Haha you just spent half an hour repeating all the bullshit I debunked 😂 What you call "the science" is just well-substantiated science you deny because you're stupid. Epic fail. Get an education.
@@FormscapesAnyone wanna see my Professor Dave impersonation? "I totally mopped the floor with your sorry ass, sweetie, you lying, anti-science dumb fuck. You have a lot to learn about intellectual sophistication." A more serious question readers may wish to ponder is this: How the hell does a mediocrity, a fanatical ignoramus utterly clueless about the philosophy of science (which, whether he knows it or not, is largely what is being addressed), and with a level of intellectual maturity that would put Beavis and Butthead to shame, savagely abusive and defamatory (they're all liars, cheats, false prophets, and the spawn of Satan) towards any critic -- before censoring them entirely, of course -- guilty of nothing more than expressing healthy skepticism in a calm, rational manner, not only attract a following of 2.86M subscribers, but get positively 𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒅 for his loutishness, venom, and dehumanization tactics? It is indeed a funny old world. Answers on a postcard, please.
Again and again you fail to see the nuance in his video. This is actually a good signifier for stupidity and for black and white or, dare I say, dogmatic thinking.
My 2 cents as a practicing scientist (MD, PhD) & metaphysical idealist: While I struggle with Daves disrespectful communication style, it's important to acknowledge the true aspects in his message. Science, defined as the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the natural world, is undoubtedly one of/if not the most impactful endevour that emerged through the process of human evolution. People often tend forget how much more gruesome life was, just 100 years ago - and how much better it has become through the pearls of scientific process. Imagine being a diabetic before metformin or insulin - imagine the horrors and suffering of going through a tuberculosis-infection, coughing up blood and being in a constant state of pain, knowing it's a death setence - when just a combination of antibiotics would be enough to deal with it. Those are just 2 examples out of thousands, limited to just one domain of scientific progress (medicine). It's undeniable that there is something true about science - it works! And better science tends to work better - history has shown us again and again, that a strict adherence to scientific principles, logic and rigor will end up in better outcomes. Studies done with those principles in mind are also much less likely to end up as another example of the replication crisis. You want your experiment to mimic reality as close as possible, you want to boil down everything to the one variable in question - with at least amount of confounders contaminating the data. You want scientists to show as much integrity as possible. And this is where Dave is right. A lot of alternative models are not operating under this high standard. A lot of what is praised as science today is actually bullshit pseudo-nonesnse. It's held up as science, but if you actually take a closer look, it's rotten to the core. And yes, this also includes some models that are "accepted" as true by a big part of the scientific community. Again, an example from medicine: There is a growing group of "health influencers" that argue against the causal role of cholsterol in the developement of cardiovascular disease. And you know what, bringing it up as a hypothesis is fine - maybe there is something to it. What is not okay is to constantly lie, make shit up, ignore 100+ years of reserach, cherrypick your data, and not change your mind when there is clear evidence that the opposite view is correct. But this is exactly what tends to happen in such discussions - and it makes me angry - because those rotten ideas might end up killing someone in the process. Especially since Covid, there is also a growing distrust in our institutions - which is a problem. I think some of this distrust is warranted - some institutions did a terrible job in the face of the pandemic. You could argue that some of the decisions were based on bad science. That said, we are not going to function as a society if we lack the institutional support in high stake situations. People can't just "do their own research" when the topic at hand is one that requires years of study to grasp completely. If you are not indredibly catious and highly aware of your own biases, you are going to fall for heterodox sophistry in some way or form. Also, and this is a huge problem, most people completely lack the epistemoloical basis to distinguish between good and bad information - which is a failure of our educational system. Everyone is getting bombarded with an sheer infinite amount of information and we are not prepared to deal with that fact. So, what is Dave wrong about. Dave is the classic example of someone with a materlistic/atheistic bias - he is unaware that the worldview he holds inevitably influneces the way he interprets data from scientific experiments. He resorts to the same mental gymnastics as the criticized individuals in his videos. This bias clearly shows in his videos about religion, conciousness & "quantum mysticism". Those takes are epistemically flawed to the degree it hurts - it's especially cringe because of his dismissive language. This strawman notion of "god", as if everyone belives in this fundamental version of "skyperson who created the erath 5000 years ago", is nonsense. There are arguments for god which are closely related to gnostic/pantheistic versions of ontolgoical idealism (among others) - which are not only perfectly capable of leaving science where it is - they are also epistemically superior to many of the challenges a materialist worldview holds (explaining the hard problem of conciousness/mind-body-phenomena...). There are of course many pointers of why such a ontology is propably true, but I would bet Dave has never sincerely enganged with this possiblity. When Dave hears "near death experieces, parapsychology or reincarnation literature" - he will inevitably go towards the pseudoscience argument. But in reality, he has not engaged with those datapoints deeply enough. He does not follow his own principles. He would say something like "precognition/reincarnation is impossible because of X", then this simply implies that his heuristic is based on certain ontological assumptions which he has not questioned. He would say :"Look at this meta analysis saying precognition doesn't work" - but he has not realized that most research in that area is highly flawed and garbage in/garbage out doesn't prove or disprove anything. He would also not take a sincere look at the experiments which have been consistently replicated under a statistical significance of multiple sigma. He would also not know that a lot of scientifc ideas are based on really whacky/mystical backstories - like PCR, EEG-machines or cartesian ideas as a whole. There is a whole world of mystique which Dave knows nothing about, yet explains away while being highly logically incosistent about it. It's really is a symptom of many scientists - most are absolute noobs when it comes to philosophy/epistemology and therefore are run by unquestioned assumptions and ideas.
That was very well articulated, thank you for posting! I'd hold a similar viewpoint, metaphysical idealism with a recognition that the scientific method is, hands down, the best epistemic tool we've come up with for investigating the specifics of whatever we find ourselves in. I'm also comparatively less well-educated than you, and probably more prone to falling prey to "science" that is pseudo-nonsense I accept due to a lack of careful examination. One thing I'd be curious to get your opinion on, given your ontology, is the degree to which the "placebo effect" can be purposefully triggered by an individual - in blunt terms, healing oneself through visualisation and focus. I won't disagree that medicine works to that end, but it seems like, in principle, the capacity for consciousness to affect change in the body (such as moving your limbs) is not well understood at all, and I wonder at the potential scope of its development (especially in a worldview which prioritises consciousness as the probable ground reality). I'd look at work like Michael Levin's about distributed cognition throughout the body, and wonder if the upper executive levels can't gradually learn to code more and more nuanced messages to propagate down the stack - just look at biofeedback training for example. Thoughts?
Awesome. Understood, but this channel wasn't criticizing science as it exists in principle. There's a distinction between science as it exists in principle vs. how it's being conducted in practice. An analogy for this distinction would be someone who loves his country (in principle) but is critical of the policies of his government. Eric Weinstein, for instance, is critical of string theory. He thinks it has held back progress in physics. That's one example. But Eric Weinstein criticizing string theory doesn't mean he's rejecting the progress science has made historically.
Good comment! Well-done and thank you for writing it. We should hold space for compassion and love in our hearts. Enjoy the day, stay balanced and don't forget about dancing! It's a beautiful day!! :))
@@cryoshakespeare4465 I think the question is not IF, but to what extend it can be purposefully triggered. That ones expectation or "intent" has a real and somtimes incredibly significant impact on our physiology is not arguable. Some of the placebo/nocebo-studies done in humans actually seem unbelieveable at first. Favourites of mine are the milkshake study (doi: 10.1037/a0023467.) and the collective work of Alia Crum. If you would ask for my opinion - then I would say - yes, definitnely to a pretty high degree. There are countless of case reports of people "healing" themselves from "incurable" diseases through placebo-like dynamics. I would argue that you need more than just "expectation"/"intent", but I definitely do think that we have some power over it. My friend Anoop Kumar, who is MD himself, interviews people who healed on his youtube channel (www.healthrevolution.org/). He also has a more holistic framework of healing that goes beyond simply utilizing the placebo-effect. Check it out! It's actually pretty amazing to what extend some people tend got better once certain channels open up. Joe Dispenza is also a guy who is really into that stuff, but I personally see a lot of red flags in him as well. That said, the most honest answer I can give is that I don't really know to what extend it is possible. There are some decent counter-arguments from skeptics, but none of them really convince me. There are studies which look at "positive thinking & cancer outcomes" for example, but after talking a deeper look at the data, I deem those studies irrelevant. I guess the smartest way forward is to pascal-wager it and believe in it regardless! I hope Michael Levins work might bring us on some mechanistical ground in the future - his work is definitely nobel-worthy.
I loved your comment, I'd pretty much wholeheartedly agree. As someone who takes a fair bit of dietary advice from a few of those health influencers you mentioned, I'd be curious what you think about this? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JO1F_iJC-b8.htmlsi=wtry0-lJP1hbawo8 I'm just glad there's data on it, since beforehand it was all anecdotal, but regardless I think an outright dismissal of a largely animal based (and for some people a straight up carnivore diet, at least for an extended period of time if not until their body indicates otherwise) is not yet warranted, giving the astounding success of it for many people. Wish you the best!
I think one problem is that people often mix philosophical good faith criticism of science and the true anti science. You can criticise science establishment while still taking solid scientific evidence seriously.
There is no anti science. The idea that there are actual anti anything is a thought you should question. "Anti" this subject or that subject has long been a way to control how people frame their world
@@00TheD Anti-science=things that are against or falsely misrepresent science. Simple. Why exactly should I question words that have antonymous prefixes within their structure? People use such words because that's what is most apt to the topic being discussed.
@@Formscapes Is it, though? I think it just refers to an antithetical attitude towards a certain framework/paradigm. Whatever supposedly tribalistic undertones affect such behavior is another matter.
I would like to add, as someone with a maths degree, that even mathematics has a metaphysical component. For instance zero did not exist in our number system for most of human history. Zero was introduced as calculus needed a way to describe states like "the smallest possible nothingness" e.g 1/x approaches zero as x approaches infinity.
This is actually a super interesting topic in itself, especially when we start thinking about the ontological status of things like complex or irrational numbers in physics - or infinities/infinitesimals for that matter. There's a passage in Whitehead's Process and Reality where he discusses Zeno's paradoxes, and he says that Zeno's mistake was in conflating potentiality and actuality; i.e., a wooden board is infinitely divisible *in potential*, but in reality it always has certain finite dimensions which are relative to other extended things in the world. If we take that same logic and apply it to the more arcane mathematical entities in physics, what we find, I believe, is that those aspects of physics must necessarily be describing the implicate/noetic realm (the realm of feelings-of-potentialities) rather than the physical/corporeal realm.
Calculus doesn't want to use 0 cus you can't divide by it, 0 was made in the neolythic era it's very old and we've known about it since like 2000 years
Professor Dave is emblematic of what is wrong with modern intellectuals. I cannot stand 'debunkers' like him. Maybe if he left a little room open for the chance of being wrong or there being something he missed he could be a decent critic, but his ilk never do. All he really cares about is growing his brand. That brand is combative, automatically dismissive, and orthodox in the worst of ways. We need less people being taught to play whack-a-mole and more learning how to widen their epistemology to allow for competing frameworks, including those they might being heavily disinclined to consider.
What debunkings ? They mostly come down to " cause the authority said so" which is hardly debunking anything or it should be a higher bar. This dude has had his intuition hijacked and supplicated with authority. The perfect slave one that will repeat whatever you say without even checking to see if it makes sense.
Yeah, they try to defend scientism, then you say why it is bulshit, they get mad at you because they dont know any other option other than materialism, then you present new perspectives that try to explain everything, then they say you are speaking nonsense and dont take you seriously. This proves that they are dogmatic, and they assume they are right and can never be wrong as a premisse, because materialism and scientism is right, because they are right, there doesnt have to be reasons for that.
It was quite taken back when i commented that "science itself is not dogmatic but scientist can be", he blew fuse when i made that comment on his "debunk" video. It's the people who are doing the research that are misrepresenting the evidence based nature of true science. He just called me stupid. There js so much we don't know, there are things we can't understand just through the current scientific paradigms. We don't even know how gravity works, even the G constant we use is just an average.
N tricks you into believing its Force. N is kg x metre x time^-2 Now replace N by its dimensional attributes & check what you get? You get cube of metre ÷ one mass & time squared. It's just a cocktail of dimensions. - Lal Shiban
@@jaydenwilson9522 and where do these measurements come from, what defines 1m, it's supposed to be the ratio of 1:10,000,00 between the north pole and the equator through paris. The mass of objects? From 1m3 of water. Where water is 1. Weight? 1 kilogramme is 1 liter of water. What about time? Our 12hrs system from an ancient sexagesimal system. 60min, 60sec. All these measurements and calculations are ratios. They work for a certain time within a certain temperature. Nature is all analogue. Nature shifts. It isn't absolute, Time shifts, even the time derived from an atomic clock is based on vibrations per second. The second once again is derived from the ancient base 60 system. All things are in flux. We can only simulate nature to a certain degree, our calculations mere representations not absolutes. by not investigating other venues we are limiting our horizons. We live not in a clockwork universe. But a living breathing one.
He called you stupid? Yeah that does not look good on him at all. I was subbed to Dave but I'm going to be honest he rubbed me the wrong way. Now my initial gut feelings about him seem to be confirmed.
@@isaacm4159 I was subbed to him too, I quite like Dave but this is embarrassing. I think I saw that comment he said "stupid" over and then something ridiculous like "scientists NEVER do dogma" or some such blatantly stupid reply.
Your closing comment hits home. Machines seem to be simpler versions of what biology can do- why would we create machines and then call the universe a machine, when biological life shows an even more complex and mysterious version of what’s possible… brilliant
I even claim that biology doesnt really end in tradditional organisms, families are organisms, companies are organisms, institutions are organisms and societies are organisms, we are merely cells compared to these higher levels, which have literally a mind on their own, just like the organism has a mind on its own even though there are only cells or atoms, and which is why it doesnt seen like a city has a mind. Every behavior concerning life is about this process of consciential integration and complexification, capitalism is literally this, and this is one of the main reasons I support it, because it is the basis of Biology itself.
@@Nature_Consciousness Seems to me that cities absolutely have minds. They have personalities, thought patterns... this was probably much more pronounced before the internet, however - the internet has dissolved local connections in favor of nonlocal connections, and now our collective super-organisms are themselves more diffused rather than localized.
@@Formscapes How exactly do cities have "minds". Do you mean mind in a metaphorical sense that's supposed to convey the integrated diversity of features, styles, and cultures which represent its inhabitants? If not, then I have no idea what you are talking about. Last time I checked cities aren't literally organisms, and holding a meteoroligically nihilistic view on such a matter also dissolves the notion of a seperate collective existence.
@@jackkrell4238 Cells themselves could say the same thing, how could an entire echosystem around them can itself have a mind on its own? It is because this higher mind emerges from lower levels of lower minds who integrate themselves with the same value in forming higher minds. Societies are organisms who become infinitely more complex due to natural selection and integration and become more and more organismic over time. The principle of natural selection applies to anything involving life, which is basically everything, because everything is alive. You might even heavily theorise about where humanity is going following this idea. I didnt understand your evoke of nihilism, I actually see this as an even more holistic perspective, it makes us part of larger organisms which are part of even larger organisms, instead of us alone having to face life in our biological totality.
@@Formscapes Which is part of the whole process of integration and complexification. The higher the consciential level, more complex it is, because of its higher consciential underlays and organization of its consciential elements. Since Human Civilization might already be the highest consciential level, resulting in one great conscienciality, it will naturally use its under consciential elements in order to integrate and complexify them with it, resulting in higher complexification of the highest conscienciality, resulting in in faster and easier processes of integration and complexification... and this process goes infinitely until there is either a more complex conscienciality to eat ours or a way of disassembling all this order, fragmenting it to pieces again, like a deadly disease or natural phenomena. What I am ilustrating is basically the process of natural selection, except that I am assuming panpsychism here and being the most methaphysically and holistically as possible, which is according to the fundamental principles of a good picture of the nature of Reality and beyond.
Mr. Formscapes, Although I disagree with some things you say, I must commend you for pateince, maturity, and poise when dealing with acerbic and immature hostility. I have nothing but admiration for your intellect, open-mindedness, and enthusiasm!
I remember I made a comment once on of his videos with some counter arguments (don't remember what it was about) but he totally exploded in rage. Said he adressed all my arguments already in his videos which wasn't true at all and called me stupid. If you explode in rage like that then you are not a wise man. Intelligent maybe, but not wise.
@@andromidathegalaxy6082 Okay, you can't tell from a comment when someone is enraged, but it is obvious he is disrespectful to anyone disagreeing with him.
@@andromidathegalaxy6082 And just like Nalhek says: You can learn anything from a book and feel smart, but if half of what you read is wrong then you are just wrong.
Pretty much Dave encapsulates the quintessential essence of these scientism believers, all their arguement comes down to is "we circle jerked each other so we can't be wrong". When it comes to these types you can see how much they are essentially religious fanatics (scientism more or less is) with how pre manufactured their "arguments" are whenever anyone questions their dogma. My favorite part is when he pulls up Einstein's GR Equations and goes "hurr durr you're too stupid does dis look like dogma", but go ahead and postulate that faster than light "speed" exists (as found by notable people one of which being Wheatstone's EMPIRCAL experiments), or that there is an aether (which Einstein himself said his theory. which is bullshit by the way, would fall apart) exists, they'd immediately go into rage mode. They would then bring up the early Michelson Morely experiment and go "THERE THE SCIENCE SAYS IT DOESN'T EXIST" pat themselves on the back for being such "intelligent" and "scientific" thinkers who definitely don't regurgitate dogma, yet they'll never bring up Michelson's later experiments or even Dayton Millers. That being just one small example, of how "the science" works, act as if its "always open to being changed and question" yet simply ignore or disregard what you don't like because "it doesn't fit the model" or it wasn't circle jerked into becoming "facts". Don't even get me started on their whole peer review circle jerk nonsense, where if they don't like what you've found they either WON'T test it at all (doesn't fit the model) or they'll do it half heartedly and incorrectly and simply claim "you're wrong we did the science and it doesn't work out". But yeah gotta definitely not dogma guys and don't criticize it, because we the religious leaders, i mean uh scientists have the credentials and know whats truth for you lowly peons, now listen as we talk about how everything is quantum and spoooooky action at a distance oooh
If I had a penny for every time this anti-paragraph projector used the phrases "circle-jerk" and "dogma", I'd currently be in a much better position. The whole point of things like peer-review is to precisely weed out biased, subjective, or conflicting data. It's to prevent personal desires and motivations from geting in the way of proper data collection. Are you seriously this ignorant on how the review process works? Give an example of something not being tested at all, and please give actual citations. The condescending energy this comment emits reminds me of why humanity is better off extinct. Science doesn't allow oneself to have delusions of being special or special.
Your saying Einstein general relativity theory is bullshit? That’s just stupid. There is no aether. Same thing with the electric universe theory. Its complete bullshit
You regard to science as "Scientism", which explains how you haver never been to a college/university classes. If science is a dogma, why students conduct super basic experiments so they can see for themselves how what they are saying is not some bs pulled out of thin air? Moreover, the Einstein an aether is irrelevant. Example: Newton was practicing alchemy. Did his physics advancements become a "dogma" or "bs contradiction" whereby science and pseudo-science are practiced by one person? Second of which, did you read researches in general? Do you see how they are written and conducted? See, when a new paper is written, it takes base as old papers and model, and either elaborates on them further, or discards them with reasonable criticism and a new model that can support data previously collected. Exactly how dave explained: if you say some dumb stuff that does not answer previous observations, it is plain and simple wrong. An idea that answers more and explains previous knowledge, is taken as a new leading model. It's easy to say you never conducted a research or failed to do a research. Nor do you care about science: you just care about that sweet anti-establishment narrative that does not have a basis, sadly. I suggest watching channels like "Think That Through", "Think Before You Sleep" or "NileRed", to see how science is done/criticized. Have a good day.
Man, what a convenient perversion of what you want science to be. Tell me you have never actually participated in any of what you have just discussed without telling me. Dunning-Kruger is hard at work in this comment section.
I don't wanna invoke Terrence Mckenna as an objective authority on science, but sometimes he makes amazing points and it's worth taking his words at face value: “We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, and at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything.” -Terrence McKenna
We have done the science we have all the answers. Case closed. No need for further enquiry. Don’t worry about those paradoxes and contradictions. Maybe you would be more suited to a philosophy department. Scientific enquiry is a beautiful thing, it’s human nature that gets in the way. Love your work, thanks for exposing me to a realm of new ideas.
What paradoxes and contradictions? Also, science-based philosophy exists and serves to further expand what we understand about the world beyond the methodological process.
Yes and Tim Maudlin talks at length about how people in scientific institution doesn’t want to examine the foundations of physics. “Just shut up and calculate”. Contradictions - quantum physics and general relativity. Paradox - the measurement problem. Continental drift and germ theory are just two examples that were derided as fringe and eventually accepted.
@@8OO8132 I know that Tim Maudlin and Bernardo Kastrup had a problem on a debate they had, the former seemed very condenscending, just like Dave, I am glad he is actually more reasonable than he was there.
In my opinion, the fact that you are eliciting such an emotional response really shows the salience of your critiques. I think Sagan's "Science as a Candle In The Dark" really demonstrates that ,for many people, Science has taken on a religious function. Keep at it man, you're doing brilliant work.
I was a big fan of Sagan's works back when I was a teenager (oh this is the formscapes dude btw I'm on my phone) and I was really drawn to just how spiritual his appreciation for science was. Though with hindsight I can see much more clearly just how misplaced that spiritual impulse was for him. At a gut level, he understood that science was revealing the divinity in nature, but because he bought into the crude mythos of enlightenment progress, he was unable to take anything seriously beyond materialism and scientism.
Never quite got that point. It's true. That awe and wonder can lead to a blind faith and a disdain for anything who APPEARS to be unscientific... Like I said blind faith. And leaping to big conclusions while failing to truly listen, the sense of being complete in ones understanding is an illusion. Hence now all this stuff about dimensions and we don't know it all maybe there's new physics up ahead etc etc. Um ok now it's official? But the last two hundred years all the folks who kept their beliefs despite being ostracized or ridiculed. How very convenient for science. I didn't know scientific thinkers should participate in inter disciplinary popularity contests.
Yeah, science(or maybe more accurately, materialism) has really filled the role that christianity did in the middle ages for many people: it is the one assumption that is taken for granted without any proof required, and all other truths must therefore be manipulated into the correct shape to fit into the rules it defines. It's so intrinsic that, when questioned, people will use the rules of the system(be it materialism or Christianity) to try and prove the validity of it without realizing what they are doing. Unfortunately, I don't think it's feasible for the majority of the population to NOT have this kind of shared fundamental, orienting dogma to base their judgements and perceptions on - at least not yet, I think this property may be acquired with the evolution into the next consciousness structure.
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." - Maya Angelou All him and his fans are going to do is come back with the same cycle of insults and abuse. But great job. Experience is the real teacher.
Don't think think of this video, or really an responses or argument between people, as being meant for changing the perspective of the person being responded to or their followers, but for exposing outsiders who happen to pass by and observe the dispute to new perspectives.
You could be right but my take on it is, that he knows he lost that debate but is very confident that his followers are either to stupid to know it or they just don't care and just follow him for the entertainment, truth and enlightenment doesn't motivate or drive narcissists, the money and glory it brings them does and don't kid yourself, with the amount of deadheads following this guy you can bet he's making a lot of money off of peoples morbid stupidity.
Thanks for sharing this video. Its refreshing to see someone pointing out the influence of the monetary system and finnancial scheme on the way scientists are pressured to present their findings, goals, achievements.. Such pressure is almost ubiquitous and has dramatically pervaded society in its many branches to its own detriment for sure. Great channel, sincerely, its an honour to be around.
To give credit to Dave, back when I was still a hardened, life-long atheist I thought exactly the way he did. I had never for a moment questioned that maybe I wasn't right about this stuff. Then in early 2022 I met the dragon god Tiamat IRL. After talking to her for about 5 minutes she convinced me to quit being an atheist and follow her from now on. Since then lots of occult and paranormal stuff has been happening around me. Admittedly for most people in this world, some seriously real sh*t has to happen to them before they can be shaken out of their sleep. Unfortunately Dave hasn't had that experience yet.
Thank you so much for creating a response video to professor Dave Explains. I was thinking of doing one myself but couldn't have done it better! We are all truly blessed to have someone like you on this platform!
Notable that Prof Dave's most popular content is bashing flat earthers, evolution deniers, and other low hanging fruit. It's easy to do and his audience eats it up, inevitably resulting in some hubris and an aversion to certain nuance. Glad that you responded in an interesting and composed way. Dave rn: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-81bt0ZJLMas.html
Yeah it's common for dogmatic scientific RU-vidrs to debunk idiots to feel like a genius. Like yeah it's easy to debunk a flat earther, but it's like boxing against an 80 year old and thinking you are an world champion. I used to be like Dave and I can say that they do it for ego and to feel smart without any effort. That's why they throw in the word debunk all the time, because he just wants to claim truth despite truth always has many corners. And from all the stuff I have seen the last months (the healthier my brain got) I can say that reality is something we just can't claim the truth on. But AI can as it might decode all that stuff we can just precive dimly, but it won't be in Dave's favor
He does go for some low hanging fruit, but also critiques much more complex ideas, such as these, and still is able to effectively show the issues and logical fallacies within. While his attitude does leave much to be desired, using that as a rubric for why he is wrong is silliness to the nth degree. You can be a douche and still be right.
One of the wisest men to ever live, and I've read all the greats. "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds. Now you see the light, you better stand up for your right" And I'm a white dude from the prairies, in diapers when he left this world, lol RIP my man. Ja Rule!
@@denofpigs2575 only when u "understand" (aka find out for yoirself), the meaning of what is being said (aka you feel it), it is truly understood, until then, we're just blowing in the wind. I wish you peace 🙏
@@Formscapes Go to Daves video about you and then to newest comments and see the responses he gives to commenters who disagree with him. He immediately starts insulting them and calling them all kinds of names. It is ridiculous. He is nothing but an immature little narcissist. You should actually makes screenshots of these replies of his and save them for a future video.
@@maxmustermann9305 That's insane if it's true. I'd expect someone with almost 3 million subs to be a little more professional Forms is bodying him honestly.
Didnt watch his video literally because I thought "He probably missed the entire point that formscapes was trying to make" based off the title he put. Now im listening to you say exactly that lol, now I think i gotta watch his video so I don't stay biased
Likewise. For me, as soon as someone resorts to personal attacks and name calling to get their point across, they loose all credibility. When they do that *in the title of their argument*... Well, let's just say I'm not interested in what they have to say at all
I just finished his video, mainly because of intellectual honesty and openness to contrarian views, but I couldnt really agree with anything he said. I developed a very strong intuition of who is right or wrong in a given conflict, or if both are right and wrong, and everything he said feels extremely wrong to me, just compare the comments in that video to the comments here, the difference in the level.
@@wizkidgamer9942 I watched his video first and immediately realized he was full of nonsense when the first criticism he made was about Formscapes' intro video
@@Nature_Consciousness formscapes deletes comments of course everybody is positive here, if the comments were open, all of the people with ACTUAL BRAINS in daves audience would tear him a new one, and might sway his audience into exiting his echo chamber
It’s been awhile since I’ve left a comment on one of your videos. But I have been listening in. I usually listen to your videos while I’m at work; there’s something absolutely relaxing about listening to philosophy and alternative thinking while wrenching on vehicles. Thank you again for your work. This response video was done with such grace, respect and dignity that it is really very admirable. I can certainly say I’ve learned much from your videos and much of what you have said is incredibly interesting. I hope to see the day that your dedication changes the way scientific studies are done.
@@denofpigs2575 If you think that this video was anything but sophistry and ad-homs thinly veiled as "graceful, respectful and dignified" discourse, you're delusional. And you probably are. Insults are in order
"Dealing with stupid people is like playing chess with a pigeon. The pigeon will just knock over all the pieces, crap all over the board, and then fly home and tell all his friends that he won." 😂
New word I just discovered: THE SCIENTIZER: 1. a Non-Scientist who promotes Science as the highest form of knowledge, or only source of knowledge, a.k.a SCIENTISM. 2. A Laymen who's trust in Science is grounded in second hand scientific knowledge. One who does not have first hand experience with science or the practices and rituals of Science ( Scientific method, Research, Peer Review etc) but takes the scientific knowledge by FAITH. 3. SCIENTISM PROPAGANDAIST. 4. The New Barbarians. 5. Secular Fundamentalist. 6. Materialists Fanatic. 7. True Flat Earther
They are just priests and adherents of the current state religion, as have existed throughout all of civilization. it just so happens that the current state religion has, counterintuitively, the least nuanced and sophisticated understanding of total reality than any that has come before.
You do realize that just by getting a degree in science, you cannot qualify for number 2, right? Your major literally involves engaging in the scientific method, starting in your freshman labs.
Dave always has the classic Reichian armored response to anyone challenging his cherished "Science". His nasty tone of voice, his sneering attitude, point to unexamined negative emotional psychic content. His Behaviour says volumes about the average science bro's state of mind... Keep up the great work!
Dave's defense of scientism ironically follows Creationist lines of logic in some ways. Both fail to appreciate the beauty of theory. Creationists, for instance, criticize evolutionary science as “mere theory.” And Big Science usually stupidly responds by touting all the “facts” backing up evolution. It rarely says, you’re damn right it’s “only” theory. Theory is what makes science great. We don’t settle on a dogma, on a literal interpretation, on a fixed position. We allow our perceptions to change with discovery and reinterpretation (which never ends). Honest theories reveal insights into the world otherwise not noticeable, not final Truths. We don’t believe in a final explanation because actuality exceeds every formulation. We can always learn more.
I think it's safe to say that Richard Dawkins himself is largely to blame for normalizing that response. He would say "Yes, it's a theory, but scientific theories can also be facts, and evolution is a fact" I'd say it is rather undeniable at this point that we live in an evolutionary universe (in fact I think it's even more radically evolutionary than even Dawkins would admit), but after studying evolutionary biology and developmental biology (off and on) for well over a decade, I can now much more clearly see the error in Dawkins' thinking; When he says "evolution is a factual theory", he's not just talking about the more basic conjecture that life changes over time; he's regarding "evolution" as identical with a very specific Neo-Darwinian understanding of life which is, ironically, on the way out the door even as we speak. That paradigm just crumbles under the revelations which have emerged from bioelectricity and epigenetics, and now Dawkins is going to look like an arrogant a-hole who was unable to see his own blind spots because of his vitriolic desire to debunk his enemies. Sounds like someone else I know...
Our great Czech biologist and a philosopher of science and biology Zdenek Neubauer also made this observation that you make. That “scientistic types” (he was more pointing at the “orthodox” Darwinist types of biologists, mr Dave would fit that category) and classical mainline creationists actually share much more than they think. One example he gives is their view of matter: that it is just a passive “filler” of space, an inert “stuff”. Also, they both share the view that living things actually don’t have any agency of their own, they just blindly follow some dead “laws” which are absolutely arbitrary whether they’re just dumbly “there” or made by some divine watchmaker
@@thedisintegrador Exactly; they both buy into the 18th century "clockwork universe" uncritically - only the Darwinists have a blind/deaf/dumb clockmaker rather than a lucid one
@@Noah-zz7ct Thank you, that's very kind. I think you saying that and the existence of a channel like this are optimistically filtered signs of some bubbling primordial soup, a ripe moment, even while the crap is hitting the fan. Will be interesting.
You're doing a good job. Don't let this guy get to you. I love both science and philosophy, because the two things complement eachother. People don't necessarily need to agree with everything you say, or find it wholly accurate to glean much insight from it. Clearly Dave hasn't matured enough to understand this. I find your theories fascinating and your perspective refreshing. Your vocabulary and use of precise language is also appreciated. I have a lot more respect for the people who care about pursuing the answers to the existential questions that captivate humanity, than those who care only for pursuing a confirmation of their stubborn preconceived dogmas. So, thank you this channel, and don't let people like Dave here get you down.
Oh how fun! It's the science nerd! Lol He was so incredibly rude, good on you if you watched it. Dave clearly is trying to fight the rise of antiscience/antilogic content but he...isn't helping.
I want to thank you for your important and valuable insights and highly relevant content. In a time where the distinction between church and mainstream science is becoming less visble by the hour - both equally dogmatic and desiring worship for their infallibility. There is a far greater truth with deeper meaning, purpose and wisdom to be found when the one searching is fearless. May we all come together in peace and wisdom 🙏
Except for the fact that he actually understands what he's talking about, has experience utilizing the scientific method, and has actual knowledge about how things work.
Hey, molecular biologist here, just wanted to say thanks for arbitrarily shitting on me and all the other scientists out there, I didn’t realize I wasn’t really a scientist while I work on colon cancer research, I’ll let everyone know to go ahead and stop now.
@@alecedgerly1277 "colon cancer" bro you aren't helping anyone other wise you would've fixed it already. It isnt hard, just cure it. Oh wait, you aren't a scientist.
You attacked his dogmatic religion and he responded how a religious zealot would when their dogmas are questioned. Im glad you responded, keep your integrity and your channel and message will benefit
The funniest part of Dave's video is calling you a "Creationist" and "Evolution Denier", when your entering channel is about Evolutionary Neoplatonism. He literally just prove your point...
Incorrect. He criticized the notion that natural selection isn't a driving force in evolution, and specifically mentioned the problem with referring to it as a "darwinsitic paradigm".
@@Gxlto Specific examples of specific people utilizing the specific things you mentioned, specifically abusing philosophy, to specifically achieve the specific goal of maintaining a dogma. Preferably this channel since this channel is the one in question, assuming that you bringing up Young Earth Creationism as some sort of Boogeyman to compare groups you dislike to means you're coming from Farina's channel. Specifically that. Because I could also just simply say that you dismiss these notions simply because you have no response to them, not because they're wrong. The joys of speaking in generalities.
The way I see it, the best role for science is not to somehow arbit on philosophical questions about "God", or "whether the Universe has a meaning or purpose" and so forth. Rather, it's to do primarily one thing, and when described this way, to me both its value and its due limits become very sharp and clear: Science is to provide us with an accurate method of assessing _cause and consequence_ relationships. Of answering "well if I do this, what will happen?" type questions - even if/when we did not do "that". What it shows us about the Universe is that it is in such a way that causes and consequences are not typically arbitrary and capricious but can be understood and that seemingly fatal processes can in theory be intervened in, such as the use of medicine to treat a formerly incurable disease. The value here is it thus lets us make _good decisions_ - it cannot disprove God, but it _can_ tell us God will not reliably dispense a miracle so you can avoid taking your kid to the Doctor or that God will suspend the laws of the Universe to let you avoid vaccinating them without ill effect on them or anyone else. At least, not on any reliable level equal to simply taking them to that Doctor or using the vaccines, since science also can never prove negatives. But all scientific "models" are just that - they are devices to do the prediction of cause and consequence, they are not actual, literal "realities", though in some cases we might feel a strong intuitive sense at least the broad strokes may be something "real", e.g. that to the extent objects can be understood to have a shape, they are also made of little balls we call as "atoms", even though those are not immediately visible to our eye, because we can continually "zoom in" starting from a view of the object that _does_ reflect what our eye sees, right down past its limits and to them. But note even here, this "reality" is only on a relative level: it is saying it is equally real to the shape perceived by our eye. It does not say whether the object or anything else has some _absolute_ reality. In some way this is kind of like the Goedel theorems in mathematics; we cannot prove a suitably potent mathematical theory absolutely logically coherent, but we _can_ demonstrate a _relative_ coherence between theories. Again, this doesn't make the models useless or "wrong"! It just means we have to acknowledge the limits, and acknowledge that other fields and disciplines are not "wrong" either necessarily. We don't need our forms of human knowledge to _compete_ but to _connect,_ and they need the flexibility to do that. If anything, what everyone should "learn" from science is the ability to be flexible and say "I was wrong". Even science itself needs to learn that from its ideal form or "higher self" at times :)
I’m a fan of Dave’s channel for his videos on anatomy/biology topics that help me with my college classes. When I watched his video I didn’t even realize he was talking about you. I did think that video was odd in how mean spirited it was.
About standard physics being broken; Phase 1; "It's not broken and you are a liar for suggesting that it is" Phase 2; "It's slightly broken but we already knew that, and you are being paranoid for making a big deal out of it" Phase 3; "It's totally broken, but it has always been that way and it's actually a good thing"
I am genuinely taken aback at how openly a professional content creator would basically call you a quack for even suggesting that the current paradigm be wrong. It’s a serious flaw of current scientific endeavor that we don’t allow for exceptions or oddities and even moreso that, as a society, we are less and less open to the idea that we could possibly be incorrect. It’s disappointing and disheartening; the world will never be able to leave this weird miserable stasis until we stop trying to preserve an eternity that didn’t exist to begin with.
Had to come back post seeing his video and the framing is just so undeniably rude and disrespectful towards the idea of learning. I seriously don’t think I can watch an hour of him taking a video that was obviously not about him and making it a commentary on his belief system.
@@thedisintegrador Because people use morality as their own favor, with the "good X evil" dialectic, everyone who sees the world as these arbitrary destructive imperatives driven by desire instead of realizing the things are perfect the way they are and nothing must be done, they will contemplate the world instead of sensoring people by demanding how they should be.
It's because it's wrong and unscientific. It has been proven as a flawed idea, a flawed belief. I'm all for letting people believe what they want until it becomes dangerous. I'd be less angry if I was Dave but he needs to get his point across nonetheless.
@@CelticStoryteller I mean, dangerous ideas aren't to be systematically erased from existence either. There are better ways to disprove someone than a combative takedown. Your anger is your own, and you should reflect on it alongside the people you're defending. The whole of us who are talking about this do not think the things you or Dave think we do anyhow.
Related to this, weak minds don't *have* ideas, but are *possessed by* ideas and ideologies. Whereas great persons truly *have* ideas. This ability to have ideas distinguishes a person from an automaton. Since the possessor is greater than the possessed, persons are greater than even the greatest ideas. Perhaps we should discuss persons? Or how to become one.
Excellent response, but how do you get folks who are so fixated within a limited world view to look outside that? If you look at Dave’s video comments, it is like an echo chamber of folks who aren’t even willing to engage with your arguments. They will continue to be fixated on minutia, and personal attacks to their egos identified with a materialist world view. I’m glad you are showing patience and most importantly emphasizing that folks like this look to their blindspots in metaphysics and epistemology. I think that’s the most important point because at the end of the day, they just have a more restrictive tunnel of thinking while you are inviting your audience to do the work of investigating our ontological assumptions. If you can even nudge someone who is entrenched in materialism to look at these blind spots for a moment, then you’ve illuminated the possibility for breaking that pattern of habitual thinking. Though it takes some 20 minutes before your bring this up, I wonder how many of Dave’s followers will actually make it that far into your video?
I think his video style selects for autism in his comment section. The people commenting are highly likely to be autistic. Better to just feel sorry for them.
I believe Mr. Professor Dave would be an extroverted thinking type under Jung’s typology framework. This is why he “needs The Science to be the science on a deep psychological level and emotional level.”
This was a great talk my man. You spoke on everything clearly and gracefully. Scientism is a perfect descriptor for @ProfessorDaveExplains because much of what is being discussed is not able to be tangible studied in the traditional, materialistic perspective at this time. One MUST be open to think outside of the historically set parameters. When I had Dr. James Tour on my podcast, I watched a lot of content between Dave and Dr. Tour. I am not a fan of the beta-vibe insults that come from Dave as it does not facilitate healthy dialogue. I appreciate Formscapes for his calm and clear demeanor. Thank you brother!
Although people may scoff at the abstract epistemological analysis of scientific theorization and observation as BS metaphysics or needless pedantry, it really highlights the problem what I believe a majority of other scientists fail to understand, which ultimately leads to their failure to effectively and efficiently create and improve the predictive accuracy of their models, and their failure to approach the optimal solution with an optimal rate of improvement when engineering systems to solve problems using their models. It seems many people really don’t even make an attempt to conceptualize their theories and what they observe in their entirety in terms of a formal logic system. Too many assumptions are made and not acknowledged. Unlike purely theoretical constructions within a consistent formal logic system where the properties of entire systems and subsystems can be known with certainty, With realworld phenomena this is not possible, or atleast there almost certainly isn’t any publicly known proof of such a case and there may never be proof or any proof that’s known by any human. Failure to understand this can amount to merely minor errors and inefficiencies or snowball into the catastrophe we see everyday in academia and industry. The shameless ignorance that’s boasted about this by so many scientists, no matter how much prestige they may have, is baffling and frankly gives a disappointing impression of the intelligence of humans even at fairly high lower-bounded quantiles.
This dude gave you a phenomenal chance to reveal yourself in a truly organic way. And who could ever get enough of this ? The debate becomes holoflux and metaphysical precisely because neat categories just won’t do past a certain point. Not everyone can and will follow you across interdisciplinary fields, Formscapes. However you are generous to entertain the ‘attack’ as a platform to debate. Thank you for having the integrity of being transparent with your journey, concerns and conclusions. You are a great thinker and speaker. Mundanely..Haters gonna hate 😂
if professor dave made a hit video about you, you're doing something right. i can't actually find words in my vocabulary to honestly describe mr. professor dave that won't get my comment deleted, so i'm just going to let anyone reading this use their imagination. the matrix has many gatekeepers, and he's one of the least informed. keep up the good work, man. don't let the muggle legions drag your name through the mud. at the end of the day, it's free press.
@@Nalhek I've had so much experience with this, it's like I've got a PhD. When you grown up being emotionally and psychologically abused, you know it very very well.
Im not sure whether or not to subscribe to current models of atomism/particle physics or germ theory or celestial models or geology or neodarwinian evolutionary theory or Einsteinian field theory or psychoanalytic theory. I remember the mathematician Leibniz wrote about finding the method of turning a curvilinear figure into a rectilinear one of some proportion, he writes about analytic and geometric which are both accurate and their counterparts of approximation and mechanism which are nearly accurate. I think models today suffer from not being accurate but are only nearly accurate. What if determinism isn’t the route to truth? What if the world isn’t mechanical? Another organic model is by Hildegard of Bigen.
I would second Formscapes comment and say to not subscribe to any one of them. Think of them like lenses to look through in a process of investigation. Don't throw anything out, because a range of perspectives allows you to look from many more sides than any single one would give you. Also be conscious of your own lens and its effect on what you observe.
If you must ground yourself outside yourself, you have kind of lost. It means you haven't taken the time to ground yourself. Ground means literally grounding to earth or nature and learning from nature itself. I lately came across an interesting Indian explanation on RU-vid why Dharma isn't a religion and that ancient India has always done science grounded in working with nature., leading to advanced scientific concepts. Also another video explained how the internet and Silicon Valley were offshoots of militaire science. The reason I mention this is, my strong belief that what we say, focus on, propagates through nature and that self similarities are embedded in the solutions we create. Hence the systems that it produces. Therefore the system becomes alive through us and defends through us. This is maybe unknowingly, unconsciously embedded in our psychology. It is like the early child that is one with his mother and environment. Minds make us strong and vulnerable at the same time. The defence of unscientific science is the defence of a system routed in military which per definition is paranoid..you can't have a defense without a perceived threat. Control is best done by ankering it to a belief system that also works when you're not at war on your own grounds. The reason why I can come up with such an explanation is precisely the freedom to change my thoughts when new information arrives while fed back to the experiences and past knowledge about reality where I live in. Science should be tested on the ground, especially when the experiment doesn't lead to death or ruin. Therefore carefully evaluate the implications of what the science tells us. Science is doing, experimenting and experiencing. I appreciate to see your face behind the voice I have heard for so long. You use many difficult words in your narratives. But, by rewatching I get to understand them slowly. Therefore your channel is not for the 'Mc Donald's mind'. No drive thru for quick grab concepts. But open to scientific thinking routed in curiosity, the will to know and seek wisdom. Thanks
So happy I found your channel, it's really made my perception expand and look at things in a way outside of myself,so to speak. I love the way you explain concepts and details.
Watched Prof. Dave's video as well. It was an interesting to hear the counterpoint. But his arrogant and condescending tone, matched with the fact that he, as you stated in your intro here, seemed to miss the point, made it sad to watch. His hyperbolic takes on what he insisted your arguments actually meant made me cringe listening
@@midknight_aura I suppose, but always good to clarify For me the point was clear. In a nutshell, it was to lay down a series of arguments as to how 'science' as an institution has abandoned its philosophical foundations in favor of getting caught up in a particular dogma, and engaging in the various games that comes along with it
I was going to watch Dave’s video, but since he threw an ad hominem into the very title, I judged the book by it cover and just moved on to something else.
@ afrosymphony8207 The thing is, this discussion isn’t based on common sense. It’s about ideology, which is very far from common sense. Most people don’t consider the fact that most great societies have fallen with the rise of ideologies, therefore it’s not common sense. What is common knowledge, at least within the circles I run, is that the sciences have been bought. If researchers don’t jump through the hoops in a correct order they lose funding and all research comes to a halt. