@@Mar-dk3mp That was a funny comment, thanks. If someone steals anything of value from you, remind yourself to run that hollow script. I sometimes wonder why church operators offer prayers and blessings as outgoings but become materialists when the same currency is offered in return.
I agree Steven. These video very much needed to stop all these apologists with no philosophical humility and often appreciation for the various theories of epistemology. You do everyone a great service breaking down the challenging concepts around knowing a thing. Great video 🎉
It's not really deeper, especially since her portrays skepticism as the big bad wolf when the reality is that most philosophers don't regard it very much. There isn't really much to say to someone who argues "how do you know anything" and that statement doesn't really go anywhere either. It's an empty and vacant philosophy even though it appears scary on the surface, like a paper tiger.
@@Darkloid21 I find your comment highly ironic considering your paper thin interpretation of what skepticism is and the throw-away claim about "not regarding it very much" that was so vague to the point of being meaningless.
@@anteshell It's not paper thin that is effectively what it is. It's also not really regarded very much by most philosophers the same way that solipsism isn't, he's still wrong on that count. To you it sounds vague but it sums up people's attitudes toward it. I should know because I used to be one and the response I got from everyone to was "so what"? Which is very apt. It's a paper tiger that only looks scary.
@@Darkloid21 You cannot state "effectively" and the same time expect to have any kind of accuracy or nuance. "Effectively" is a gross simplification, reducing a complex topic to a single point, ergo, it is paper thin. If I went around asking people about philosophy, any particular topic or in general, I would receive the same indifferent attitude. That tells nothing about the validity or strength of the subject I was inquiring about. It only tells that people are not interested in philosophy. Also, the "big bad wolf" does not have similar connotations as a tiger does. That is being the king of the jungle and a powerhouse. No, it implies some kind of boogey-man. Almost like the paper tiger, but one that is not completely bogus and can have some real effect. In real life, skepticism is certainly not a paper tiger solely for the fact that it is not an all-or-nothing position you make it out to be. It it was, there would not be such philosophical school as skepticism. Reducing it like that is not any less stupid and unreasonable than simply taking one flaw of any other school of thought and reducing it to that.
@@anteshell Well the fact that you asking around and getting indifference does explain the validity and strength of what you ask about. Animals don’t need to think of such things to live and neither do most people. And yes effectively is accurate because the school of skepticism doesn’t amount to much. It’s not nuanced like you seem to believe it’s just “how do you know” and doesn’t offer much else. You are grossly over complicating it. The tiger and wolf bit is irrelevant nitpicking. In real life skepticism is a paper tiger and it’s also why you won’t hear many philosophers discussing it today. It doesn’t lead to anything or yield anything. There may be a school of it but you can reduce it down to an all or nothing position because that’s what it is. Not every philosophy is complicated but people like you want to pretend so for ego stroking.
the thing with creationist apologists is, they are deeply dishonest. With this foundation for knowledge stuff they aren't honestly pointing out that the whole concept is tricky. They want to pretend that THEY have knowledge, when really they have faith and pretend that counts as knowledge... (even though people only talk about faith when they can't support their claims with evidence). Probably the weakest foundation possible because in the end it boils down to "I want that to be true".
It's always easy to discard foreign ideas by claiming the one advocating them is just being dishonest. This is a classic ad hominem poisoning the well red herring fallacy. Doing so demonstrates you actually are not that interested in the truth as you claim to be. Otherwise you would attack the argument rather than the person. Not saying any of the apologists you've encounterd got it right instead, but prematurely exclude the possibilty you can still encounter one that isn't dishonest is intellectually dishonest, unless you can be sure you've already spoken to all of them. So thanks for demonstrating your religious belief in what you want to be true.
@@BlacksmithTWD thanks for demonstrating the dishonesty so prevalent under creationist apologists. You pretend I committed an ad hominem fallacy, while I did no such thing. I didn't say they are dishonest because they are creationist apologists and therefor wrong, I explained WHY they are dishonest and wrong. You pretend I didn't address their argument, while in reality I DID address their pretence (because that WAS the explanation just mentioned). And in response I get your pretence... I also didn't exclude the possibility of ever encountering an honest creationist, that's just something you made up completely by yourself. So on top of your misrepresentations of what I said, also a strawman completely unrelated to what I said. So yeah my dude, thanks for demonstrating exactly the kind of dishonesty I mentioned in the first place, and heaping more on and on, because of your own religious belief which you are projecting onto me in your last sentence, not realizing you just admitted religious belief is a bad thing. So, let's see. You've got a strawman, a conflation of 3 fallacies which you lie I committed, in order to poison the well yourself, which is thus a projection on top. Another lie. Another strawman. And another projection, combined with accidentally admitting your own position - that isn't shared by me - is wrong. Congratulations, it's quite an achievement, such a self own. Do you even realize that people can read what I actually commented, and are thus not going to fall for your lies?
oh nagranoth. it is more important for anti religionists to come up with better answers rather than denounce religious stories. it is pretty much an act of faith to say the fundamental forces of physics must lead to living intelligent beings capable of thought and free actions.
@@georgeh8937 who says that the fundamental forces of physics must lead to living intelligent beings capable of thought and free actions? That intelligence happens to have arisen on earth was not predestined, it is the result of many different events that just happen to have resulted in the world we live in today. If any of those events had not occurred we would not be here today. It is a fallacy of religious thinking and ego to think that we are the purpose of the universe. There may or may not be intelligent life elsewhere. We only have a sample of one so can draw no confident conclusions. I believe there probably is intelligent life elsewhere. This doesn't mean that I believe that intelligent life is the purpose of the universe. The universe doesn't need a purpose.
Thank you, this is very informative, and I for one didn't even pick up on the graphics, I was simply trying to follow the thread of thought. Please create more content like this.
Foundationalism sounds reasonable - No, wait - yeah good points there Stephen Coherentism sounds reasonable - No, wait - yeah good points there Stephen Reliabalism sounds reasonable - No, wait - yeah good points there Stephen Evidentialism sounds reasonable - No, wait - yeah good points there Stephen JUST PUT MY BRAIN IN A VAT ALREADY!!! :D
Brain in a vat?!? Don't guess so difficult; you (and/or I) can much easier be a NPC of a computer game. We do not know whether our memories are real, nor do we know what we really are, but we exist, because we experience our interaction with the reality around us. That reality is our world. We do not know what that reality's true form really is, e.g. it might also be a simulation running upon a computer, but we do have a good impression how it usually interacts with us, and that is how it is to us.
@@freeyourmind7538 Atheists don't (necessarily) pretend anything religious people don't, but religious people (necessarily) pretend something atheists don't: that god exists.
@@KaiHenningsen oh, I see, so the limit of pretending anything exists is fine as long as you dont pretend that God exists, and we all have to agree to this limit because atheists said so? Why are you putting a limit on what we can pretend to believe in?
I see these epistemological theories as tools that compliment each other, and it seems that most people subconsciously use them simultaneously as a hurdles to justifying beliefs.
I wanted to say the same. Much like political/social theories, they are cognitive tools to help us navigate through uncertainty and disorder to make beneficial decisions. But each tool has its strengths and weaknesses and can be better applied to some situations over others. Skepticism is a valuable tool for evaluating the foundation for beliefs that drive our behavior but not efficient for actually making and acting out decisions. Not being able to know anything 100% would lead to paralysis and anxiety. Switching to a different framework based on ethical/moral principles or even just senses would be more efficient for actions.
@leonardpaulson maybe you didn't mean that literally, but I don't think not knowing anything to be 100% true leads to paralysis and anxiety. I can't think of something I know 100% to be true, but I'm fine
Actually I love all you content! I learned so much through your videos within the last months. Aaaand I like your beautiful accent as well. ;) It is always a pleasure to watch and listen to you! All the best from Germany 🇩🇪 😊
Great quick runthrough on epistomology. It's amazing how hard it is to have truly exhaustive "knowledge" of anything, there is always more to learn...which is the fun of life!
Internet marketing is usually of the opinion that including the viewer in the title increase retention and brings more people to the video. The most creative titles aren't these who win, but those who are designed to trick us to click do, unfortunately
How will you know you are sober, you may have just forgotten the 10 shots you consumed half an hour ago and your mind has just made it up that you are sober? ;-) Does that sound philosophical enough for me to go out as a religious nutjob?
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful house" And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful wife" Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down Letting the days go by, water flowing underground ...
Nicely done. 😊 An early attraction to science was the absolute humility exhibited by it's practitioners, of which the Einstein quote is a prime example. One simple litmus test of a good and conscientious scientist is one who never degrades or dismisses the work of their peers, but rather just allows the scientific process to show the way, ... as it inevitably always does.
@@jacksonfurlong3757execpt for everything not airborne. Ot airborne but has no smell. Or smells bad but doesn't cause disease. Occasionally would be a better term than fundamentally.
