I appreciate Professor Dave's bluntness on topics. Not everyone should sugarcoat things to make them easier for others to understand. Doing that makes it seem like science denial is less severe, and people who blatantly deny the facts need to be taken seriously.
@@ThinkForYourself2025 yes, whatever the approach, there should be a price to pay for wanton gullibility, irrationality and stupidity. We have allowed these people to externalise the costs of their actions for far too long.
@@ThinkForYourself2025 all the deniers can go is "ughhh this Dave fellow is soooooo rude and angry arghhhh don't listen to what he has to say he's just an angry rude person!!1!!"
Agreed. I think scientist and educators have been patient and compassionate to the loudest moron in the room for far too long. I used to think being boisterous and arrogant could only get you so far but apparently it can win you a presidential election. Moving away from science and evidence based practices/policies will cost a lot of lives. It's time for scientists and educated people to get loud for the sake of those who don't know any better.
When you consider the amount of straight up educational content that Dave provides, i think his motive is obvious. He wants to help others to learn how to learn.
@@velleity5369 wait so you're telling me professor dave isn't just a shill paid off by NASA, IMF, Elon Musk, ESA and all the universities combined??? 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
@velleity5369 Not me. I assumed he was a narcissist that gets drunk and posts derogatory videos about subjective ideas against people who really want to share.
@@codyman242002 dude, lying and subjectivity arent the same. You and i disagreeing on whether blue or pink is the prettiest color is subjective. Lying about evolution isnt
@@codyman242002 I think you’re being put off by Dave’s increasingly harsh tone. I think dismissing ideas outright which contradict LONG established science is justified, so we don’t set humanity back.
Thanks for the chat Dave. It was an interesting one. And keep fighting the fight for science (I see a few people in the comments suspecting that I might be a closet science denier 😄)
What!? Someone intelligent is respectfully asking questions and another intelligent person is answering the questions and providing interesting insight in 2024!? Why is it that THIS feels like the Twilight Zone lol!! I wish I were joking, but how refreshing and informative this was to watch. I loved every minute of it. Thumbs up to both of you guys - stellar job and thank you so much for the great content.
What makes me happy is that Dave gets 10x more attention on debunking and philosophy videos than the charlatans he makes fun of. The people have spoken. We love watching idiots get publicly humiliated
While nice, the enthusiasm on the internet unfortunately doesn’t translate to the voting booth. There’s a big disconnect. What might be laughed at here gets a pretty easy platform with rural landowners who aren’t so online, no matter the country. IDK what the solution for that is.
@TheFerruccio almost everyone in the US has access to the internet, they just don't run in the same circles as us. Quite honestly, the problem really isn't lack of internet for anyone in any developed nation, they have plenty of internet and they have their own echo chambers where they spread their bullshit. Yes, Dave's content is popular, but so are people like Eric, Sabine, Terry, etc. They all have their own online communities.
A pro to Prof Dave’s delivery and tone, that I find personally, is that it’s informative and it’s also extremely cathartic to have most, if not all, these people so bluntly called out, proven wrong and spoken to in exactly the way that they deserve.
Professor, your ass kicking in the name of the real is a inspiration. Please keep this up and most importantly please also remember to take care of yourself too. I’m not concerned that you’re unhealthy I mean take extra care in the mental health department. You are a great warrior for truth, and many will try and emulate you. 😊
I feel sorry for Sabine. She made some foolish statements but who hasn’t? She still has a lot wider and deeper understanding of her field than most people.
Really enjoying these long form discussion videos. It's nice to hear consistently proper discussion, instead of violent intellectual detours into nonsense like with the usual idiots you cover. This more interview/open discussion format is super informative and makes for good listening. 🙂
This was a total waste of time, and frankly it was a therapeutic sounding board for Dave to let out his frustrations about the world and people that are in it lol. I can understand the sentiment, but was this productive? Absolutely not Dumb people are still dumb, and con artists will never run out of willing "victims", so what was accomplished in this conversation? Abso-lutely, nothing
@@PaperRaines Someone says it was super informative for them and made for good listening. Clearly, you did not understand the sentiment if your conclusion is "absolutely nothing was accomplished." Ironically, you have engaged in something so unproductive and absolutely useless out of an apparent distaste for unproductive things in the first place. Dumb people are indeed still dumb; ostensibly, you are one of them or just a willing victim to your own pessimistic stupidity.
Semi-educated mathematician here -- the prevalence of a notion of "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is so irritating. It's a language humans have created IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE. It's not like arbitrary formulas and equations necessarily describe something in nature. We refine them so that they end up matching our observations. The real oddity is the unreasonable effectiveness of human extrapolation. EDIT: Much of the time, we develop new mathematical structures to describe new theories. To me, it's too big a coincidence that cutting-edge science is paired with recent mathematical developments to conclude that there is anything intrinsic about math which pre-disposes it to any sort of predictive meta-physical prowess. A counter example to the idea that math leads us to the truth in some way distinguished from human creativity: string theory. It's such a beautiful idea. The base assumptions stood in good stead to drastically reduce the number of "moving pieces" in our understanding of physics. However, it has to this point failed to materialize any meaningful predictions, despite hope that it might. The beautiful math did not lead to actual depictions of reality, as far as we can tell. I think the notion as a whole comes from lazy (or simply too-fast-for-developing-intuition, depending on your perspective) pedagogy in physics, where "proof by example"-style lectures rule the day, presumably due to sheer amount of material required to be conveyed. To me, this is a form of cherry-picking. Students are learning exclusively of instances when following mathematical hunches lead to expedient (and correct in hindsight) results, neglecting the presumably multitudinous instances where such thinking would have been counterproductive. Newton's insights on gravity were effective, but not as effective as Einstein's. Simply because they were both embedded in mathematical language, math as a sacred knowledge is somehow credited. It's not divine in any way. The advantages of math over other language are simple and profound, but not inexplicable. Math is relatively unambiguous, logic-based, and precise as necessary. However, it bears to keep in mind that anything expressed in mathematical notation can be translated to any other language, but not visa-versa. Mathematical insights are a subset of insights possible to be described by humans. Nothing more.
@ Yes that’s true. At some level, it’s a semantics game, which undermines the universality of math. A notable piece of evidence against my case is the fact that at least a dozen species use rudimentary numerical reasoning daily. However, this could also be a case of humans imposing human-like thought (anthropomorphizing) other species. I feel that reasoning could also be described as preferable materials. For instance, a pile of three bananas is preferable to a pile of one; and a group of three predators is less preferable to a group of one. One might argue that abstractification in human psyche’s leads to math, along a similar train of reasoning. Hard to tell - both zoology and neuroscience would have to advance in order to determine conclusively.
I agree with this perspective. Maybe we could say that Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness" is best applied to the "narrative" of science. This is what we were getting at with the "everyday perspective" on science (and maths). The reality is that most people will never understand math on the level required to see math as a language in the generic sense (you can tell them, but they don't "feel" it) much less use it creatively. I think it is also fair to say that progress is outstripping our intuition.
@@asphaltpilgrim Thank you for your response, and for the video as a whole. You had a great conversation, and I didn't mean to detract from the merit of the ideas presented. Your reframing here is compelling. If I had to guess as to the motivation of Winger, it's similar to the motivations of G. H. Hardy in A Mathematician's Apology -- caught up in the intoxicating fervor of surveying the landscape of collective human knowledge. It is truly something to marvel at, but in my estimation, it is equivalent to admiring stirring poetry. It touches the emotional core of a person, true, but that does not inherently bely some supernatural or similarly ephemeral quality.
The basics of all science is written in maths. But there are whole swathes of mathematics that have no relevance to the world we live in. Although, on occasion, new scientific discoveries have needed maths that previously had no real-world application. But you can invent a whole system of maths that applies only to an imaginary universe that bears no resemblance to our own.
Viktor Frankl had an interesting way of presenting "meaning". He was a firm believer that purposeful work, love and the SEARCH for meaning can give reason and fulfillment to humans. Not sure how novel the idea is in the grand scheme of things, but I have always liked the idea that the inquisitive mind when directed purposefully, more or less cause purpose to "emerge" if you will. Kinda calls back to "the examined life is one worth living" (loose paraphrasing 😂)
I missed this one when originally looking thru the comments, but yes this is an excellent prospect on meaning. It will be based on narratives more than truth though I think which is where I see the problem that science has.
@@asphaltpilgrim I never read the original book by Frankl with any sort of pre-conceived conclusion. I think if one wants to find pattern or issue in a broad sense, it will always be found. Such is the nature of being a pattern seeking creature. Science is a tool (a method more or less). Using science or trying to view science AS a narrative is already incentivizing pattern seeking behavior, but that's like my opinion man. Conversation was great either way!
Great talk. People should be imbued with enough humility and sense to live their lives without necessity for an overarching sense of "meaning". Who's to say there even is one? With that understanding, how is it even a requirement?
I think people are trying to be happy and to be happy you have to be adored and often we tend to adore people who are useful. Religion gives a false sense of usefulness, because it promises you specific things, but doesnt really tell you how it will give you them or how to get them exactly.
Never in my life have I changed my mind, because someone was trying to be nice about it. Nor have I changed my mind without an argument someone had. You need a precise argument and you need principle.
This debate actually opened with one of the central disagreements that leads to debate, that Dave is a materialist and the other guy is some kind of idealist. Debates never prove anything, because in order to find truth, we have to ground our observations in actual reality. That's what separates Dave (and other Sci communicators) from the charlatans. The only purpose of (this) debate is to get an audience to shift towards actually testing their ideas, which is a good thing imo.
@@blanktesterYes, except we need someone as blunt as Dave I think, Pilgrim like Jordan Peterson sometimes tries to "bridge" his ideas with Dave's as if he is avoiding being wrong, while Dave says what he knows and says it clearly and precisely, so you can show him evidence against it.
But yet, they still exist. They're still spreading their narratives, they're still making money. You people, yes YOU people, need to get over yourselves with your superiority complexes, control issues, and your violent arousement at ideas of "crushing", "owning", "dunkin", etc., people you disagree with in conflicts. Nothing, happens with those people except they continue to exist, but just more resentful towards you afterwards Mind you, I hope I don't have to do a heavy lift here to explain this, we did just elect Donald Trump as president for the second time. Has all your side's dunking and owning had the impact you wish it had? No?? Okay then, we're still a country filled with imperfect, proudly stupid, individuals, and they're not changing because they don't have to. Everybody has the right to be stupid, bro. Get over yourself and accept this
@@work1917study I'm not sure I fully agree with Dave's attitude toward mockery in general but I do envy his ability to articulate directly and bluntly precisely what he means and then back it up.
@@blanktester I hear you and I would say, when he is being extra rude, its definitely for entertainment and should not be used as an example of how to have discussion.
I thought your guests point about connecting peoples disillusionment with religion to their distrust of science was really useful in terms of understanding what some people are imagining when they think of the abstract concept of science. Ultimately the goal is still the same which is help them define it more usefully in their own minds, but it can help figure out specifically what they're not understanding or what they don't know yet.
I think we've all been introduced to science as a mythology as children, an apple falling on newtons head etc. however as adults we need the learn to make the distinction
Hey Dave, have you ever considered making a video with CosmicSkeptic? I'm not sure what I would expect, but it would be interesting to see what you think of each other and what you agree or disagree on. I think both of you come across as very open-minded but skeptical (duh) people who also have pretty strong and justified/thought-through opinions.
You are completely correct about a basic level of scientific knowledge being necessary to distinguish the science educators from the mavericks, grifters, cranks, and charlatans on TH-cam. But I would add that a course in critical thinking, including and especially media studies, is also very helpful. I have that background in both basic science and critical thinking, and I had no trouble distinguishing between the two during the COVID-19 pandemic. It saves a hell of a lot of time, and you learn a hell of a lot more from real science educators teaching you real science. Long term, that is the solution: basic science, media studies, and critical thinking as part of the school curriculum. But good luck with that, especially in the US.
NO SINGLE SCIENTIST ever should speak for the entire community, purely out of fealty to the Scientific Method, as this is simply contrary to its elementary notions... Giambattista Vico, an early historian of science, wrote in defense of "the practitioner's innocence" towards data sought and revealed, meaning: the practitioner is laid *prone* to the evidence revealed in their research; or, by agreeing to the terms of the Scientific Method (caps for dramatic impact), they (he/she) is *obliged* to logical acceptance. This is a view, there are others. Serious devotees of logic, like good Prof. Dave, aid us all in their laborious illustration of these principles.
Dave, if you're interested in exploring the idea of free will from a scientific point of view, you can't go past Robert Sapolsky's two books on the topic, the most recent being: "Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will". He covers quantum effects, as well as chaos theory and emergence.
I also adhere to a thought matrix that most closely conforms to my outlook on the world and how I see it. I desire a position which makes me feel the most comfortable and creative. I’ve found it best, in order to feed my creativity and educational journey, to “believe” in the who, what or why driving my success and progress without creating any guilt or boundaries to stifle the way I choose to live my life. I search out and align myself with and reward those who will instruct and disseminate to me what I want to hear and in turn, I will pass information on to those who are of like mind.
At 19:00 you have to careful using the word faith, as it has two meanings, one is trust, and the other is belief without evidence. People will hear I have faith in science and go "See my religion is the same as your science because we both take it on faith".
What they miss is that, some people are too lazy to actually check the science so they just go along with media, some people have "Faith In Media", which just like religion is asking you not to question it, science is a method that is the process of questioning exactly.
Of course science has been false many times, which it has self-corrected eventually, which it its strength, but it isn't always truth. False science can run on for decades or in the case of intelligence in nature (plants, insects, animals) has been wrong for centuries. Art can be truth in a way that isn't scientific, but is insightful and wise as is the case in many novels, paintings, poems, films etc. What's my point? Simplistic beliefs are easily punctured with critical thinking. Science seeks the truth, but it can be false. Art can be ugly. Don't get me started on religion. :)
Religion is the emotional illusion of giving hope. Who wants to face the facts that will return to the earth and feed the undergrowth when we die, Not very inspiring.
I listen to Verdi's Requiem Mass not because I believe the premise of its subject, but because it's an art form I've always appreciated since my earlier years. Just like his other, mostly, operatic works, it's just a made up story set in music that I listen to.
Prof Dave! My apologies that I’ve commented before and not asked. Given your knowledge in science and aptitude re music, would it be too large and ask to do a crossover video? If for no other purpose, the effects of specific circuits on a signal? In this instance, take a guitar string with a Klon or a TS9, what areas are exaggerated and why? How do the components play a part? I know this is boilerplate in any guitar forum. I also know you very much have your plate full - but I would also argue that you are in a unique position, being a science communicator and an adept musician. All I’m saying is that this could be very cool and while admittedly niche - extremely valuable to those it would reach :)
Now do a video about the Science of Philosophy from a materialist point of view. What are the neurological processes that lead to having certain perspectives and level of curious inquiry from a physical material point of view
Personally, I find free will to be logically incoherent and therefore impossible. Either an action is influenced by past causal factors, and is therefore not free, or is entirely random and not free.
Really? I thought it was rather odd. An appeal to quantum mystery basically. Of course, what Pilgrim means by free will and what Dave means by free will may not be the same. Quantum mechanics does nothing to help free will in the philosophical 'libertarian free will' sense. The concept is simply incoherent, like @jackkrell4238 stated.
Relegere means To Bind or To Gather. And it does form part of the basis of the word Religion. Ties back seems to be adding meaning to the concept beyond the simple meaning of the word.
what is science? really has two answers 1) is the normative definition: the method of inquiry - the combination of observation, hypothesis generation, experimentation and data collection, statistical testing, interpretation and communication, and peer review. 2) is the descriptive definition: the real world machinery of science - the people, the publications, the institutions, data banks, libraries, classrooms, text books, etc.
I am an almost religious proponent of the scientific method, and I am a die hard materialist (more tending towards that there is no free-will). However I would like to give the otherside some serious gun-powder: 1) 5 sigma ... well go to chemistry, material sience or biology ... you will see this scrutiny is almost never applied 2) scientific method ... well there is no standardized, rigorous definition of it. Look at two, arbitrary scientific discourses and you'll see that a) what ever your definition is, it will be commonly violated and b) it will be different for each discourse if you would try to extract a commin denominator. 3) you will find ample example in the past and presence of sience failing, it is just a system and a fuzzy one on top of that (excluding some areas of mathematics). Hence, while I think sience is a bit like democracy, the least bad system, there is no reason not critize it. In contrast, only by subjecting the system itself to the scrutiny it enforces on its subject does it have a chance to float on top. No reason to defend any single aspects of it ... The core of why I believe in it, is that criticism is not only allowed, but valued. As it is inside democracy.
you do not have to believe in science, you have to open your eyes and see the methods that scientists and others are using. That is all you have to follow.
Problem with questioning science, is then you have to replace it with a different philosophy and I think science is easier to understand, due to its material nature, than any other philosophy, trying to explain the world.
Professor Dave, it would be great to hear Sam Harris and yourself have a similar conversation, you guys are fighting the same fight.. Would you also be interested ?
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsthat would actually break the internet because we’re on a thin line right now as a civilization. you guys together would really help people who deny science understand the reason why it is killing us
Sam Harris has some deep flaws. Have a look at the video by Rebecca Watson where she talks about him being duped by ufologists (TH-cam: Rebecca Watson: "Who's Pranking Sam Harris & Eric Weinstein about UFOs?"). The audio of Harris talking about this should greatly embarrass his fans and send his detractors into fits of laughter. He can be a bit of a pseudointellectual in my opinion. He used to be part of the Intellectual Dark Web (members: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Bari Weiss, Bret Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Heather Heying, and Christina Hoff Sommers).
Dave, I was caught by the click bait title you approved. :). I also did feel like there was a tentativness around trying to get some whoowhoo injected. (Daoism). But I got damaged by fundamental right-wing Christianity, and I've been in the place where I wanted something to be true, so it always feels to me like a self-decieved, which leaves us in a position of knowing less and "keeping and open mind" that now takes space in something that is extremely unlikely. I think there is something to be said about mental models, and practices do have physical effects (meditation does have a physical response, but so does a placebo, so I've have to conclude that how we think can affect our physiology). What it feels like though, when someone wants to believe in a soul or eternal portion of a human some how existing, is an attempt to smuggle something in that has never been observe except via "personal experience". I've had a personal experience with Jesus and Yahweh and the Holy Spirit, and experienced prophesies and spoke in tongues and felt special, but I've also experienced praying and fastibg when the words written in the books didn't happen, being told I was filled with demons by my pastor because they were preaching prosperity but everyone in the church was poor and desperate, and I saw thag as very clearly a "tree not bearing fruit". I mention the above because that was my experience and frame of reference then. I no longer believe and have become a hard materialists, because I can still speak in tongue and "conjure up" the feeling of talking with a god when I prayed. Sometimes I might miss it, but when old patterns and synapses are firing, (and they were firing as a form of talking to yourself), there is a sudden cognitive dissonance knowing thag you do not believe anymore but mentally in your head you are also talking to this old god like you used to. I don't know how much of that comes around the theory of mind, and that we have general physical and autonomous (that regulate heart beats and breathing), miligdal and "unconcious" mind that is trained to patterns to minimze expending energy (muscle memory is also here, as we'll as "common sense" when we don't carefully observe or consider), and higher thinking that takes time to work though a problem (but this also expends the most energy, and the unconcious tries to interfere). So, if our unconcious mind is also geared to look for threats and to anthropomophise, we shouldn't be surprised we have a sense of gods, or that our high level thinking seems separate from our basers thinking (so is that the eternal part?), and religions and dieties a created by us a parental figures. The added bonus for those willing to feed those ideas, is that "surrendering" to that parent or path looks wise, but really is infantilization. I think that, recognizing what ground we have made in both science and technology, that we should do to philosophy what we did to physics, quantization and probability. When given the sense of listlessness one might have, is this cause by: A. Not having a purpose (when purpose implies an overarching grand plan of some external entity of actor, where we are only good and right if we operate in said purpose, with the sense of not "following your purpose" being a vaguely uneasy feeling of not knowing, B. you have been feeling emotional, environmental and social stresses and you don't feel like you know where you are in the social hierarchy (or that position is threatened), so out of a way to alleviate that stress and mentally frame and practise thinking about future actions, you mind start trying to see if it can match to a "reasison etre" to minimize overthinking. In the course of this, the second sense of dread (from generalized logical and natural threat detection thinking) kicks in about how would you know what your purpose is, as it would be much easier to say "this is how I am, or my reason for living", the recognizing this is a planned coping mechanism for possible social critism, or C. You require the use of the toilet and it has been a slow pressure that is running as a sensation at the back of your mind, and it is affecting / agitating. Muscle soreness is also becoming more pominent in background thought, and the recognition thaf you are physical and mortal lingers in the back of you thoughts, with the knowledge of limited number of days in your life are left. This triggers a self-evalution, but there is no clear Internalized self that is easily described, you so feel you have lack of purpose. You also are hungry and that is starting to make you agitate easier. Given the, rather short options above, B and C and their variants explain the mind both as an evolutionary organism in chemicals with chemistry, that maps to species socialization, internal reasoning, and experience. Answe B even takes the step to identify why we feel differences between our physical self and our mental model (you can tell we are physical beings all the way down just buy getting drunk. Our thoughts, decision making and actions are immediately affected). Answer A implied systems and things that we have no evidence for, does and answer that comes down to because (why do you have a purpose, BECAUSE god or the universe has given me one, (which is still internal rationalizion and self regulation) Some internal "morals" as a social species have formed, and give a general sense of compassion and right vs wrong, but this is also a brain evolution, to either fake it until you make it (in the case of a sociopath to reach breeding) or a self selected generalize trait of compassion for another human, especially if they are outside your perceived peer group. I guess what I am trying to say is, we use Classical Newtonian mechanics at the scale we live, so likewise we think in terms good and bad, purpose, love and hate, etc. Our quatum realm is brain science and chemical baths for our brains and general physiology. The quantum mechanical level is always happening and produces the appearance of strict Newtonian rules and aggregate, but it is always the reactions on the quanta and the probabilities of their interactions that produce our expected reactions. So when we think there is an unconcious (or shorthand way of thinking), which has been a useful model on how to approach in interpret expereinces, we can clearly see that feeling of self, of gods, and general feelings themselves, are all an interaction of the larger physically forces at play, and the shaped and learned synapse patterns in where we natually think. With that understanding, then the larger, physical world explains both the natural and the sense of "supernatural". Hopefully i've made my point, and especially if you re-watch the video. We naturally want to believe. I think the Matt Delahunty explainatiin of purpose supplied by ourselves, akin to chess pieces on a board make more sense. The idea goes like so; 1. Chess pieces are physical, 2. The chess board has white and black squares as a surface design. 3. The starting placement of the pieces are agreed upon by the players (and is not arbitrary). All movement of agreed identification of pieces are known by both players, 4. The order of turns is agree by other players, 5. The king capture is the wwith ir kiss if the game , 6......999 about rules and environment and strategies and critiques, 1000. All these meanings, rules, material pieces and gameplay have been created culturly. The by-product within the game's frame is that pieces have purpose in the context of stragegies, due to agreed limitations. The physical pieces do not have a purpose except what we have assigned to them. The purpose we give to the game may be distraction, socialization, exporation of metaphoses on life, etc., but that is once again an arbitrary purpose that we have assigned. To a 5 year old child, the purpose of the knight is to pantomime stories of a jumping horse. The TL is, if thought rationaly and stating the world is only physical and force interactions, we are speaking of the world and ourselves at a quantum level aloneaas we have high probability only the physical world and its interactions exists. When we move to the more generalized space of philosophy, we are confronted with old ideas that can be explained in better ways. To leave a basis "i don't know because Idon't know everything" allow whoo to be smuggled into serious science. (You cannot sympathetic ly vibrate to wealth, and though an observation may collapse an entangled pair quantum wave function, you cannot perform magic by looking at stuff). Whoo has damaged a lot, and has always begged for a way to be spoken of, the same way religion does. I think we can start to push out whoo based upon what we now know. I think the firmest ground to stand on is the most likely. Don't seed any ground unless something in the whoo is provale on the scale it claims the affect . (My half-asleep thoughts and $0.02)
He does seem to enjoy using abstract terms and metaphors instead of plain terminology. I can see what he's getting at for most of it, but I do tend to conclude that this type of conversational approach is less clear than it could be.
I like Dave saying that coming to terms with mortality is a measure of maturity for civilizations as a whole. Elon Musk’s vanity and inability to accept mortality is costing us dearly.
Love you stuff man. Just at the end and you said you do not know about over population. Well I think that's' your next step is to learn about that, take up some ecology. Just the simple graph of natural resources to population is evidence enough that we need to drastically reduce our population in every way. If not reduce our population then keep our population in a dead zone instead of spreading into all the remaining natural zones and destroying that. Quantity of wild life is down 70 percent since the 70's. Should we wait till it's 90 percent? Ecologists state the Earth can support no more then 2 billion while keeping the natural world in check. Your way of drilling in the facts would be gold with you drilling into the world we need to stop growth in every way. Sure science can probably make us live in a dead Earth that is Mars scenario. But all the animals will be gone. Talk of population reduction is logical and scientific, yet it is very taboo to say such things for some reason (Business). Hope you start saying something about it! It is not just global warming.
