjoy
Yep. There's a chance that it might show up later this season.
@@LukeSmithxyz would love to hear your take on it, just be careful on youtube with evola the censors would love to get you in sure.
Watched vid, still not sure if serious or extremely high level shitpost
Thank you so much Luke, much appreciated.
Labcoat status? Owned.
Air horns x3
Newton have tons of books about metaphysics and i love them.
I find it kinda funny that old science was kinda looking into hermetic laws and they where building everything around it
I was interested in how they find out about Ether or where it could be coming from and the later versions or understandings of ether where mostly like this "this is my own understanding of this it was much more complicated" basically there is universal law that is saying "As above so below" and that's where it all started everything even math was proposed into this law where you can see as it start from 0 and it goes to both sides -1 +1 -2 +2. So they come of idea if this is a thing then this must be something found in realty too if there is a space then there must be counter-space or (space where cartesian coordinate system don't exist and so it's kinda connecting every point in universe) later it was explained as medium. It was kinda fun to observe how they use this methods of thinking to create a rules for reality it's fun that everybody even Tesla,Heavyside or Newton all these peoples where peoples who where interested in metaphysics and they take it simply as part of life. Maybe peoples who are called crazy would be able to talk with this peoples without out problems.
Michelson Morley experiment proved the earth doesn't spin, so Einstein dispensed with the aether, something that was known to exist got a long long time
@@joem9124 TBH i think they hide it completely because if you learn how to tap in to ether you will be able to get infinite amount of energy and probably they got scared of this that they wouldn't be able to keep peoples as slaves.
FYI It's Imre Lakatos, not Irme. I thought there was a typo in the description, but then I've heard you're saying it this way too. :)
Cool to see this podcast back online.
Great podcast; love the rss
We have be blessed by the the lord. Thank you for bringing this back, I guess those sacrifices I made were not in vain
Thanks Luke. This content is so big brained that now I've got a headache.
Love your videos like usual but almost 18 minutes in and 6 ads so far. Don't worry, still good enough for an upvote!
the most important thing in science is probably truly trying to fight the biases that makes humans so bad at determining reality
seeking for the truth, by making sure you really know it, and to do this by making reproductible predictions of behavior or such methods that are independant from the experimenter's wishies
it seems the main issue of pseudoscience is the lack of just that
Nice, really enjoyed this. Lots to chew on !
I always thought science was making observations of the universe then trying to figure out what the fuck is happening. How can you make a claim on something you have never seen before? It has to be something that you observe and you are making a guess (a claim) then seeing if that guess will hold water against several arguments and when you get it wrong you just change the guess to envelop the exception? I might be going on my "own what is science" rant, but if you make a claim you need to show an observation that made you come to the conclusion.
To me, science is observations of nature and then making a guess and then experimenting it to death until you can rule out all of the exceptions.
Always start with observations and end with being able to predict natural phenomenon with a high degree of accuracy. Everything else is pseudoscience.
If you get accurate prediction that means you're on the right track and you should look deeper there, because the things you don't understand now might be answered later.
If you look at climate change models they have absolutely terrible predictions success they always run hot, which is why many people don't trust them.
If you had a quantum machine and you could predict things happening and you could show it, then yes some of your argument holds water. That doesn't mean people should throw everything away, one should stand on their platform of knowledge and experiment until failure or until another platform appears.
I think it's pronounced GNU season. The g is not silent
it's quite a coincidence you're talking about this book. i just got lakatos's book a few months ago at the recommendation of Iversen's book called Arithmetic. Arithmetic uses Iversen's programming language J to explore ideas in basic arithmetic. (;