@@haveaday1812 its not that complicated. at least not initially. the body includes the mind. so wisest amongts them are the ones that make peace with their share of madness. the social decorum expects only that they uphold the social contract. while respecting the investment and concern for the young. all species are defensive of their youth or their future and their mental health in it.
@@haveaday1812are you asserting that his approach to evaluating truth claims and ethics are systematically different when he discusses trans issues? What specifically do you mean by “throws his brain out the window” beyond an ad hominum attack based on his conclusion?
@@haveaday1812idk. His views on there seem logical and well thought out. Could it be that you disagree with his position, so therefore he's wrong, in your perspective? Because, crikey, that would be a bad place to argue from
Generally I like the content of Rationality Rules but this episode is amazing. I am not a young mind but these concepts are suddenly blindingly understandable and yet mindblowing. Thank you for giving me something to think about thinking about.
When I took philiosophy in college, my Prof. (also the head of the Biology department) was trying to say God has been proven by the simple matter of, "God is the greatest thing that can be imagined, therefore god is real." I just blinked at her and laughed. It was word salad. Trying to define a diety into existence is as old as the time when people lived in caves and drew pictures of animals on the wall. They worshipped superhero animals in those days. Old men sitting around the fire, telling stories. Mothers sitting with their children, and telling stories. The stories might be inspiring. The stories might be lessons. But they were still just stories. I have no reason to believe Blob. "Because Blob says so and these are the words and works of Blob in my story." There is nothing there. And when we are no longer here, we shall no longer be here. In 200 years, it is certain not a single human alive today will still be alive. We can know this. To understand life, a simple analogy of that campfire is all that is necessary. It takes some energy, a spark, and some fuel to get it started. If it is not kept burning and fuel is not added, then it will eventually be extinguished. We are matter and energy beings. We can be extinguished and we see this daily. We do not come back. I will not add, "We do not come back to this universe," because we have no evidence there is anything else. Uncomfortable, yes. It is not wise to live as though we will live forever. When we do, we discount the pain of grief, and life becomes trivial. When we accept mortality, life becomes precious to us. The Earth is not an infinite planet. To behave as such, we waste so much...and run out of everything all too soon. After I die, there will no longer be a me, but just a corpse. That corpse will never come back and my mind shall be extinguished. A trillion trillion trillion years will pass, and the energy and fire of my life will spread through the universe as heat, just as the heat of my birth is now possibly 56 light years away. Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust. Yes. This is all that there is. And I'm fine with that. I'm loving every minute of it. Thank you for traveling the galaxy with me.
Odd how you seem to discard the stories other people told by claiming "they were still just stories" merely to replace them with your own story which strictly spoken also is just a story. It's more telling of your religious beliefs than any of theirs.
David Deutsch in his book The Fabric Of Reality lays emphasis on the value of good explanations, by which he means those that can be of practical use in solving problems. If for example we postulate that we all exist in a computer simulation we then need to ask the same questions regarding the creators of that simulation as we ask ourselves. The explanation is useless - all we've done is add another layer to the problem without coming any nearer to a solution. In fact it's worse than useless, because we now have the added problem of why those creators went to all that bother.
Yeah, that's why the whole simulationist thing just sounds dumb to me. Even if it was true, it wouldn't actually change anything in reality. You'd still have to engage with what appears to be the real world, even if you were convinced it wasn't real, because the alternative is just to be a vegetable.
I would say it's always better to know, even if it just creates more questions. If there are more questions to be asked but you simply refuse to find them, how does that get you anywhere closer to what is true? I'm at the point in my life that I don't expect any larger truths to ever be forthcoming, if indeed our humans minds are even capable of understanding what "truth" is. There is also the issue that we assume that things must make sense, but that is very clearly a human concept, or at least the concept of a mind. I'm not sure reality has to even make sense to anything or anyone. It is human nature (and possibly the nature of all advanced minds) to naturally assume that there must be reasons for things at all, after all, we have reasons for the things we do.
@@rustybrooks8916here's why Solipsism/Simulation theory is pointless to engage with. If this is a Simulation, you have no way to escape it or deal with anything outside the Simulation. The only effective tool you have is Science. If it's not a Simulation, the only effective tool you have is Science. Since whether or not you are in a Simulation, the only option you have is to use Science to investigate Reality, then you are stuck doing the same thing whether or not it's a Simulation. Solipsism/Simulation theory is pointless speculation, you literally cannot do anything positive with those concepts. They start Nowhere and end up Nowhere, which just means you have wasted time with a pointless endeavor.
I don't see the simulation hypothesis as a serious concept, rather a thought experiment to show that a consistent hypothesis can be created that rivals religious creation. In that sense, it can have any number of problems and that only begs the question of whether religious creation shares the same problems.
Great video, that goes deeper and teach concepts. You should make a serie that goes deeper in different questions of philosophy : consciousness , identity, dualism, logical thinking ...
Nope, you are being self contradicting. Pragmatically what has yielded the best results for humanity is pragmatism, not empiricism. Emprically what has yielded the best results for humanity is empiricism.
When I say I see a tree in my yard, I'm not saying that I'm not in a simulation. I may or may not be in a simulation, but in either case, that object is certainly what we have come to call a tree and it is in what we define as my yard, so a tree is most certainly in my yard, even if possibly artificially so.
yeah the whole simulation thing is a neat idea to kick around but its not really something with practical application day to day life and thinking. Assuming in everything we do and say that we are not in a simulation is the only logical way to be.
it doesnt matter because we dont have any evidence of the simulation, theoretically we cant have any unless its a flawed one. If a simulated world is the only one that exists and we cant know about that fact, or escape it, then a world within a simulation and a world that is "real" is exactly the same for us. Why treat it differently?
@@noahwilliams8996it absolutely doesn't matter. If this is a simulation and nothing exists, you have no way of escaping the situation and just have to deal with what's in front of you. The tools of Science allow you to deal with the situation you find yourself in. If it's not a simulation, then Science is the only tool you have for dealing with the situation in front of you. Whether or not this is a simulation, your response is going to have to be the same. Which makes playing with the idea of Solipsism pointless.
@@13shadowwolf It's not pointless though. It helps us reason about what can be known. Also this exact type of problem shows up all the time in science. How do you know your sources can be trusted?
As someone with no training in philosophy, and having dabbled and just got confused - thank you for this very clear explanation of one facet. I now possibly understand a little more than I did before. Or so it seems to me. But then I think that rain is wet, so who am I to judge? 😉
Fun fact, we humans can't detect wetness. Thinking rain is wet is quite a feat of brain processing because our skin does not have receptors that sense wetness. We have no sensory ability to detect liquids.
@@Darkloid21 What part of it? Most scientists define wetness as a liquid's ability to maintain contact with a solid surface, meaning that water itself is not wet.
Thank you for the discussion on epistemology. These different knowledge structures that you have presented strike me as a five dimensional game of rock paper scissors, each piston Aliti structure has a strength as weakness, and no one of them can stand alone or be undefeated by a combination of others.
that's because he only named bad structures. they all are types of justificationalism, the misconception that knowledge is about justifying one's beliefs.
My response to skepticism is pragmatism. I might not be able to know whether the bus speeding towards me is real, but I will assume it’s real and get out of the way before I make sure my perceptions are true.
So if it's pragmatic for you to go along with a popular religious or political ideology which has an unsound epistemology, you'd go along with it as long as it's safer for you?
@@NelemNaru, I suggest you search what is pragmatism in the context of epistemology. I just woke up and I am half asleep, so I can't explain, but it is not just about avoiding to be killed.
@@thomasfplm Pragmatism offers evolutionary benefits by prioritizing personal and group survival, but it can lead to unethical outcomes when a group remains in power by compromising truth. Thus, while pragmatism can address immediate challenges effectively, skepticism is essential for ensuring that our actions align with broader truths and fairness, preventing pragmatic decisions for a group from overshadowing the importance of an accurate understanding of reality.
@@NelemNaru, I think you are mixing different forms of pragmatism. What you are talking about sounds more like an ethical pragmatism, similar to utilitarianism. The pragmatism I'm talking about is the one that basically doesn't waste time on unknowable things, like if I'm a brain in a vat, or if I'm in the matrix. If I'm in the matrix or not, I can know how physics work in the universe is perceive. If someone manages to create a way to test if we are in a simulation, then it becomes relevant, until then there are other things to care about.
Always enjoy your videos. Can you possibly discuss Bayesian Epistemology in the future? I have a high credence that it is the most consistent Epistemology and have not come across any criticisms besides "it's hard" and "people don't actually do it" Thank you
Knowledge is based on proven facts that define reality! The knowledge of the sun as our source of light on earth is a proven fact therefore reality confirms that knowledge!
To be more precise, it is a _confirmed_ fact, since science, as an inductive process, cannot "prove" claims. It is synthetic knowledge, not analytical knowledge. But thats a subject for another video by Stephen, which I look forward to.
Where is God in your life? Do not tell me you are trapped into this empty cult called atheims, that nothing gives to your life? And you will be judge by God anyway, but as part of this cult and the worst generation you will be weaker than a believer....
There's a distinct possibility that our perception of the world is not actually a true interpretation of the environment in which we exist. The reason is natural selection, the likelihood of our seeing a true interpretation of the world around us is slim, as having a perception that is accurate as opposed to one that maximises our chances of survival and therefore procreation would seem likely to be the case. Donald Hoffman's idea far more eloquently explained in a TED talk he did.
this reminds me of a Zen saying. "when you start on the path, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. once you're on the path, mountains are no longer mountains, and rivers are no longer rivers. when you arrive, mountains are once again mountains, and rivers are once again rivers." what we perceive as reality _is_ reality as far as we're concerned.
@@nondescriptcat5620 it's a very interesting TED talk and did appear to make a lot of logical sense well worth a watch if you enjoy philosophical analysis. I guess it's not impossible that the zen was his inspiration.
Though there are a few things I disagree with in his book, the most salient to me was the conclusion drawn from game theory as he applied it. I felt that, as he described it in the book, it lacked the testing to sufficiently exclude other forms of perception. But I digress and assume that there were more tests neither stated in his book or in his talks. ...and that, having not done the tests myself, that I just misunderstood something. (My demon of misunderstanding, misinformation, or misleading.) In the end, it is a great theory to exorcise the muscle between my ears.
It seems intuitive that actually perceiving the world correctly would most promote one's survival. If you need soemthing to drink, and you have a false belief that what is petrol in front of you is some drink, you die.
@@Nexus-jg7ev Are you proposing that as an example of our seeing reality, or hinting at the opposite in favor of being able to parse the data fast enough to realize it is hazardous to us before we drink it? Hence, a simpler "icon" that doesn't convey all the data in favor of efficiency.
Oh, this is very interesting. Somehow it just occurred to me that when I was first studying philosophy while in Seminary, there was no real discussion of epistemology, but everything we were taught was based upon Coherentism. Which considered it was a Neopagan/Wiccan school makes perfect sense. Everyone's different and sometimes conflicting beliefs needed to be accounted for. Thank you very much for this. I've looked at all these epistemological concepts in isolation before, but never really compared them side by side like this. I generally landed at being sceptical and maybe lean towards evidentialism.
In my experience anyone who defaults to radical skepticism as a counterpoint to your argument likely doesn't have a leg to stand on for their own stuff. This was very common in my speaking with spirituality type people who use the lack of total certainty as justification to believe anything they want as fact. I don't think radical skepticism is that useful in the sense that it doesn't do what you say, which is seek stronger justifications and improvements but rather denies you can have such things. I think there is a different beast all together, especially since even the skeptic despite their protests has to act on what could be called some semblance of knowledge to live and survive in the world. I don't think it's the big bad wolf you say it is, it's a functionally empty philosophy that doesn't really offer much. I didn't walk away from this not knowing what to believe. To me if something is reliable and repeatable then that's good enough. Maybe it might be wrong but what else is there? I think you illustrated why philosophy doesn't really help in day to day or go anywhere. Also the title is misleading.
But what you have described as your pragmatic (in the colloquial sense) attitude is itself an implicitly philosophical stance, based on "reliability is good enough" for mundane purposes, so it is in fact helping you in your daily life. Especially when it allows you not to waste your time with what you regard as idle mental activity. So youre actually a philosopher in spite of yourself.😉
@@owlcowl Not really no. You’re adding too much that isn’t there. It’s not philosophy because I’m not taking any stance, giving any argument or thought to it. I just live. But the practice itself is idle mental activity with no benefit or use or anything else. Just look at animals and tell me how useful the practice is. So no, I’m not a philosopher, you’re seeing what isn’t there. I’m just an animal living. Though you did demonstrate how useless it is.
When Socrates got to the Oracle of Delphi, he asked "who is the wisest man in all of Greece" the oracle replied "you are." Socrates then said "But I don't know anything" and the oracle told him that's why he's the smartest. Not a true story, but it serves the point
"I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either." - Plato, Apology (Cary translation)
I have all of these as influences on how I think, especially skepticism which I have a particular fondness of because it feeds into how I think about any of the other methods of thinking and trying to find hidden assumptions. I have always thought of knowledge not as a static thing that one can be sure of but rather something that emerges from assuming certain things to be true and testing for consistency then thinking about how consistent another set of views could be with whatever data you have collected and what the assumptions of said system would be and testing those and so on.
I despise video titles like these because the content is worth sharing with friends and groups, but doing so makes you look like an asshole because the video title is adheres to clickbait patterns
My beliefs are wrong? How can you know? Surely, my beliefs are uncertain - I can have little confidence in them being right, but just as little confidence in them being wrong. Knowing my beliefs are wrong would give a certainty I am uncomfortable with.
Say you've got a thousand beliefs at 99% certainty, you've got less than a 1/10,000 chance that those thousand beliefs are all correct. So you've got at least two beliefs that are wrong. The belief that you were 99% certain but were mistaken. And the belief that none of those high-probability beliefs was wrong is also incorrect. In practice, we've got innumerable beliefs running all the time and they run the spectrum from very probably correct (or very close to correct) right down to "I've got a good feeling about this week's lottery!" And we can't really examine all our beliefs for reliability, as this video explained. So we know that at least some of our beliefs must be wrong, just as a statistical certainty, even if we never find one. Human intuition on probability and statistics is pretty shit.
@@archapmangcmg True, but it hinges on what you mean by 'your beliefs'. If it means the set of beliefs you hold, as if we have an AND operation being applied (ie belief a and belief b and belief c...) then you're right. But if you mean each and every belief is indivudally and separately wrong then that logic doesn't work. Instead, calculate the probability of one of my beliefs being correct to negate the proposition. I can't even conceive of the idea of every one of my beliefs being correct, and I expect that if I was capable of laying out all of my beliefs on a big table and examining them, I would be shocked at the contradicitions and bury my head in shame.
@@michaelmarchant7245 There is the problem in science of "All models are wrong but some are useful". This one shows that even single beliefs are almost certainly wrong, if we restrict "correct" to only "perfectly/100.00000% correct" levels of perfection. So, yeah, it _sucks_ but this is part of why we can't be justified in having perfect certainty, why we can't know things absolutely, however you want to put it. And that inevitably leads back to.. our beliefs are wrong. (Or they're not absolutely right, at least.)
The constant whining about presuppsotionalism is quite annoying. The whole presupp school of thought is based on the idea that everyone makes presuppositions, and that at a paradigm level its unavoidable. The question then becomes which presuppositions are justified. Revelatory theism, specifically Eastern Orthodox Christianity, really is the only view that can make sense of reality itself, as its the only worldview capable of giving a coherent account for the pre-conditions of knowledge. Otherwise you're forced to just presuppose things like logic etc, which is just arbitrary - at which point i can just as arbitrarily go "God just is". This is especially devastating for a foundationalist materialist worldview, since you can't extract the laws of logic foe example from sense data.
Well done, young thinker! Thoroughly and clearly explained, with an evenhandedness that is intellectually refreshing and stimulating. Skepticism is my default position, but humility requires an admission of its limitations. I also wonder if the most wholesome approach is an amalgam of each epistemological position, being cognizant of their strengths and weaknesses, to most authentically arrive at what is more likely than not, demonstrably true.
Epistemology is solved by just two very simple ideas: logic, and Occam's razor. Logic is the idea that what is true is true by definition. So long as conclusions are entailed by the definitions of the terms being used, that conclusion is true. Occam's razor is the idea that an empirical model is more likely than another to accurately describe reality if it requires less assumption for it to be coherent with our experience of reality. Occam's razor is secondary to logic, and it's a principle that can be logically deduced. Each of the epistemological frameworks you present here are, limited by generally accurate, ways of understanding Occam's razor, but they fail to touch the foundation of knowledge. All knowledge relies on logic, but empirical knowledge also relies on sensory experience. All "inductive reasoning" is deductive reasoning with probabilities. All syllogisms which are logically valid are also true, if you formulate them correctly (essentially prefacing all premises with "if").
Wow! What a delightful set of information. You made me feel lucky I have poor vision and astigmatism at a young age. I never trusted information from that sense. Every single decision could result it injury if I did not dig deeper.
I really like that epistemic nihilist approach of "OK, you CAN'T know anything for sure, but there are degrees of certainty you can have". You cannot ever go to 100% certainty, but that shouldn't stop you for reaching those high 90's, or from realizing that weak evidence provide less certainty than strong ones. It's not because we can't know for sure that we shouldn't try at all.