It was a a fine conversation and the reflective listening skills of the interviewer are to be applauded. I felt like some of the questions might have been more direct though. That would have given the opportunity to tackle some of the implications that may not have been clear in the non-confrontational (that I do appreciate) nature of the conversation. I think first of the two main themes was the implied hypothesis that science is the (main) cause of the so called 'meaning gap'. This false dichotomy is one of the unfortunate consequences of anti-intellectual and anti-institutional rhetoric taking hold in collective minds. In the multi-dimensional wide spectrum of human activity, how can one aspect (a major endeavor for sure) be the opposite of another completely? I think this naive question does reveal a huge problem with the way we are even having such conversations. The fact that a conversation related to meaning and how we live our lives is completely missing the socio-economic aspect should actually be mind boggling. Why is there no mention of our economic systems, our values and priorities as a society? Is capitalism not relevant? But it is no coincidence, anti-science (and all related efforts currently merging under the right wing machinery) is fundamentally a political campaign with the sole purpose of undermining legitimacy of institutions to allow powerful to escape scrutiny. Have you ever heard a populist actually make a non superficial criticism of the system? Second theme was, (in my interpretation) around some of the questions, the veiled implication that science is another faith, dogma or mythology. Though Dave touched on this I think this might need further discussion and clarification. I think the confusion is stemming from the concept of trust and belief. Yes, in our daily lives, as single humans, we have to operate by some faith and belief because it's impossible to know everything ourselves. But there is nothing in the scientific endeavor that requires faith or belief which is similar in nature to the other uses of it in religion, etc. There is no dogma, there is no hidden rule, knowledge. Everything is out in the open. We don't _believe_ in science or the scientific method. It makes sense to us, and we use the method to collect and update our knowledge (and also update the method). It's a way of learning. Nothing else. The trust and faith are only relevant because we, as a species have to rely on each other. Any collective activity needs some form of trust. Endeavor of science is no exception.
hey Dave, i really enjoy your debunk videos, any chance you could do one on Jimmy Corsetti, he reminds me so much of Billy Carson, it would be great to watch and listen to you do a number on him
Jimmy Corsetti (Jimmy Bright!) is your typical ignorant maverick who wallows in contrarianism and controversy and speaks to an uneducated audience because that is where his nonsense sells. He had a walk-on role in the recent attack by Graham Hancock - and his mate Dan Richards - on archeologist, Dr. Flint Dibble, after he completely overwhelmed Hancock in a over 4-hour long Joe Rogan podcast (JRE #2136). Dr Dibble's defense posted yesterday is on "Archaeology with Flint Dibble: A Public Letter to Joe Rogan from Flint Dibble". There is a short section on the despicable Jimmy. I cam across this fool many years ago when he was pushing the Richat structure as the site of Atlantis!
Interesting how Asphalt is trying to equate the flaws of the evolved human brain to deeper meaning. Science has been used to overcome these flaws to make predictions whereas “deep philosophy” requires our cobbled together consciousness to exist. It’s kinda neat though 🤔
I didn't think I **equated** those two things, but that is an interesting way to see it, and I do think that we are seem kind of inexorably bound to see science through the lens of our evolved qualities (transhumanism notwithstanding). We are kind of fighting against our own cobbled together consciousness.
I "can" trust you, or in what you say, but I CAN NOT TRUST in that, what you think it is true, or believe it is good faith, or .. There are several endings of this sentence. I Still love you!
Science is abstract. Our perception - even when we measure it - is subjective. Our definitions are biased towards human understanding. Its measurement of space (eg centimetres); Time (seconds), Force; speed; mass; volume, is quantified on arbitrarily constructed scales. The holistic nature of all phenomena can’t be fully captured. In this sense, the subjective side science, you can see a story made of characters. Father time does this to Senior Volume when Mrs mass behaves this way. It’s our technical story about the way things are. Given it’s a very useful story that allows people shape the world in reliable ways. It’s more of a culture than a mythology but of course culture has myth sustaining it.
Finally Pilgrim says something that I can check with a scientific method, but then he says "but dont use me as an authority on it" it is offensive to hear things that not even the speaker is sure of... Religara does mean translated literally to "re bind", but I cant find anything on what Pilgrim described that it is tying back of the "most beautiful and something else" 38:46
It is the root of the word religion then... so what **does** religion "tie back"? However you are right to check me - I am not an etymological expert, I am just a guy with 300 subscribers representing another person's ideas (Arendt's) as best I can, and I may have misunderstood.
You don't have to have "faith" in science. If you want to test Maxwell's Equations you can go to your local Radio Shack (or I guess not any more :-) ) buy the necessary items and prove them to yourself.
"Process isnt progress" this cant be true, because an process implies time and over time things progress, even in the beginning of the video, Dave mentions the Aromic theory and the "progress" of it
There is an ambiguity in my statement tbf. If you take progress to simply be "at a later point in a sequence" then sure, I see your point. But I (and I think Dave) am putting at least some political (maybe even moral?) weight on the word progress here, in which case I think the statement is correct (maybe with the word necessarily added in). But you are right, we did not stop to make that clear.
I think one can be a teleological nihilist (i.e. there is no absolute meaning) and still work with almost any personal meaning structure you like. See the earlier comment referencing Viktor Frankl. I don't think that a certain amount of nihilism is necessarily destructive; that said, it certainly can be.
I appreciate Professor Dave's bluntness on topics. Not everyone should sugarcoat things to make them easier for others to understand. Doing that makes it seem like science denial is less severe, and people who blatantly deny the facts need to be taken seriously.
Yep
@@ThinkForYourself2025 yes, whatever the approach, there should be a price to pay for wanton gullibility, irrationality and stupidity. We have allowed these people to externalise the costs of their actions for far too long.
@@DoctorOnkelapExactly, this election has shown how far these anti intellectuals can reach
@@ThinkForYourself2025 all the deniers can go is "ughhh this Dave fellow is soooooo rude and angry arghhhh don't listen to what he has to say he's just an angry rude person!!1!!"
Agreed. I think scientist and educators have been patient and compassionate to the loudest moron in the room for far too long. I used to think being boisterous and arrogant could only get you so far but apparently it can win you a presidential election. Moving away from science and evidence based practices/policies will cost a lot of lives. It's time for scientists and educated people to get loud for the sake of those who don't know any better.
When you consider the amount of straight up educational content that Dave provides, i think his motive is obvious.
He wants to help others to learn how to learn.
who'd have thunk it
@@velleity5369 wait so you're telling me professor dave isn't just a shill paid off by NASA, IMF, Elon Musk, ESA and all the universities combined??? 🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯
@velleity5369 Not me. I assumed he was a narcissist that gets drunk and posts derogatory videos about subjective ideas against people who really want to share.
@@codyman242002 dude, lying and subjectivity arent the same.
You and i disagreeing on whether blue or pink is the prettiest color is subjective.
Lying about evolution isnt
@@codyman242002 I think you’re being put off by Dave’s increasingly harsh tone. I think dismissing ideas outright which contradict LONG established science is justified, so we don’t set humanity back.
Thanks for the chat Dave. It was an interesting one. And keep fighting the fight for science (I see a few people in the comments suspecting that I might be a closet science denier 😄)
*Accent Detector* I'm gunna have a guess at... Sussex?
@@chollisketteridge7727 Born just north of London, but had a grandparent from there. I'd give that a pass. 🥳
@asphaltpilgrim Ahhhh not a terrible guess, well done for appearing on Prof Dave it's a great channel
Thanks!
Thanks for the support!
Goat!
😮
Thank you Dave for being honest, sincere and direct
Every time I hear your last name I just think "MR. FARINA!!!"
Dave, you've got balls to call them out. I respect that.
WATER WE DUNE HAIR B!?
What!? Someone intelligent is respectfully asking questions and another intelligent person is answering the questions and providing interesting insight in 2024!?
Why is it that THIS feels like the Twilight Zone lol!!
I wish I were joking, but how refreshing and informative this was to watch. I loved every minute of it.
Thumbs up to both of you guys - stellar job and thank you so much for the great content.
What makes me happy is that Dave gets 10x more attention on debunking and philosophy videos than the charlatans he makes fun of.
The people have spoken. We love watching idiots get publicly humiliated
I'm not even really educated or knowledgeable and I find those videos are hilarious.
While nice, the enthusiasm on the internet unfortunately doesn’t translate to the voting booth. There’s a big disconnect. What might be laughed at here gets a pretty easy platform with rural landowners who aren’t so online, no matter the country. IDK what the solution for that is.
@@JohnDoe-uk6si Start reading. You'll get there.
@TheFerruccio almost everyone in the US has access to the internet, they just don't run in the same circles as us. Quite honestly, the problem really isn't lack of internet for anyone in any developed nation, they have plenty of internet and they have their own echo chambers where they spread their bullshit. Yes, Dave's content is popular, but so are people like Eric, Sabine, Terry, etc. They all have their own online communities.
@@aprofessionalateverything7585 yes unfortunately
A pro to Prof Dave’s delivery and tone, that I find personally, is that it’s informative and it’s also extremely cathartic to have most, if not all, these people so bluntly called out, proven wrong and spoken to in exactly the way that they deserve.
Wholeheartedly agree. Those people must be put in their proper place and held accountable for deceiving the public. Charlatans deserve scorn.
This guy only has 336 subscribers, but Dave was nice enough to give him an interview.
Professor, your ass kicking in the name of the real is a inspiration. Please keep this up and most importantly please also remember to take care of yourself too. I’m not concerned that you’re unhealthy I mean take extra care in the mental health department. You are a great warrior for truth, and many will try and emulate you. 😊
Sabine sweating everytime this guy uploads
“It’s all bullshit”
@@FOSS-For-All she sexy tho
I feel sorry for Sabine. She made some foolish statements but who hasn’t? She still has a lot wider and deeper understanding of her field than most people.
@@zeven341but she does
@@zeven341Sabine worked as a scientists for a few years with a really bad record lol. She is despised in the particle physics community
Really enjoying these long form discussion videos. It's nice to hear consistently proper discussion, instead of violent intellectual detours into nonsense like with the usual idiots you cover. This more interview/open discussion format is super informative and makes for good listening. 🙂
This was a total waste of time, and frankly it was a therapeutic sounding board for Dave to let out his frustrations about the world and people that are in it lol. I can understand the sentiment, but was this productive? Absolutely not
Dumb people are still dumb, and con artists will never run out of willing "victims", so what was accomplished in this conversation? Abso-lutely, nothing
@@PaperRaines Someone says it was super informative for them and made for good listening. Clearly, you did not understand the sentiment if your conclusion is "absolutely nothing was accomplished." Ironically, you have engaged in something so unproductive and absolutely useless out of an apparent distaste for unproductive things in the first place. Dumb people are indeed still dumb; ostensibly, you are one of them or just a willing victim to your own pessimistic stupidity.
Semi-educated mathematician here -- the prevalence of a notion of "unreasonable effectiveness of math" is so irritating. It's a language humans have created IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE. It's not like arbitrary formulas and equations necessarily describe something in nature. We refine them so that they end up matching our observations. The real oddity is the unreasonable effectiveness of human extrapolation.
EDIT: Much of the time, we develop new mathematical structures to describe new theories. To me, it's too big a coincidence that cutting-edge science is paired with recent mathematical developments to conclude that there is anything intrinsic about math which pre-disposes it to any sort of predictive meta-physical prowess.
A counter example to the idea that math leads us to the truth in some way distinguished from human creativity: string theory. It's such a beautiful idea. The base assumptions stood in good stead to drastically reduce the number of "moving pieces" in our understanding of physics. However, it has to this point failed to materialize any meaningful predictions, despite hope that it might. The beautiful math did not lead to actual depictions of reality, as far as we can tell.
I think the notion as a whole comes from lazy (or simply too-fast-for-developing-intuition, depending on your perspective) pedagogy in physics, where "proof by example"-style lectures rule the day, presumably due to sheer amount of material required to be conveyed. To me, this is a form of cherry-picking. Students are learning exclusively of instances when following mathematical hunches lead to expedient (and correct in hindsight) results, neglecting the presumably multitudinous instances where such thinking would have been counterproductive.
Newton's insights on gravity were effective, but not as effective as Einstein's. Simply because they were both embedded in mathematical language, math as a sacred knowledge is somehow credited. It's not divine in any way. The advantages of math over other language are simple and profound, but not inexplicable. Math is relatively unambiguous, logic-based, and precise as necessary. However, it bears to keep in mind that anything expressed in mathematical notation can be translated to any other language, but not visa-versa. Mathematical insights are a subset of insights possible to be described by humans. Nothing more.
Most languages have their intrinsic math also. Even the word "most" describes a type of calculation, right?
@ Yes that’s true. At some level, it’s a semantics game, which undermines the universality of math.
A notable piece of evidence against my case is the fact that at least a dozen species use rudimentary numerical reasoning daily. However, this could also be a case of humans imposing human-like thought (anthropomorphizing) other species. I feel that reasoning could also be described as preferable materials. For instance, a pile of three bananas is preferable to a pile of one; and a group of three predators is less preferable to a group of one. One might argue that abstractification in human psyche’s leads to math, along a similar train of reasoning. Hard to tell - both zoology and neuroscience would have to advance in order to determine conclusively.
I agree with this perspective. Maybe we could say that Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness" is best applied to the "narrative" of science. This is what we were getting at with the "everyday perspective" on science (and maths). The reality is that most people will never understand math on the level required to see math as a language in the generic sense (you can tell them, but they don't "feel" it) much less use it creatively. I think it is also fair to say that progress is outstripping our intuition.
@@asphaltpilgrim Thank you for your response, and for the video as a whole. You had a great conversation, and I didn't mean to detract from the merit of the ideas presented. Your reframing here is compelling. If I had to guess as to the motivation of Winger, it's similar to the motivations of G. H. Hardy in A Mathematician's Apology -- caught up in the intoxicating fervor of surveying the landscape of collective human knowledge. It is truly something to marvel at, but in my estimation, it is equivalent to admiring stirring poetry. It touches the emotional core of a person, true, but that does not inherently bely some supernatural or similarly ephemeral quality.
The basics of all science is written in maths. But there are whole swathes of mathematics that have no relevance to the world we live in. Although, on occasion, new scientific discoveries have needed maths that previously had no real-world application. But you can invent a whole system of maths that applies only to an imaginary universe that bears no resemblance to our own.
Thank you for what you do, Dave!
Viktor Frankl had an interesting way of presenting "meaning". He was a firm believer that purposeful work, love and the SEARCH for meaning can give reason and fulfillment to humans. Not sure how novel the idea is in the grand scheme of things, but I have always liked the idea that the inquisitive mind when directed purposefully, more or less cause purpose to "emerge" if you will. Kinda calls back to "the examined life is one worth living" (loose paraphrasing 😂)
I missed this one when originally looking thru the comments, but yes this is an excellent prospect on meaning. It will be based on narratives more than truth though I think which is where I see the problem that science has.
@@asphaltpilgrim I never read the original book by Frankl with any sort of pre-conceived conclusion. I think if one wants to find pattern or issue in a broad sense, it will always be found. Such is the nature of being a pattern seeking creature. Science is a tool (a method more or less). Using science or trying to view science AS a narrative is already incentivizing pattern seeking behavior, but that's like my opinion man. Conversation was great either way!
Professor Dave is my hero 🎉
@Leibniz2001 lolol 🤣 that's why he's my hero 💪
Sting has a TH-cam channel?
💯🤣
🤣🤣
😂
Does look a little like an 80s era Gordon.
Great talk. People should be imbued with enough humility and sense to live their lives without necessity for an overarching sense of "meaning". Who's to say there even is one? With that understanding, how is it even a requirement?
I think people are trying to be happy and to be happy you have to be adored and often we tend to adore people who are useful.
Religion gives a false sense of usefulness, because it promises you specific things, but doesnt really tell you how it will give you them or how to get them exactly.
wake up babe new professor dave 🚨🚨
Never in my life have I changed my mind, because someone was trying to be nice about it. Nor have I changed my mind without an argument someone had.
You need a precise argument and you need principle.
These talks are enjoyable and informative Dave 👍 please do more in the future mate
Should we even call these "discussions" or "debates" at ths point? Dave is crushing these guys.
This debate actually opened with one of the central disagreements that leads to debate, that Dave is a materialist and the other guy is some kind of idealist. Debates never prove anything, because in order to find truth, we have to ground our observations in actual reality. That's what separates Dave (and other Sci communicators) from the charlatans. The only purpose of (this) debate is to get an audience to shift towards actually testing their ideas, which is a good thing imo.
@@blanktesterYes, except we need someone as blunt as Dave I think, Pilgrim like Jordan Peterson sometimes tries to "bridge" his ideas with Dave's as if he is avoiding being wrong, while Dave says what he knows and says it clearly and precisely, so you can show him evidence against it.
But yet, they still exist. They're still spreading their narratives, they're still making money. You people, yes YOU people, need to get over yourselves with your superiority complexes, control issues, and your violent arousement at ideas of "crushing", "owning", "dunkin", etc., people you disagree with in conflicts. Nothing, happens with those people except they continue to exist, but just more resentful towards you afterwards
Mind you, I hope I don't have to do a heavy lift here to explain this, we did just elect Donald Trump as president for the second time. Has all your side's dunking and owning had the impact you wish it had? No?? Okay then, we're still a country filled with imperfect, proudly stupid, individuals, and they're not changing because they don't have to. Everybody has the right to be stupid, bro. Get over yourself and accept this
@@work1917study I'm not sure I fully agree with Dave's attitude toward mockery in general but I do envy his ability to articulate directly and bluntly precisely what he means and then back it up.
@@blanktester I hear you and I would say, when he is being extra rude, its definitely for entertainment and should not be used as an example of how to have discussion.
It's amazing how much i agree with Dave. MR FARINA!!!!!!! i mean to say
I thought your guests point about connecting peoples disillusionment with religion to their distrust of science was really useful in terms of understanding what some people are imagining when they think of the abstract concept of science. Ultimately the goal is still the same which is help them define it more usefully in their own minds, but it can help figure out specifically what they're not understanding or what they don't know yet.
A double shot of new Mr. FARINA content, Im stoked!!! 💻🍿😅
I think we've all been introduced to science as a mythology as children, an apple falling on newtons head etc.
however as adults we need the learn to make the distinction
Hey Dave, have you ever considered making a video with CosmicSkeptic? I'm not sure what I would expect, but it would be interesting to see what you think of each other and what you agree or disagree on. I think both of you come across as very open-minded but skeptical (duh) people who also have pretty strong and justified/thought-through opinions.
I second this! That would be awesome.
Yes i second this too !
I second this
Indeed @Professor Dave Explains
“Expectation is the root of heartache”
Some Mothafuka
Hell yeah … so true
really appreciate your perspective on diversity in science communication. not everyone need to have the same tact or demeanor. different strokes.
You are completely correct about a basic level of scientific knowledge being necessary to distinguish the science educators from the mavericks, grifters, cranks, and charlatans on TH-cam. But I would add that a course in critical thinking, including and especially media studies, is also very helpful. I have that background in both basic science and critical thinking, and I had no trouble distinguishing between the two during the COVID-19 pandemic. It saves a hell of a lot of time, and you learn a hell of a lot more from real science educators teaching you real science. Long term, that is the solution: basic science, media studies, and critical thinking as part of the school curriculum. But good luck with that, especially in the US.
NO SINGLE SCIENTIST ever should speak for the entire community, purely out of fealty to the Scientific Method, as this is simply contrary to its elementary notions... Giambattista Vico, an early historian of science, wrote in defense of "the practitioner's innocence" towards data sought and revealed, meaning: the practitioner is laid *prone* to the evidence revealed in their research; or, by agreeing to the terms of the Scientific Method (caps for dramatic impact), they (he/she) is *obliged* to logical acceptance. This is a view, there are others. Serious devotees of logic, like good Prof. Dave, aid us all in their laborious illustration of these principles.
Started off seeming like a rookie interrogation, but the questions did provide food for thought!
Dave, if you're interested in exploring the idea of free will from a scientific point of view, you can't go past Robert Sapolsky's two books on the topic, the most recent being: "Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will". He covers quantum effects, as well as chaos theory and emergence.
Perfect timing
Was just about to go do hw and trying to find something for background
Hope your studies/ hw is going well 😊
So many baited questions and misconceptions being forced on Dave. Asphalt is polite but it's deceiving.
Can you elaborate?
every myth is a story but not every story is a myth.
The bible is definitely both.
Much respect, Dave.
Dave is the GOAT 🐐
Great convo! This is much better than steve McRae semantics philosophy 😂
I also adhere to a thought matrix that most closely conforms to my outlook on the world and how I see it. I desire a position which makes me feel the most comfortable and creative. I’ve found it best, in order to feed my creativity and educational journey, to “believe” in the who, what or why driving my success and progress without creating any guilt or boundaries to stifle the way I choose to live my life. I search out and align myself with and reward those who will instruct and disseminate to me what I want to hear and in turn, I will pass information on to those who are of like mind.
The best on the you tube! Honest and smart!
At 19:00 you have to careful using the word faith, as it has two meanings, one is trust, and the other is belief without evidence. People will hear I have faith in science and go "See my religion is the same as your science because we both take it on faith".
What they miss is that, some people are too lazy to actually check the science so they just go along with media, some people have "Faith In Media", which just like religion is asking you not to question it, science is a method that is the process of questioning exactly.
@@work1917studyexactly! Some sense at last 👍✊🇬🇧
Best practice is to use unambiguous language as much as possible.
science is truth; art is beauty; and religion is what's left over without truth or beauty.
I like it Should be on a tshir...
Of course science has been false many times, which it has self-corrected eventually, which it its strength, but it isn't always truth. False science can run on for decades or in the case of intelligence in nature (plants, insects, animals) has been wrong for centuries. Art can be truth in a way that isn't scientific, but is insightful and wise as is the case in many novels, paintings, poems, films etc.
What's my point? Simplistic beliefs are easily punctured with critical thinking. Science seeks the truth, but it can be false. Art can be ugly. Don't get me started on religion. :)
Religion is the emotional illusion of giving hope. Who wants to face the facts that will return to the earth and feed the undergrowth when we die, Not very inspiring.
I listen to Verdi's Requiem Mass not because I believe the premise of its subject, but because it's an art form I've always appreciated since my earlier years. Just like his other, mostly, operatic works, it's just a made up story set in music that I listen to.
Ok bro.... That doesn't help anyone
Prof Dave! My apologies that I’ve commented before and not asked.
Given your knowledge in science and aptitude re music, would it be too large and ask to do a crossover video? If for no other purpose, the effects of specific circuits on a signal? In this instance, take a guitar string with a Klon or a TS9, what areas are exaggerated and why? How do the components play a part?
I know this is boilerplate in any guitar forum. I also know you very much have your plate full - but I would also argue that you are in a unique position, being a science communicator and an adept musician.
All I’m saying is that this could be very cool and while admittedly niche - extremely valuable to those it would reach :)
Now do a video about the Science of Philosophy from a materialist point of view. What are the neurological processes that lead to having certain perspectives and level of curious inquiry from a physical material point of view
Feel better Dave appreciate you.Thanks for bringing sanity to the insanity of the stupid corners of the internet.You should debate RFKjr lol
Great answer to the free will question. Ive been trying to articulate my similar view for awhile and it always comes out clumsily.
Personally, I find free will to be logically incoherent and therefore impossible. Either an action is influenced by past causal factors, and is therefore not free, or is entirely random and not free.
Really? I thought it was rather odd. An appeal to quantum mystery basically. Of course, what Pilgrim means by free will and what Dave means by free will may not be the same. Quantum mechanics does nothing to help free will in the philosophical 'libertarian free will' sense. The concept is simply incoherent, like @jackkrell4238 stated.
Science never fails, but stupidly frequently succeeds
Nice one again dave i thank you kindly, keep it up man!✊👍🇬🇧
Great conversation
I love your videos man
Great interview!
Relegere means To Bind or To Gather. And it does form part of the basis of the word Religion. Ties back seems to be adding meaning to the concept beyond the simple meaning of the word.
Relegere means to read. I think you meant religere.
(It's a rare day when my decades-old schoolboy Latin comes in useful!)
@@RichWoods23 You are correct. Typo on my part.
what is science? really has two answers 1) is the normative definition: the method of inquiry - the combination of observation, hypothesis generation, experimentation and data collection, statistical testing, interpretation and communication, and peer review. 2) is the descriptive definition: the real world machinery of science - the people, the publications, the institutions, data banks, libraries, classrooms, text books, etc.
Who the f was interviewing who here? LOL, Dave Farina walked into a therapy session and let us all watch 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Gurus can feel the psychic energy draining from their third eyes whenever Dave starts cookin
Thanks for the upload Dave :D❤
drinking and Dave time
*get well soon
Is there a Mr. Farina!!! t shirt?
Good stuff
You need a narrative about science to teach people that science is not merely a narrative.
Awe sick. Awesomely early
I am so glad, that someone exposes Eric’s nonsense.
It is mind boggling to me, why people invite him. He never says anything of substance…
I am an almost religious proponent of the scientific method, and I am a die hard materialist (more tending towards that there is no free-will). However I would like to give the otherside some serious gun-powder: 1) 5 sigma ... well go to chemistry, material sience or biology ... you will see this scrutiny is almost never applied 2) scientific method ... well there is no standardized, rigorous definition of it. Look at two, arbitrary scientific discourses and you'll see that a) what ever your definition is, it will be commonly violated and b) it will be different for each discourse if you would try to extract a commin denominator. 3) you will find ample example in the past and presence of sience failing, it is just a system and a fuzzy one on top of that (excluding some areas of mathematics). Hence, while I think sience is a bit like democracy, the least bad system, there is no reason not critize it. In contrast, only by subjecting the system itself to the scrutiny it enforces on its subject does it have a chance to float on top. No reason to defend any single aspects of it ... The core of why I believe in it, is that criticism is not only allowed, but valued. As it is inside democracy.
Any Thoughts on Paul Feyerabend and epistemological anarchism ?
The reason why I'm still alive doing all the work I do with very high voltages going inside a house is because of my trust in science.😀
"Electricity isn't real!" Trust me bro, I know. Now sign up to my website and buy some merch!!
I see science not as a mythology but a way in which mythology comes to concrete terms.
you do not have to believe in science, you have to open your eyes and see the methods that scientists and others are using. That is all you have to follow.
Problem with questioning science, is then you have to replace it with a different philosophy and I think science is easier to understand, due to its material nature, than any other philosophy, trying to explain the world.
Forward we go‼️
33:49 Dave channeled Kyle Hill a litlle there with that " Hey buddy"😂
Kyle steals word for word and got caught doing it. Do not compare them.
@ lol whatever i really dont care
We need Professor Dave to take down Jesse Michaels!
I would love to see Dave and Jesse discuss their world views.
😢
Professor Dave, it would be great to hear Sam Harris and yourself have a similar conversation, you guys are fighting the same fight..
Would you also be interested ?
Sure
@@ProfessorDaveExplainsthat would actually break the internet because we’re on a thin line right now as a civilization. you guys together would really help people who deny science understand the reason why it is killing us
I do think Sam’s understanding of history and anthropology is a fraction of Professor Dave’s and it leads Sam to weird worldviews
Absolutely! And I second the person who brought up Alex O'Connor too.
Sam Harris has some deep flaws. Have a look at the video by Rebecca Watson where she talks about him being duped by ufologists (TH-cam: Rebecca Watson: "Who's Pranking Sam Harris & Eric Weinstein about UFOs?"). The audio of Harris talking about this should greatly embarrass his fans and send his detractors into fits of laughter. He can be a bit of a pseudointellectual in my opinion. He used to be part of the Intellectual Dark Web (members: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Bari Weiss, Bret Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Heather Heying, and Christina Hoff Sommers).
Dave pretty please can we get 'word salad' merch
Dave, I was caught by the click bait title you approved. :). I also did feel like there was a tentativness around trying to get some whoowhoo injected. (Daoism). But I got damaged by fundamental right-wing Christianity, and I've been in the place where I wanted something to be true, so it always feels to me like a self-decieved, which leaves us in a position of knowing less and "keeping and open mind" that now takes space in something that is extremely unlikely.
I think there is something to be said about mental models, and practices do have physical effects (meditation does have a physical response, but so does a placebo, so I've have to conclude that how we think can affect our physiology). What it feels like though, when someone wants to believe in a soul or eternal portion of a human some how existing, is an attempt to smuggle something in that has never been observe except via "personal experience".
I've had a personal experience with Jesus and Yahweh and the Holy Spirit, and experienced prophesies and spoke in tongues and felt special, but I've also experienced praying and fastibg when the words written in the books didn't happen, being told I was filled with demons by my pastor because they were preaching prosperity but everyone in the church was poor and desperate, and I saw thag as very clearly a "tree not bearing fruit". I mention the above because that was my experience and frame of reference then.
I no longer believe and have become a hard materialists, because I can still speak in tongue and "conjure up" the feeling of talking with a god when I prayed. Sometimes I might miss it, but when old patterns and synapses are firing, (and they were firing as a form of talking to yourself), there is a sudden cognitive dissonance knowing thag you do not believe anymore but mentally in your head you are also talking to this old god like you used to.
I don't know how much of that comes around the theory of mind, and that we have general physical and autonomous (that regulate heart beats and breathing), miligdal and "unconcious" mind that is trained to patterns to minimze expending energy (muscle memory is also here, as we'll as "common sense" when we don't carefully observe or consider), and higher thinking that takes time to work though a problem (but this also expends the most energy, and the unconcious tries to interfere).
So, if our unconcious mind is also geared to look for threats and to anthropomophise, we shouldn't be surprised we have a sense of gods, or that our high level thinking seems separate from our basers thinking (so is that the eternal part?), and religions and dieties a created by us a parental figures. The added bonus for those willing to feed those ideas, is that "surrendering" to that parent or path looks wise, but really is infantilization.
I think that, recognizing what ground we have made in both science and technology, that we should do to philosophy what we did to physics, quantization and probability.
When given the sense of listlessness one might have, is this cause by:
A. Not having a purpose (when purpose implies an overarching grand plan of some external entity of actor, where we are only good and right if we operate in said purpose, with the sense of not "following your purpose" being a vaguely uneasy feeling of not knowing,
B. you have been feeling emotional, environmental and social stresses and you don't feel like you know where you are in the social hierarchy (or that position is threatened), so out of a way to alleviate that stress and mentally frame and practise thinking about future actions, you mind start trying to see if it can match to a "reasison etre" to minimize overthinking. In the course of this, the second sense of dread (from generalized logical and natural threat detection thinking) kicks in about how would you know what your purpose is, as it would be much easier to say "this is how I am, or my reason for living", the recognizing this is a planned coping mechanism for possible social critism, or
C. You require the use of the toilet and it has been a slow pressure that is running as a sensation at the back of your mind, and it is affecting / agitating. Muscle soreness is also becoming more pominent in background thought, and the recognition thaf you are physical and mortal lingers in the back of you thoughts, with the knowledge of limited number of days in your life are left. This triggers a self-evalution, but there is no clear Internalized self that is easily described, you so feel you have lack of purpose. You also are hungry and that is starting to make you agitate easier.
Given the, rather short options above, B and C and their variants explain the mind both as an evolutionary organism in chemicals with chemistry, that maps to species socialization, internal reasoning, and experience.
Answe B even takes the step to identify why we feel differences between our physical self and our mental model (you can tell we are physical beings all the way down just buy getting drunk. Our thoughts, decision making and actions are immediately affected).
Answer A implied systems and things that we have no evidence for, does and answer that comes down to because (why do you have a purpose, BECAUSE god or the universe has given me one, (which is still internal rationalizion and self regulation)
Some internal "morals" as a social species have formed, and give a general sense of compassion and right vs wrong, but this is also a brain evolution, to either fake it until you make it (in the case of a sociopath to reach breeding) or a self selected generalize trait of compassion for another human, especially if they are outside your perceived peer group.
I guess what I am trying to say is, we use Classical Newtonian mechanics at the scale we live, so likewise we think in terms good and bad, purpose, love and hate, etc. Our quatum realm is brain science and chemical baths for our brains and general physiology.
The quantum mechanical level is always happening and produces the appearance of strict Newtonian rules and aggregate, but it is always the reactions on the quanta and the probabilities of their interactions that produce our expected reactions.
So when we think there is an unconcious (or shorthand way of thinking), which has been a useful model on how to approach in interpret expereinces, we can clearly see that feeling of self, of gods, and general feelings themselves, are all an interaction of the larger physically forces at play, and the shaped and learned synapse patterns in where we natually think.
With that understanding, then the larger, physical world explains both the natural and the sense of "supernatural".
Hopefully i've made my point, and especially if you re-watch the video. We naturally want to believe.
I think the Matt Delahunty explainatiin of purpose supplied by ourselves, akin to chess pieces on a board make more sense. The idea goes like so;
1. Chess pieces are physical,
2. The chess board has white and black squares as a surface design.
3. The starting placement of the pieces are agreed upon by the players (and is not arbitrary). All movement of agreed identification of pieces are known by both players,
4. The order of turns is agree by other players,
5. The king capture is the wwith ir kiss if the game ,
6......999 about rules and environment and strategies and critiques,
1000. All these meanings, rules, material pieces and gameplay have been created culturly. The by-product within the game's frame is that pieces have purpose in the context of stragegies, due to agreed limitations. The physical pieces do not have a purpose except what we have assigned to them.
The purpose we give to the game may be distraction, socialization, exporation of metaphoses on life, etc., but that is once again an arbitrary purpose that we have assigned.
To a 5 year old child, the purpose of the knight is to pantomime stories of a jumping horse.
The TL is, if thought rationaly and stating the world is only physical and force interactions, we are speaking of the world and ourselves at a quantum level aloneaas we have high probability only the physical world and its interactions exists. When we move to the more generalized space of philosophy, we are confronted with old ideas that can be explained in better ways. To leave a basis "i don't know because Idon't know everything" allow whoo to be smuggled into serious science. (You cannot sympathetic ly vibrate to wealth, and though an observation may collapse an entangled pair quantum wave function, you cannot perform magic by looking at stuff). Whoo has damaged a lot, and has always begged for a way to be spoken of, the same way religion does. I think we can start to push out whoo based upon what we now know.
I think the firmest ground to stand on is the most likely. Don't seed any ground unless something in the whoo is provale on the scale it claims the affect .
(My half-asleep thoughts and $0.02)
Dave Farina, King of Science
I'm sorry, but I'm getting real Russell Brand vibes from this guy. Why is Dave talking to him? 😅
He does seem to enjoy using abstract terms and metaphors instead of plain terminology. I can see what he's getting at for most of it, but I do tend to conclude that this type of conversational approach is less clear than it could be.
I like Dave saying that coming to terms with mortality is a measure of maturity for civilizations as a whole. Elon Musk’s vanity and inability to accept mortality is costing us dearly.
Love you stuff man. Just at the end and you said you do not know about over population. Well I think that's' your next step is to learn about that, take up some ecology. Just the simple graph of natural resources to population is evidence enough that we need to drastically reduce our population in every way. If not reduce our population then keep our population in a dead zone instead of spreading into all the remaining natural zones and destroying that. Quantity of wild life is down 70 percent since the 70's. Should we wait till it's 90 percent? Ecologists state the Earth can support no more then 2 billion while keeping the natural world in check. Your way of drilling in the facts would be gold with you drilling into the world we need to stop growth in every way. Sure science can probably make us live in a dead Earth that is Mars scenario. But all the animals will be gone. Talk of population reduction is logical and scientific, yet it is very taboo to say such things for some reason (Business). Hope you start saying something about it! It is not just global warming.
It was a a fine conversation and the reflective listening skills of the interviewer are to be applauded. I felt like some of the questions might have been more direct though. That would have given the opportunity to tackle some of the implications that may not have been clear in the non-confrontational (that I do appreciate) nature of the conversation.
I think first of the two main themes was the implied hypothesis that science is the (main) cause of the so called 'meaning gap'. This false dichotomy is one of the unfortunate consequences of anti-intellectual and anti-institutional rhetoric taking hold in collective minds. In the multi-dimensional wide spectrum of human activity, how can one aspect (a major endeavor for sure) be the opposite of another completely? I think this naive question does reveal a huge problem with the way we are even having such conversations. The fact that a conversation related to meaning and how we live our lives is completely missing the socio-economic aspect should actually be mind boggling. Why is there no mention of our economic systems, our values and priorities as a society? Is capitalism not relevant? But it is no coincidence, anti-science (and all related efforts currently merging under the right wing machinery) is fundamentally a political campaign with the sole purpose of undermining legitimacy of institutions to allow powerful to escape scrutiny. Have you ever heard a populist actually make a non superficial criticism of the system?
Second theme was, (in my interpretation) around some of the questions, the veiled implication that science is another faith, dogma or mythology. Though Dave touched on this I think this might need further discussion and clarification. I think the confusion is stemming from the concept of trust and belief. Yes, in our daily lives, as single humans, we have to operate by some faith and belief because it's impossible to know everything ourselves. But there is nothing in the scientific endeavor that requires faith or belief which is similar in nature to the other uses of it in religion, etc. There is no dogma, there is no hidden rule, knowledge. Everything is out in the open. We don't _believe_ in science or the scientific method. It makes sense to us, and we use the method to collect and update our knowledge (and also update the method). It's a way of learning. Nothing else.
The trust and faith are only relevant because we, as a species have to rely on each other. Any collective activity needs some form of trust. Endeavor of science is no exception.
I also can't fathom how people don't accept science, very strange
Penrose is a genius, but for tilings, not consciousness. Occam's razor would suggest consciousness is just the largest feedback loop in the brain.
I fell asleep, what did I miss😂
hey Dave, i really enjoy your debunk videos, any chance you could do one on Jimmy Corsetti, he reminds me so much of Billy Carson, it would be great to watch and listen to you do a number on him
Jimmy Corsetti (Jimmy Bright!) is your typical ignorant maverick who wallows in contrarianism and controversy and speaks to an uneducated audience because that is where his nonsense sells. He had a walk-on role in the recent attack by Graham Hancock - and his mate Dan Richards - on archeologist, Dr. Flint Dibble, after he completely overwhelmed Hancock in a over 4-hour long Joe Rogan podcast (JRE #2136). Dr Dibble's defense posted yesterday is on "Archaeology with Flint Dibble: A Public Letter to Joe Rogan from Flint Dibble". There is a short section on the despicable Jimmy. I cam across this fool many years ago when he was pushing the Richat structure as the site of Atlantis!
Why is consciousness so hard to define?? I see this everywhere... wasn't that answered by, "I think, therefore, I am."??
Probably because it's subjective to our condition.
Interesting how Asphalt is trying to equate the flaws of the evolved human brain to deeper meaning. Science has been used to overcome these flaws to make predictions whereas “deep philosophy” requires our cobbled together consciousness to exist. It’s kinda neat though 🤔
I didn't think I **equated** those two things, but that is an interesting way to see it, and I do think that we are seem kind of inexorably bound to see science through the lens of our evolved qualities (transhumanism notwithstanding). We are kind of fighting against our own cobbled together consciousness.
I "can" trust you, or in what you say, but I CAN NOT TRUST in that, what you think it is true, or believe it is good faith, or ..
There are several endings of this sentence.
I Still love you!
This guy should ask some questions. Listening to him just talk is putting me to sleep.
Science is abstract. Our perception - even when we measure it - is subjective. Our definitions are biased towards human understanding. Its measurement of space (eg centimetres); Time (seconds), Force; speed; mass; volume, is quantified on arbitrarily constructed scales. The holistic nature of all phenomena can’t be fully captured. In this sense, the subjective side science, you can see a story made of characters. Father time does this to Senior Volume when Mrs mass behaves this way. It’s our technical story about the way things are. Given it’s a very useful story that allows people shape the world in reliable ways. It’s more of a culture than a mythology but of course culture has myth sustaining it.
Finally Pilgrim says something that I can check with a scientific method, but then he says "but dont use me as an authority on it" it is offensive to hear things that not even the speaker is sure of...
Religara does mean translated literally to "re bind", but I cant find anything on what Pilgrim described that it is tying back of the "most beautiful and something else" 38:46
It is the root of the word religion then... so what **does** religion "tie back"? However you are right to check me - I am not an etymological expert, I am just a guy with 300 subscribers representing another person's ideas (Arendt's) as best I can, and I may have misunderstood.
The only religion I need is my ligma male mindset
what's ligma?
@@ElusiveEelligma balls
@ElusiveEel who's gonna tell him
@@Twi66eGot em
Successful troll was successful.
YES Yes yes forward we go no more backwards 💪
Any system (religion) that has a doorman in order to fully access it is purely a grift to control the subscriber.
What is he like, with his empirical facts and logic....
You don't have to have "faith" in science. If you want to test Maxwell's Equations you can go to your local Radio Shack (or I guess not any more :-) ) buy the necessary items and prove them to yourself.
Ik how much it drains Dave but man am I missing those debate videos of him with Flat Earthers xD sorry Professor Dave
P = "Trust me bro", is the new significance level 😂
Am I P? I assure you that's not my takeaway. But the idea that opinion has more political power than truth ... that's a serious discussion.
@asphaltpilgrim Not you. Just in general.
@JohnBl7167 Ah, I see. Thx
@@asphaltpilgrimp = p-value as in statistical hypothesis testing.
"Process isnt progress" this cant be true, because an process implies time and over time things progress, even in the beginning of the video, Dave mentions the Aromic theory and the "progress" of it
There is an ambiguity in my statement tbf. If you take progress to simply be "at a later point in a sequence" then sure, I see your point. But I (and I think Dave) am putting at least some political (maybe even moral?) weight on the word progress here, in which case I think the statement is correct (maybe with the word necessarily added in). But you are right, we did not stop to make that clear.
Whats your opinion on Nihilism?
I think one can be a teleological nihilist (i.e. there is no absolute meaning) and still work with almost any personal meaning structure you like. See the earlier comment referencing Viktor Frankl. I don't think that a certain amount of nihilism is necessarily destructive; that said, it certainly can be.
Cowardice