History 2D: Science, Magic, and Religion, Lecture 20, UCLA
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Lecture Title: "Final Lecture"
June 9th, 2009
Professor Courtenay Raia lectures on science and religion as historical phenomena that have evolved over time. Examines the earlier mind-set before 1700 when into science fitted elements that came eventually to be seen as magical. THe course also question how Western cosmologies became "disenchanted." Magical tradition transformed into modern mysticisms is also examined as well as the political implications of these movements. Includes discussion concerning science in totalitarian settings as well as "big science" during the Cold War.
Some clips and images may have been blurred or removed to avoid copyright infringement.
* See all the UCLA History 2D: Science, Magic, and Religion classes in this series: / view_play_list. .
* See more courses from UCLA: / uclacourses
* See more from UCLA's main channel on TH-cam: / ucla
Professor Courtenay Raia is one of the most illuminating and brilliant professors in Academia. Thank you.
Charming, passionate and a master of her subject.
I've enjoyed his lecture series.
My favorite subject. Never expected to find a college course like this. Fair and unbiased and generally wonderful.
One hour and four minutes, twenty-one seconds from starting the whole thing over again. This time, I am taking notes.
Still watching in 2019. Ive never heard a better teacher in my life, and Ive heard hundreds.
Watched them all. May need to watch again! Thank you for such an educational and enlightening experience!
Moar! This series was marvelous! Please post another lecture series at some point.
Great lectures! Would really like the reading list!!!!!
Is there anyone out there who can get her to do a TV Series.
This is a SuperStar
Great series, loved listening to it.
I am an 18 years old student.I took this course on sept 2020 and finished on 3 October. I didn't know then about " Glorious Revolution, Industrial Revolution, French Revolution, Mind - Body Dualism,Conciousness, Early Church and Patristic father and New spiritualism and Magic in Modern science.So, My first time course wasn't beneficial for me to enrich my knowledge.
I took this course second time on 1 june and have finished today 30 june ,2021. Now I have understood all the terms. This lecture was more important than others because it describes some court cases.
Thanks a lot, it 100% helps me to judge and analyse history.
I have finished all 19 videos in 1 month and 10 days.But I think I have to research on these videos for years . Because of the great interpretation and information.I hope I could do her classes physically.
Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍
Excellent course.
followed this start to finish, never stop learning!! and lady raia you are a gem!! my newest adult role model!!
This def shines a light on the culture wars. Thanks.
I enjoyed this course. It helped me tie together all this disjointed knowledge I had in a coherent and interesting way.
i just finished watching the whole thing. thanx ucla, that was great and yes, i agree, raia is a role-model.
OMG just finnished the last lecture it was wonderful and great teacher I learned so much
this was all so cool... loved it.... last lecture :(
just as i was getting to know norton lol
Ahhhh. awesome. thanks for telling me. I'm going to watch more of her videos. I love this class.
Based on [her] theory, Professor Courtenay Raia describes what is meant by “magical thinking” in her book THE NEW PROMETHEANS, (2019). All in all, [perhaps] she demonstrates (through her book and in her introductory lectures) that we do indeed engage in magical thinking, and that alone demonstrates nothing less than her genius in this area of research. [Perhaps] We use magical thinking and don't even realize it.
Promoting [touting] magical thinking as a practical perspective at an American university is likely to get any professor into serious trouble. The pragmatic orientation of this country does not allow for a teaching model that promotes magical thinking! Business, technology and science have nothing to do with magical thinking.
Thank you!!
Are religions, science and magic synegystic, professor?
To the guy (or woman) who sets the blackboard for ten minutes on end instead ot to show our teacher: have you not eyes? Do you hate your teacher?
If you want to participate in modern epistemology, enroll in a Myers-Briggs Typology Inventory workshop and let them reveal how you acquire and manipulate data to create information. This process is hard-wired into our ego pretty much at birth and determines the product of consciousness. Consciousness can be defined as 4.2 bits of constant throughput capable of Extroverted or Introverted focus. This throughput represents Perception as understood by David Hume and creates Reality as a subjective experience.
The US Army War College provides each in-coming class with a MBTI orientation to encourage meta-cognition in its senior strata of officers. This is a strategy to escape the boundaries of “pure reason” Kant identifies as the core fallacy of Hume’s theory of reality. The US Army is Hegelian in aspect, which is to say, progressive by design.
here
-------------------The Progression------->()()
That would have been her dog, a bulldog named Norton she brings along every lecture.
Oog that was kind of a depressing lecture for us skeptics...all about the resurgence of anti-evolutionism and woo. Too bad she didn't get to go into Popper also :(
I second that, MichaelaK67, apart from being the housewife bit!!
Black robe PriestCraft ,her costume tells the truth of her inner authority,,,priest wear black she is totally robed in black ,beware of bias, grow your own actually you have your own /// preachers...
why doe she have to carry the mic box? all the money ucla has the dept can't hook her up or the room with microphones. she's AWESOME. She should just play a dvd of her talks. LOL
was she talking to her CAT? orDog? who was she kicking and telling to wake up? Can you bring your cat to school?
twenty hours later and I have to say I'm disappointed. quantum mysticism and pseudoscience but not a peep about crowley or regardie or the entire western esoteric tradition.
According to intelligent design, did God design cancer, for example, did he predict a percentage of malformed children being born?
Well...this lady and I would have a good argument about her apparent lack of understanding of what the term "theory" means (in science) and her lack of what the most current research has to say about the evolution of altruism/empathy, and her soft-peddling of the stultifying influence of pseudo-science being taught in schools...and her playing down the influence of radical religious theocrats in government.
Well, WHAT does evolution have to say? I'm curious. I have similar notions of adaptability of reciprocity in humans.
I don't quite see the DOWNPLAY of theocracy in modern U.S. poltics... What else did you want her to mention?
Although I HAVE been at times annoyed w/ certain remarks seemingly suggesting romanticism maybe it's just her presenting a counter argument to the establishment of science (though perhaps weak ones??). I say this to avoid an attribution error of her ACTUAL beliefs which we DO NOT explicitly know.
I DO walk away w/ a sense of her NOT necessarily promoting any ideologies but instead posing the suggestion that there is a dynamic in history between science, magic and religion that HAS NOT necessarily found a static state.
She fails to mention that all references to Creationism were edited out of the drafts of 'Pandas' immediately after the Supreme Court ruled that "Creationism" is religion and so Constitutionally banned from public schools: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). All references to 'creationism' were merely edited and replaced by the words "intelligent design". This was proven to have taken place by witness Barbra Forrest at the trial
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (2004).
And what a great trial that was!!
The "highly educated scientist" she refers to, Michael Behe, for the ID side, was forced to admit- under oath - that his definition of 'scientific theory' would necessarily admit 'alchemy' and 'astrology' as legitimate scientific theories! Behe teaches at Lehigh University where the University utters the following disclaimer on it's website:
"While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific."
www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
ID = Creationism
I call the ID people: Liars for Jesus
+AGNOSSI just to be clear ...which i think you have not been....your statement is misconceived and misleading ..what the court 'ruled' was:
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a legal case about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children
might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the
effectiveness of science instruction."
What you stated was: "the Supreme Court ruled that "Creationism" is religion and so Constitutionally banned from public schools"
I think there is a complete divergence from the truth in your statement of what the court actually ruled.
the creationist authors changed the terms "creation" and "creationists" in the text THEY designed if the court ruled on the side of religion to "intelligent design" and "design proponents", and the book was published as Of Pandas and People. This supplementary textbook for school use attacked evolutionary biology without mentioning the identity of the supposed "intelligent designer"
"What started the whole thing was the Dover Area School District in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania and the school board requirement that a statement presenting intelligent design as "an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view" was to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught".
In there written decision they started with:
"for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.
The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.
Points well made...points well taken.
Still,
ID is Creationism - wearing a cheap suit.
Professor(?) Behe (sp) admitted, under oath, that his definition of Science would leave open the door to Astrology and Alchemy and would be "...teaching a variety of scientific theories...to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."
Except for Behe is a failed Scientist who never internalized the most basic concepts of the philosophy of Science.
AGNOSSI
right... and 'true science' does not bring a final conclusion but only findings of experimentation. Idiots don't understand that. Ones that only have the capacity to think in black and white when there is an entire light spectrum out there in good ole River City. Often i find it humorous to hear one defending the theory of creation by a god say in essence that it must be one or the other, if things were created there must have been a creator. A total fallacy of logic. But I have never met one who ascribes to believing in a creator god that understood or adhered to the rules of logic
So.......... science of today will not be science of tomorrow thank god...lol
Agree.
For example, we can never PROVE Newton's Laws of Motion because we can never allow for all accelerations everywhere, but we accept that his theory is probably true because what his theory predicts has been found to hold in every carefully controlled experiment that has ever been done (every non-relativistic experiment I should say.) over hundreds of years.