I find it absolutely fascinating to think about how fragile our understanding of reality and truth actually is. It's really just a thin thread holding together what we think to be real and what we think to not be real. I'm not sure I want to be comfortable or confident that we understand what we think we do. I would rather be uncomfortable and unsure that anything I think to be true may be true at all. "I am the master of nothing"
Finest philosophical teaching! I solve this by separating "believe" into its two meanings. 1- what I hold as true 2- what I suspect, without enough evidence, as true What is in (1)? Nothing except cogito ergo sum So there I join the sceptics...
Descartes commits the stolen concept fallacy. The stolen idea is one of truth. To understand an error you need to be able to distinguish between true and false. If there's no truth, then error is just a sound your mouth makes. Another way to look at it. If someone says, "How do you know you're not in the Matrix?" you ask, "What evidence do you have of such a state? When I look at a tree, in what way am I not seeing what I am seeing?" In the Matrix movie, you have to take the red pill and then push up your membrane. Once in the real, you can see the ports on your arms and head. Without any evidence of membranes or ports the suggestion of living in a simulacrum is a fantasy. To insist that you could be wrong without evidence, is to surrender your mind. Descartes' doubt is a dead-end road to knowledge.
It seems like a lot of people, rather than engaging with Epistemology in any way, just decide that truth is whatever feels right to them. At least that's what feels right to me 🐎🐎
Thank you for this video! Your direct, calm explanations made these complex subjects much more approachable to a layman like me. I've watched a lot of debates with pre-suppers, and this is good reinforcement against their dishonesty. Would you consider making a video drawing from this one on how to combat presupp arguments and what the flaws in their thinking are? I think that would super helpful done in your style!
I'm fairly new to this side of philosophy, but I had an idea. I'd be interested if it fits into any already existing viewpoints. Knowledge doesn't exist as a literal, obtainable thing. It is a concept - an attempt to objectively categorise practicable understanding and sensory knowledge (i.e. information received by our evolved senses). All I can do is act as my senses guide me; the light my eyes pick up, the sounds I hear, etc. I have deemed it the most logical way to think and act, and the most likely to lead me to good ends. I suppose it would also make sense for it to be instinctual for us to act on our senses. As far as we can sense, we are all experiencing the same reality, and so we can combine sensed information to compile together what is, for all intents and purposes, 'knowledge': practicable understanding that, sure, isn't absolute knowledge, but works and makes sense, as far as is useful and beneficial.
Rationality Rules, Stephen, weirdly, I watched this, but couldn't get the part here, to like and comment! Excellent explanation of epistemology. Are you degreed? You should be, even if you're 'self taught' !👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏽
Where is God in your life? Do not tell me you are trapped into this empty cult called atheims, that nothing gives to your life? And you will be judge by God anyway, but as part of this cult and the worst generation you will be weaker than a believer.....
I would think you could add an advanced form of skepticism: Pyrrhonism. Yes, it's not really that new, but it does take the criticism by the horns. It doesn't claim that we cannot know anything, just that it is wise to suspend judgement, both in assenting and in dissenting, until possibly sufficient evidence is at hand.
@@BlacksmithTWD It has a name that is a misnomer, but that means it must mean the same thing. 🤣🤣🤣 I suppose that means king crabs must be crabs, panama hats come from panama, and your funny bone is a bone? And no, science is not a branch of philosophy. Trying to comprehend the laws that govern the universe is a mechanical issue, not a wafty philosophical one.
@@Martial-Mat Only because you apply a more narrow definition of what philosophy is. Just like most people these days happen to apply a more narrow definition of what discrimination is, making them think of the word only in a negative way while in fact the word is actually neutral.
@@BlacksmithTWD The Philosophy Foundation defines it as "Philosophy is a way of thinking about certain subjects such as ethics, thought, existence, time, meaning and value." That's pretty much how I think about it too.
@@Martial-Mat And the dictionary defines it : "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." both can be interpret as including all scientific endeavours.
Feels like they all offer an approach that when taken together with applied skepticism we can achieve the best possible level of knowledge and "knowing." We need an established foundation on which to build knowledge and beliefs, we need them to be coherent, we need the means of discovering them and understanding them to be reliable, and we need evidence to justify them. Skepticism, then, allows us to be as honest as possible.
(Sorry for my english) Regarding scepticism and "a brain in a vat" topic I would touch the question "what is the reality". If my brain lives in a vat,if I am the only one living and all others are just simulated NPC,it is my reality and I am interested about this world mechanics. If all our brains live in one common vat it is our reality,even if the world outside the vat is wildly different. If there are consistent law,rules and patterns in our world, it doesn't matter, that the world outside has different set of rules.
![โฮ่ง! (SUGOI) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nFp4zjAARFs/mqdefault.jpg)
As a phil major, stuff like this is a breath of fresh air. Not bad air.
Which is your favorite? Dr. or Banks?
@@rainbowkrampus MEN
Love from an exmuslim woman💕 i used to be an idealist but now i‘m a materialist. This changed a lot.
I tried to give you a few thumbs up… didn’t work.🥰
materialism does not make sense. God does. deal with it.
Didnt ask@@Mar-dk3mp
@@Mar-dk3mp
That was a funny comment, thanks.
If someone steals anything of value from you, remind yourself to run that hollow script.
I sometimes wonder why church operators offer prayers and blessings as outgoings but become materialists when the same currency is offered in return.
@@Mar-dk3mpGod doesn't make sense, materialism does. Deal with it.
What Can be asserted withouth evidence can also be dismissed withouth evidence.
I agree Steven. These video very much needed to stop all these apologists with no philosophical humility and often appreciation for the various theories of epistemology. You do everyone a great service breaking down the challenging concepts around knowing a thing. Great video 🎉
Loved how Rationality Rules is focusing on topics that go deeper.
It's not really deeper, especially since her portrays skepticism as the big bad wolf when the reality is that most philosophers don't regard it very much. There isn't really much to say to someone who argues "how do you know anything" and that statement doesn't really go anywhere either. It's an empty and vacant philosophy even though it appears scary on the surface, like a paper tiger.
@@Darkloid21 I find your comment highly ironic considering your paper thin interpretation of what skepticism is and the throw-away claim about "not regarding it very much" that was so vague to the point of being meaningless.
@@anteshell It's not paper thin that is effectively what it is. It's also not really regarded very much by most philosophers the same way that solipsism isn't, he's still wrong on that count.
To you it sounds vague but it sums up people's attitudes toward it. I should know because I used to be one and the response I got from everyone to was "so what"? Which is very apt.
It's a paper tiger that only looks scary.
@@Darkloid21 You cannot state "effectively" and the same time expect to have any kind of accuracy or nuance. "Effectively" is a gross simplification, reducing a complex topic to a single point, ergo, it is paper thin.
If I went around asking people about philosophy, any particular topic or in general, I would receive the same indifferent attitude. That tells nothing about the validity or strength of the subject I was inquiring about. It only tells that people are not interested in philosophy.
Also, the "big bad wolf" does not have similar connotations as a tiger does. That is being the king of the jungle and a powerhouse. No, it implies some kind of boogey-man. Almost like the paper tiger, but one that is not completely bogus and can have some real effect.
In real life, skepticism is certainly not a paper tiger solely for the fact that it is not an all-or-nothing position you make it out to be. It it was, there would not be such philosophical school as skepticism. Reducing it like that is not any less stupid and unreasonable than simply taking one flaw of any other school of thought and reducing it to that.
@@anteshell Well the fact that you asking around and getting indifference does explain the validity and strength of what you ask about. Animals don’t need to think of such things to live and neither do most people.
And yes effectively is accurate because the school of skepticism doesn’t amount to much. It’s not nuanced like you seem to believe it’s just “how do you know” and doesn’t offer much else. You are grossly over complicating it.
The tiger and wolf bit is irrelevant nitpicking.
In real life skepticism is a paper tiger and it’s also why you won’t hear many philosophers discussing it today. It doesn’t lead to anything or yield anything. There may be a school of it but you can reduce it down to an all or nothing position because that’s what it is. Not every philosophy is complicated but people like you want to pretend so for ego stroking.
the thing with creationist apologists is, they are deeply dishonest. With this foundation for knowledge stuff they aren't honestly pointing out that the whole concept is tricky. They want to pretend that THEY have knowledge, when really they have faith and pretend that counts as knowledge... (even though people only talk about faith when they can't support their claims with evidence). Probably the weakest foundation possible because in the end it boils down to "I want that to be true".
It's always easy to discard foreign ideas by claiming the one advocating them is just being dishonest. This is a classic ad hominem poisoning the well red herring fallacy. Doing so demonstrates you actually are not that interested in the truth as you claim to be. Otherwise you would attack the argument rather than the person.
Not saying any of the apologists you've encounterd got it right instead, but prematurely exclude the possibilty you can still encounter one that isn't dishonest is intellectually dishonest, unless you can be sure you've already spoken to all of them. So thanks for demonstrating your religious belief in what you want to be true.
@@BlacksmithTWD thanks for demonstrating the dishonesty so prevalent under creationist apologists. You pretend I committed an ad hominem fallacy, while I did no such thing. I didn't say they are dishonest because they are creationist apologists and therefor wrong, I explained WHY they are dishonest and wrong. You pretend I didn't address their argument, while in reality I DID address their pretence (because that WAS the explanation just mentioned). And in response I get your pretence... I also didn't exclude the possibility of ever encountering an honest creationist, that's just something you made up completely by yourself. So on top of your misrepresentations of what I said, also a strawman completely unrelated to what I said. So yeah my dude, thanks for demonstrating exactly the kind of dishonesty I mentioned in the first place, and heaping more on and on, because of your own religious belief which you are projecting onto me in your last sentence, not realizing you just admitted religious belief is a bad thing.
So, let's see. You've got a strawman, a conflation of 3 fallacies which you lie I committed, in order to poison the well yourself, which is thus a projection on top. Another lie. Another strawman. And another projection, combined with accidentally admitting your own position - that isn't shared by me - is wrong. Congratulations, it's quite an achievement, such a self own.
Do you even realize that people can read what I actually commented, and are thus not going to fall for your lies?
@@nagranoth_excellent response to blacksmith, highlighting the dishonesty of his reply.
oh nagranoth. it is more important for anti religionists to come up with better answers rather than denounce religious stories. it is pretty much an act of faith to say the fundamental forces of physics must lead to living intelligent beings capable of thought and free actions.
@@georgeh8937 who says that the fundamental forces of physics must lead to living intelligent beings capable of thought and free actions?
That intelligence happens to have arisen on earth was not predestined, it is the result of many different events that just happen to have resulted in the world we live in today. If any of those events had not occurred we would not be here today.
It is a fallacy of religious thinking and ego to think that we are the purpose of the universe.
There may or may not be intelligent life elsewhere. We only have a sample of one so can draw no confident conclusions.
I believe there probably is intelligent life elsewhere. This doesn't mean that I believe that intelligent life is the purpose of the universe. The universe doesn't need a purpose.
Thank you Stephen. I definitely need an education in the appropriate understanding & terminology’s of epistemology and philosophy on the whole.🤘💗
"There is a tree in my yard."
Yes, but what do you mean by 'tree' and what do you mean by 'yard'. - Jordan Peterson
What do you mean by "in"?
What do you mean by "a"
Jordan Peterson wants to know
@@ArthKryst What does he mean by 'know"?
What do you mean by mean? And have you ascertained? It???
Thank you, this is very informative, and I for one didn't even pick up on the graphics, I was simply trying to follow the thread of thought. Please create more content like this.
"I know nothing." - Manuel
"I am from Barcelona."
"I know nothing" - Shultz
"Hogans Hero's" from TV.
"Que?"
@@moodyrick8503 Rick. I think you're missing the point. And it's Hogan's Heroes.
@@AndrewBlucher Go find someone else to troll.
_Grammar cop._
@@moodyrick8503 Just the kind of response that is guaranteed to get an answer.
Foundationalism sounds reasonable - No, wait - yeah good points there Stephen
Coherentism sounds reasonable - No, wait - yeah good points there Stephen
Reliabalism sounds reasonable - No, wait - yeah good points there Stephen
Evidentialism sounds reasonable - No, wait - yeah good points there Stephen
JUST PUT MY BRAIN IN A VAT ALREADY!!! :D
Brain in a vat?!?
Don't guess so difficult; you (and/or I) can much easier be a NPC of a computer game.
We do not know whether our memories are real, nor do we know what we really are, but we exist, because we experience our interaction with the reality around us. That reality is our world. We do not know what that reality's true form really is, e.g. it might also be a simulation running upon a computer, but we do have a good impression how it usually interacts with us, and that is how it is to us.
EXACTLY!
Basically, ALL is meaningless but let's just pretend XYZ and laugh at the religious people for pretending
Atheism in a nutshell
@@freeyourmind7538 Atheists don't (necessarily) pretend anything religious people don't, but religious people (necessarily) pretend something atheists don't: that god exists.
@@KaiHenningsen oh, I see, so the limit of pretending anything exists is fine as long as you dont pretend that God exists, and we all have to agree to this limit because atheists said so?
Why are you putting a limit on what we can pretend to believe in?
Well done brother
Watching this, I realized, I gota take more notes.
This video was posted 15 min ago and your comment is 7 days old. Wtf?
@@Koltkazeis that not a perfect example of not necessarily being able to believe anything 😂
@@philipnorthfield It's a miracle from Jesus!
😂 I will make a note for the new new testament.
@@philipnorthfield HOLY true lol
I see these epistemological theories as tools that compliment each other, and it seems that most people subconsciously use them simultaneously as a hurdles to justifying beliefs.
This. They are not mutually exclusive. If you know when and where to use which "mode of thinking", you can use all of them in tandem to great effect.
this is why I'm an epistemic pluralist
I wanted to say the same. Much like political/social theories, they are cognitive tools to help us navigate through uncertainty and disorder to make beneficial decisions. But each tool has its strengths and weaknesses and can be better applied to some situations over others. Skepticism is a valuable tool for evaluating the foundation for beliefs that drive our behavior but not efficient for actually making and acting out decisions. Not being able to know anything 100% would lead to paralysis and anxiety. Switching to a different framework based on ethical/moral principles or even just senses would be more efficient for actions.
@leonardpaulson maybe you didn't mean that literally, but I don't think not knowing anything to be 100% true leads to paralysis and anxiety. I can't think of something I know 100% to be true, but I'm fine
Actually I love all you content! I learned so much through your videos within the last months.
Aaaand I like your beautiful accent as well. ;)
It is always a pleasure to watch and listen to you!
All the best from Germany 🇩🇪 😊
Danke für die netten Worte!
Great quick runthrough on epistomology. It's amazing how hard it is to have truly exhaustive "knowledge" of anything, there is always more to learn...which is the fun of life!
I cannot stress enough how beauty i find the art style with all triangles and polygonal forms.
Nice start for a epistemology course.
"'MY' beliefs are WRONG... here's why" is also a good working title.
@@zarbins would have been the most curious title
Internet marketing is usually of the opinion that including the viewer in the title increase retention and brings more people to the video.
The most creative titles aren't these who win, but those who are designed to trick us to click do, unfortunately
I'll have to wait until I'm very sober to watch this so I can try to take it all in! 🙂🍻
cheers dude 🍻
I might never be that sober.
Cheers!
How will you know you are sober, you may have just forgotten the 10 shots you consumed half an hour ago and your mind has just made it up that you are sober? ;-)
Does that sound philosophical enough for me to go out as a religious nutjob?
this is not my beautiful yard, this is not my beautiful tree. , how did it get there?
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful house"
And you may tell yourself, "This is not my beautiful wife"
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground ...
@@AndrewBlucher
Under the water, carry the water at the bottom of the ocean
Remove the water at the bottom of the ocean
Excellent video, Stephen! I look forward to more videos on this topic!
Nicely done. 😊
An early attraction to science was the absolute humility exhibited by it's practitioners, of which the Einstein quote is a prime example. One simple litmus test of a good and conscientious scientist is one who never degrades or dismisses the work of their peers, but rather just allows the scientific process to show the way, ... as it inevitably always does.
Nice. It seems you're pitching this series at my level for which I'm grateful. 🙂
Miasma might not have been caused by bad air, but I can tell you my asthma was exacerbated by smog.
Fundamentally, Miasma theory still works
@@jacksonfurlong3757execpt for everything not airborne. Ot airborne but has no smell. Or smells bad but doesn't cause disease.
Occasionally would be a better term than fundamentally.
Excellent, worth watching again for critical analysis. Keep 'em coming.
Idk man, I think I’ll stick with the good old “yeah that seems about right”
I dismiss your reality and will substitute my own ( Mythbusted )
I learned a great deal here. Really enjoyed it too. Thank you.
Steve, that vid is gold! 🙌
You are amazingly smart, thank you. There is no where I can find disagreement.
I only got a bachelor's degree in philosophy (and physics), but wow you explain this fundamental stuff really well.
Those who just learned something new are in the best position to teach that new thing to someone who just isn't there yet.
channels like this are criminally underrated.
im nursing a buzz while typing this, so this hits a cord, my dudes.
Until he gets to the trans issue, then he just tosses his brain out of the window.
@@haveaday1812 its not that complicated. at least not initially. the body includes the mind. so wisest amongts them are the ones that make peace with their share of madness. the social decorum expects only that they uphold the social contract. while respecting the investment and concern for the young. all species are defensive of their youth or their future and their mental health in it.
@@haveaday1812are you asserting that his approach to evaluating truth claims and ethics are systematically different when he discusses trans issues? What specifically do you mean by “throws his brain out the window” beyond an ad hominum attack based on his conclusion?
@@haveaday1812idk. His views on there seem logical and well thought out. Could it be that you disagree with his position, so therefore he's wrong, in your perspective? Because, crikey, that would be a bad place to argue from
@@haveaday1812nope, you just choose to not-understand so you can maintain incorrect beliefs.
This was great! There is delight and growth in doubt. Probably.
Nice words
Delight and growth in doubt. . . . You could be right 😁
Generally I like the content of Rationality Rules but this episode is amazing. I am not a young mind but these concepts are suddenly blindingly understandable and yet mindblowing. Thank you for giving me something to think about thinking about.
When I took philiosophy in college, my Prof. (also the head of the Biology department) was trying to say God has been proven by the simple matter of, "God is the greatest thing that can be imagined, therefore god is real." I just blinked at her and laughed. It was word salad. Trying to define a diety into existence is as old as the time when people lived in caves and drew pictures of animals on the wall. They worshipped superhero animals in those days. Old men sitting around the fire, telling stories. Mothers sitting with their children, and telling stories. The stories might be inspiring. The stories might be lessons. But they were still just stories.
I have no reason to believe Blob. "Because Blob says so and these are the words and works of Blob in my story." There is nothing there. And when we are no longer here, we shall no longer be here. In 200 years, it is certain not a single human alive today will still be alive. We can know this.
To understand life, a simple analogy of that campfire is all that is necessary. It takes some energy, a spark, and some fuel to get it started. If it is not kept burning and fuel is not added, then it will eventually be extinguished. We are matter and energy beings. We can be extinguished and we see this daily. We do not come back.
I will not add, "We do not come back to this universe," because we have no evidence there is anything else. Uncomfortable, yes.
It is not wise to live as though we will live forever. When we do, we discount the pain of grief, and life becomes trivial. When we accept mortality, life becomes precious to us. The Earth is not an infinite planet. To behave as such, we waste so much...and run out of everything all too soon.
After I die, there will no longer be a me, but just a corpse. That corpse will never come back and my mind shall be extinguished. A trillion trillion trillion years will pass, and the energy and fire of my life will spread through the universe as heat, just as the heat of my birth is now possibly 56 light years away. Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust.
Yes. This is all that there is. And I'm fine with that. I'm loving every minute of it. Thank you for traveling the galaxy with me.
Odd how you seem to discard the stories other people told by claiming "they were still just stories" merely to replace them with your own story which strictly spoken also is just a story. It's more telling of your religious beliefs than any of theirs.
And yet the first people to live forever have already been born. ( as some type of cyborg)
@@BlacksmithTWD oh, I see you're a habitual liar
maybe funny, but also kinda illegal, trying to use a philosophy class to push her religion...
great episode. keep them coming. 🤘
David Deutsch in his book The Fabric Of Reality lays emphasis on the value of good explanations, by which he means those that can be of practical use in solving problems. If for example we postulate that we all exist in a computer simulation we then need to ask the same questions regarding the creators of that simulation as we ask ourselves. The explanation is useless - all we've done is add another layer to the problem without coming any nearer to a solution. In fact it's worse than useless, because we now have the added problem of why those creators went to all that bother.
Yeah, that's why the whole simulationist thing just sounds dumb to me. Even if it was true, it wouldn't actually change anything in reality. You'd still have to engage with what appears to be the real world, even if you were convinced it wasn't real, because the alternative is just to be a vegetable.
I would say it's always better to know, even if it just creates more questions. If there are more questions to be asked but you simply refuse to find them, how does that get you anywhere closer to what is true? I'm at the point in my life that I don't expect any larger truths to ever be forthcoming, if indeed our humans minds are even capable of understanding what "truth" is. There is also the issue that we assume that things must make sense, but that is very clearly a human concept, or at least the concept of a mind. I'm not sure reality has to even make sense to anything or anyone. It is human nature (and possibly the nature of all advanced minds) to naturally assume that there must be reasons for things at all, after all, we have reasons for the things we do.
@@rustybrooks8916here's why Solipsism/Simulation theory is pointless to engage with.
If this is a Simulation, you have no way to escape it or deal with anything outside the Simulation. The only effective tool you have is Science.
If it's not a Simulation, the only effective tool you have is Science.
Since whether or not you are in a Simulation, the only option you have is to use Science to investigate Reality, then you are stuck doing the same thing whether or not it's a Simulation.
Solipsism/Simulation theory is pointless speculation, you literally cannot do anything positive with those concepts. They start Nowhere and end up Nowhere, which just means you have wasted time with a pointless endeavor.
I don't see the simulation hypothesis as a serious concept, rather a thought experiment to show that a consistent hypothesis can be created that rivals religious creation. In that sense, it can have any number of problems and that only begs the question of whether religious creation shares the same problems.
Great video, that goes deeper and teach concepts. You should make a serie that goes deeper in different questions of philosophy : consciousness , identity, dualism, logical thinking ...
As a forgotten epistemologist once said : "You know nothing, Jon Snow ! !"
“ I know nothing”. Schultz.
“ Nothing? What’s that?”. Jethro
@@chriswest8389 Nut-ting! I know nut-ting!
I know that I know nothing.
Eh?
Fine class. Thank you. Pragmatically, what has yielded the best results for humanity is empiricism.
What's your proof?
@@amphilochusofmallus5070 Don't set the bar that high, merely compelling evidence is hard enough already.
Nope, you are being self contradicting. Pragmatically what has yielded the best results for humanity is pragmatism, not empiricism. Emprically what has yielded the best results for humanity is empiricism.
When I say I see a tree in my yard, I'm not saying that I'm not in a simulation. I may or may not be in a simulation, but in either case, that object is certainly what we have come to call a tree and it is in what we define as my yard, so a tree is most certainly in my yard, even if possibly artificially so.
yeah the whole simulation thing is a neat idea to kick around but its not really something with practical application day to day life and thinking. Assuming in everything we do and say that we are not in a simulation is the only logical way to be.
But if you're in a simulation then none of those things exist.
it doesnt matter because we dont have any evidence of the simulation, theoretically we cant have any unless its a flawed one. If a simulated world is the only one that exists and we cant know about that fact, or escape it, then a world within a simulation and a world that is "real" is exactly the same for us. Why treat it differently?
@@noahwilliams8996it absolutely doesn't matter.
If this is a simulation and nothing exists, you have no way of escaping the situation and just have to deal with what's in front of you. The tools of Science allow you to deal with the situation you find yourself in.
If it's not a simulation, then Science is the only tool you have for dealing with the situation in front of you.
Whether or not this is a simulation, your response is going to have to be the same. Which makes playing with the idea of Solipsism pointless.
@@13shadowwolf It's not pointless though. It helps us reason about what can be known. Also this exact type of problem shows up all the time in science. How do you know your sources can be trusted?
Informative stuff but because I was a couple of cans down and simultaneously cleaned the kitchen I might've missed a few details...
How do you know you cleaned the kitchen?
@@jful looking at it now I don't think I did...
As someone with no training in philosophy, and having dabbled and just got confused - thank you for this very clear explanation of one facet. I now possibly understand a little more than I did before. Or so it seems to me. But then I think that rain is wet, so who am I to judge? 😉
Rain is wet.
Fun fact, we humans can't detect wetness. Thinking rain is wet is quite a feat of brain processing because our skin does not have receptors that sense wetness. We have no sensory ability to detect liquids.
@@stephengalanis Yeah I know that but water is still wet.
@@Darkloid21 What part of it? Most scientists define wetness as a liquid's ability to maintain contact with a solid surface, meaning that water itself is not wet.
Thank you for the discussion on epistemology. These different knowledge structures that you have presented strike me as a five dimensional game of rock paper scissors, each piston Aliti structure has a strength as weakness, and no one of them can stand alone or be undefeated by a combination of others.
that's because he only named bad structures. they all are types of justificationalism, the misconception that knowledge is about justifying one's beliefs.
My response to skepticism is pragmatism. I might not be able to know whether the bus speeding towards me is real, but I will assume it’s real and get out of the way before I make sure my perceptions are true.
Or become incapable of knowing if they are true.
So if it's pragmatic for you to go along with a popular religious or political ideology which has an unsound epistemology, you'd go along with it as long as it's safer for you?
@@NelemNaru, I suggest you search what is pragmatism in the context of epistemology.
I just woke up and I am half asleep, so I can't explain, but it is not just about avoiding to be killed.
@@thomasfplm Pragmatism offers evolutionary benefits by prioritizing personal and group survival, but it can lead to unethical outcomes when a group remains in power by compromising truth. Thus, while pragmatism can address immediate challenges effectively, skepticism is essential for ensuring that our actions align with broader truths and fairness, preventing pragmatic decisions for a group from overshadowing the importance of an accurate understanding of reality.
@@NelemNaru, I think you are mixing different forms of pragmatism.
What you are talking about sounds more like an ethical pragmatism, similar to utilitarianism.
The pragmatism I'm talking about is the one that basically doesn't waste time on unknowable things, like if I'm a brain in a vat, or if I'm in the matrix.
If I'm in the matrix or not, I can know how physics work in the universe is perceive.
If someone manages to create a way to test if we are in a simulation, then it becomes relevant, until then there are other things to care about.
This fermented my hypotheses, about truth and why doubt is good, more. Thank you.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know! 😜
Always enjoy your videos. Can you possibly discuss Bayesian Epistemology in the future? I have a high credence that it is the most consistent Epistemology and have not come across any criticisms besides "it's hard" and "people don't actually do it"
Thank you
2:12 "Presuppositional apologists" - Cue Frank Turek :D
I was just reading about epistemology! I really needed this video to help make sense of the stuff I was reading.
Bladder problems? See the doctor to be100 pissant sure it isn't serious.
Beautiful illustrations!
Excellent episode........ one of my favorites on your channel full of Excellent content!! 👍 🫂
Oh, and shared!
Knowledge is based on proven facts that define reality! The knowledge of the sun as our source of light on earth is a proven fact therefore reality confirms that knowledge!
'Given the current evidence'.
To be more precise, it is a _confirmed_ fact, since science, as an inductive process, cannot "prove" claims. It is synthetic knowledge, not analytical knowledge. But thats a subject for another video by Stephen, which I look forward to.
Thanks, for your crash course! As always, keep up the great work!
When I see a tree in my yard, I think "How did that get there? It wasn't there yesterday!"
Last Thursdayism!
I'd ask that Treebeard fellow over there.
I think "One? Where are all the others?"
Since when did I have a yard? Is this even my house?
Where is God in your life? Do not tell me you are trapped into this empty cult called atheims, that nothing gives to your life? And you will be judge by God anyway, but as part of this cult and the worst generation you will be weaker than a believer....
Great explanation - Thanks!
The more we know the more we know we don’t know what we know.
Sifu Daevid Allen
Gong.
@@andymouse oh, YOU !
Albert actualy.
@@andymouse
I thought it was Fred Einstein, the well-known invisible man. His photo was missing in the paper last week.
@@VaughanMcCue :)
skepticism isn't about knowing things, it's about unknowing things.
There's a distinct possibility that our perception of the world is not actually a true interpretation of the environment in which we exist. The reason is natural selection, the likelihood of our seeing a true interpretation of the world around us is slim, as having a perception that is accurate as opposed to one that maximises our chances of survival and therefore procreation would seem likely to be the case. Donald Hoffman's idea far more eloquently explained in a TED talk he did.
this reminds me of a Zen saying. "when you start on the path, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers. once you're on the path, mountains are no longer mountains, and rivers are no longer rivers. when you arrive, mountains are once again mountains, and rivers are once again rivers." what we perceive as reality _is_ reality as far as we're concerned.
@@nondescriptcat5620 it's a very interesting TED talk and did appear to make a lot of logical sense well worth a watch if you enjoy philosophical analysis. I guess it's not impossible that the zen was his inspiration.
Though there are a few things I disagree with in his book, the most salient to me was the conclusion drawn from game theory as he applied it.
I felt that, as he described it in the book, it lacked the testing to sufficiently exclude other forms of perception.
But I digress and assume that there were more tests neither stated in his book or in his talks. ...and that, having not done the tests myself, that I just misunderstood something. (My demon of misunderstanding, misinformation, or misleading.)
In the end, it is a great theory to exorcise the muscle between my ears.
It seems intuitive that actually perceiving the world correctly would most promote one's survival. If you need soemthing to drink, and you have a false belief that what is petrol in front of you is some drink, you die.
@@Nexus-jg7ev Are you proposing that as an example of our seeing reality, or hinting at the opposite in favor of being able to parse the data fast enough to realize it is hazardous to us before we drink it? Hence, a simpler "icon" that doesn't convey all the data in favor of efficiency.
Oh, this is very interesting. Somehow it just occurred to me that when I was first studying philosophy while in Seminary, there was no real discussion of epistemology, but everything we were taught was based upon Coherentism. Which considered it was a Neopagan/Wiccan school makes perfect sense. Everyone's different and sometimes conflicting beliefs needed to be accounted for.
Thank you very much for this. I've looked at all these epistemological concepts in isolation before, but never really compared them side by side like this. I generally landed at being sceptical and maybe lean towards evidentialism.
In my experience anyone who defaults to radical skepticism as a counterpoint to your argument likely doesn't have a leg to stand on for their own stuff. This was very common in my speaking with spirituality type people who use the lack of total certainty as justification to believe anything they want as fact.
I don't think radical skepticism is that useful in the sense that it doesn't do what you say, which is seek stronger justifications and improvements but rather denies you can have such things. I think there is a different beast all together, especially since even the skeptic despite their protests has to act on what could be called some semblance of knowledge to live and survive in the world. I don't think it's the big bad wolf you say it is, it's a functionally empty philosophy that doesn't really offer much.
I didn't walk away from this not knowing what to believe. To me if something is reliable and repeatable then that's good enough. Maybe it might be wrong but what else is there? I think you illustrated why philosophy doesn't really help in day to day or go anywhere.
Also the title is misleading.
But what you have described as your pragmatic (in the colloquial sense) attitude is itself
an implicitly philosophical stance, based on "reliability is good enough" for mundane purposes, so it is in fact helping you in your daily life. Especially when it allows you not to waste your time with what you regard as idle mental activity. So youre actually a philosopher in spite of yourself.😉
@@owlcowl Not really no. You’re adding too much that isn’t there. It’s not philosophy because I’m not taking any stance, giving any argument or thought to it. I just live.
But the practice itself is idle mental activity with no benefit or use or anything else. Just look at animals and tell me how useful the practice is.
So no, I’m not a philosopher, you’re seeing what isn’t there. I’m just an animal living. Though you did demonstrate how useless it is.
Thanks for this well spoken and understandable video
Thanks!
Thanks :)
Thank you, my friend. Brilliant.
When Socrates got to the Oracle of Delphi, he asked "who is the wisest man in all of Greece" the oracle replied "you are." Socrates then said "But I don't know anything" and the oracle told him that's why he's the smartest. Not a true story, but it serves the point
"I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either." - Plato, Apology (Cary translation)
But if he knows that he knows nothing, then there is something that he knows. Global skepticism is self-defeating.
@@Nexus-jg7evA wise man would understand "I know nothing" isn't mean literally.
@@internettevarolanadam So, wise men are not global skeptics?
@@Nexus-jg7ev I'm so hungry I could eat a horse. You better hide yours if you have one.
I know, your video editing quality has enhanced along with all the recent updates in Ai video and image editing software ❤
All my beliefs are provisional
including that one?
@@cthoadmin7458 Yep. And that one over there.
@@cthoadmin7458 That's not a belief
@@alanmacification then what is it?
@@cthoadmin7458 a principle
These were mesmerising graphical images- truly beautiful.
I normally hate AI art but I think it is perfect for philosophy videos like this.
It's just lazy
Thanks for this. As usual, I suspect the answer is "Yes and...". I don't know why people have to believe there's one and only one right theory.
I have all of these as influences on how I think, especially skepticism which I have a particular fondness of because it feeds into how I think about any of the other methods of thinking and trying to find hidden assumptions. I have always thought of knowledge not as a static thing that one can be sure of but rather something that emerges from assuming certain things to be true and testing for consistency then thinking about how consistent another set of views could be with whatever data you have collected and what the assumptions of said system would be and testing those and so on.
I despise video titles like these because the content is worth sharing with friends and groups, but doing so makes you look like an asshole because the video title is adheres to clickbait patterns
Beliefs are conceptual hypnotic trances.
Surprised you didn't mention Foundherentism! (Susan Haack).
Otherwise, lovely episode. Wish this was around when I fed myself intros to these :p
Please stop with the AI art.
This. What I was thinking the entire video. Total coal
My beliefs are wrong? How can you know? Surely, my beliefs are uncertain - I can have little confidence in them being right, but just as little confidence in them being wrong. Knowing my beliefs are wrong would give a certainty I am uncomfortable with.
Say you've got a thousand beliefs at 99% certainty, you've got less than a 1/10,000 chance that those thousand beliefs are all correct.
So you've got at least two beliefs that are wrong. The belief that you were 99% certain but were mistaken. And the belief that none of those high-probability beliefs was wrong is also incorrect.
In practice, we've got innumerable beliefs running all the time and they run the spectrum from very probably correct (or very close to correct) right down to "I've got a good feeling about this week's lottery!" And we can't really examine all our beliefs for reliability, as this video explained.
So we know that at least some of our beliefs must be wrong, just as a statistical certainty, even if we never find one.
Human intuition on probability and statistics is pretty shit.
@@archapmangcmg True, but it hinges on what you mean by 'your beliefs'. If it means the set of beliefs you hold, as if we have an AND operation being applied (ie belief a and belief b and belief c...) then you're right. But if you mean each and every belief is indivudally and separately wrong then that logic doesn't work. Instead, calculate the probability of one of my beliefs being correct to negate the proposition.
I can't even conceive of the idea of every one of my beliefs being correct, and I expect that if I was capable of laying out all of my beliefs on a big table and examining them, I would be shocked at the contradicitions and bury my head in shame.
@@michaelmarchant7245
There is the problem in science of "All models are wrong but some are useful". This one shows that even single beliefs are almost certainly wrong, if we restrict "correct" to only "perfectly/100.00000% correct" levels of perfection.
So, yeah, it _sucks_ but this is part of why we can't be justified in having perfect certainty, why we can't know things absolutely, however you want to put it. And that inevitably leads back to.. our beliefs are wrong. (Or they're not absolutely right, at least.)
The constant whining about presuppsotionalism is quite annoying. The whole presupp school of thought is based on the idea that everyone makes presuppositions, and that at a paradigm level its unavoidable. The question then becomes which presuppositions are justified. Revelatory theism, specifically Eastern Orthodox Christianity, really is the only view that can make sense of reality itself, as its the only worldview capable of giving a coherent account for the pre-conditions of knowledge. Otherwise you're forced to just presuppose things like logic etc, which is just arbitrary - at which point i can just as arbitrarily go "God just is". This is especially devastating for a foundationalist materialist worldview, since you can't extract the laws of logic foe example from sense data.
Jay Dyer is that you?.....'>......
@lzzrdgrrl7379 yessir. Out here presupping these low tier atheists
Well done!
Well done, young thinker! Thoroughly and clearly explained, with an evenhandedness that is intellectually refreshing and stimulating. Skepticism is my default position, but humility requires an admission of its limitations. I also wonder if the most wholesome approach is an amalgam of each epistemological position, being cognizant of their strengths and weaknesses, to most authentically arrive at what is more likely than not, demonstrably true.
This one's so nice I watched it twice.
Epistemology is solved by just two very simple ideas: logic, and Occam's razor.
Logic is the idea that what is true is true by definition. So long as conclusions are entailed by the definitions of the terms being used, that conclusion is true. Occam's razor is the idea that an empirical model is more likely than another to accurately describe reality if it requires less assumption for it to be coherent with our experience of reality.
Occam's razor is secondary to logic, and it's a principle that can be logically deduced. Each of the epistemological frameworks you present here are, limited by generally accurate, ways of understanding Occam's razor, but they fail to touch the foundation of knowledge.
All knowledge relies on logic, but empirical knowledge also relies on sensory experience. All "inductive reasoning" is deductive reasoning with probabilities. All syllogisms which are logically valid are also true, if you formulate them correctly (essentially prefacing all premises with "if").
Wow! What a delightful set of information. You made me feel lucky I have poor vision and astigmatism at a young age. I never trusted information from that sense. Every single decision could result it injury if I did not dig deeper.
Loved this and would love more like it! Very nice, Steve!
I really like that epistemic nihilist approach of "OK, you CAN'T know anything for sure, but there are degrees of certainty you can have". You cannot ever go to 100% certainty, but that shouldn't stop you for reaching those high 90's, or from realizing that weak evidence provide less certainty than strong ones. It's not because we can't know for sure that we shouldn't try at all.
Really enjoy this educational content
More like this please Steve.
I've always thought that self doubt is something that I should always have.
I find it absolutely fascinating to think about how fragile our understanding of reality and truth actually is. It's really just a thin thread holding together what we think to be real and what we think to not be real. I'm not sure I want to be comfortable or confident that we understand what we think we do. I would rather be uncomfortable and unsure that anything I think to be true may be true at all.
"I am the master of nothing"
Finest philosophical teaching!
I solve this by separating "believe" into its two meanings.
1- what I hold as true
2- what I suspect, without enough evidence, as true
What is in (1)? Nothing except cogito ergo sum
So there I join the sceptics...
No nr. 3 - what I hold as impossible/not true? (for instance #1 = #2)
@@BlacksmithTWD
You are probably right, but I am not sure. Damn, now I am back on 2 again.
@@VaughanMcCueWhy do you claim not to be sure yet to be able to be back on 2 again?
@@BlacksmithTWD
You got me there. I think my brain fell out.
Descartes commits the stolen concept fallacy. The stolen idea is one of truth. To understand an error you need to be able to distinguish between true and false. If there's no truth, then error is just a sound your mouth makes. Another way to look at it. If someone says, "How do you know you're not in the Matrix?" you ask, "What evidence do you have of such a state? When I look at a tree, in what way am I not seeing what I am seeing?" In the Matrix movie, you have to take the red pill and then push up your membrane. Once in the real, you can see the ports on your arms and head. Without any evidence of membranes or ports the suggestion of living in a simulacrum is a fantasy. To insist that you could be wrong without evidence, is to surrender your mind. Descartes' doubt is a dead-end road to knowledge.
OK, but I actually have evidence that I can be wrong. The evidence: all those times when I was wrong.
It seems like a lot of people, rather than engaging with Epistemology in any way, just decide that truth is whatever feels right to them. At least that's what feels right to me 🐎🐎
Thank you for this video! Your direct, calm explanations made these complex subjects much more approachable to a layman like me. I've watched a lot of debates with pre-suppers, and this is good reinforcement against their dishonesty. Would you consider making a video drawing from this one on how to combat presupp arguments and what the flaws in their thinking are? I think that would super helpful done in your style!
Very informative. I wish we see more of like this one.
The first question must be: What is belief? Does that mean certainty or more likely than not?
I'm fairly new to this side of philosophy, but I had an idea. I'd be interested if it fits into any already existing viewpoints.
Knowledge doesn't exist as a literal, obtainable thing. It is a concept - an attempt to objectively categorise practicable understanding and sensory knowledge (i.e. information received by our evolved senses). All I can do is act as my senses guide me; the light my eyes pick up, the sounds I hear, etc. I have deemed it the most logical way to think and act, and the most likely to lead me to good ends. I suppose it would also make sense for it to be instinctual for us to act on our senses.
As far as we can sense, we are all experiencing the same reality, and so we can combine sensed information to compile together what is, for all intents and purposes, 'knowledge': practicable understanding that, sure, isn't absolute knowledge, but works and makes sense, as far as is useful and beneficial.
Rationality Rules, Stephen, weirdly, I watched this, but couldn't get the part here, to like and comment! Excellent explanation of epistemology. Are you degreed? You should be, even if you're 'self taught' !👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏽
Where is God in your life? Do not tell me you are trapped into this empty cult called atheims, that nothing gives to your life? And you will be judge by God anyway, but as part of this cult and the worst generation you will be weaker than a believer.....
Jeez, Stephen. Superb job!
19:26 it ended so abruptly, I thought I accidentally hit skip or something lol 😂
I would think you could add an advanced form of skepticism: Pyrrhonism. Yes, it's not really that new, but it does take the criticism by the horns. It doesn't claim that we cannot know anything, just that it is wise to suspend judgement, both in assenting and in dissenting, until possibly sufficient evidence is at hand.
If you know nothing. How do you know that you know nothing? It’s paradoxical
It's rather that you may know it but you never be sure.
Is it same? In practical reality it's equivalent to you know nothing.
I love these videos please make more of those rather that responding to terrbile religious arguments. Btw which song is this 9:45 ?
Whenever a world view is explained by philosophy rather than science, I am sceptical in the extreme.
You are being silly, science is a branch of philosophy. What do you think the abbreviation PhD even stands for?
@@BlacksmithTWD It has a name that is a misnomer, but that means it must mean the same thing. 🤣🤣🤣 I suppose that means king crabs must be crabs, panama hats come from panama, and your funny bone is a bone?
And no, science is not a branch of philosophy. Trying to comprehend the laws that govern the universe is a mechanical issue, not a wafty philosophical one.
@@Martial-Mat Only because you apply a more narrow definition of what philosophy is. Just like most people these days happen to apply a more narrow definition of what discrimination is, making them think of the word only in a negative way while in fact the word is actually neutral.
@@BlacksmithTWD The Philosophy Foundation defines it as "Philosophy is a way of thinking about certain subjects such as ethics, thought, existence, time, meaning and value." That's pretty much how I think about it too.
@@Martial-Mat And the dictionary defines it : "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." both can be interpret as including all scientific endeavours.
Feels like they all offer an approach that when taken together with applied skepticism we can achieve the best possible level of knowledge and "knowing." We need an established foundation on which to build knowledge and beliefs, we need them to be coherent, we need the means of discovering them and understanding them to be reliable, and we need evidence to justify them. Skepticism, then, allows us to be as honest as possible.
(Sorry for my english) Regarding scepticism and "a brain in a vat" topic I would touch the question "what is the reality". If my brain lives in a vat,if I am the only one living and all others are just simulated NPC,it is my reality and I am interested about this world mechanics. If all our brains live in one common vat it is our reality,even if the world outside the vat is wildly different. If there are consistent law,rules and patterns in our world, it doesn't matter, that the world outside has different set of rules.
Plato's cave?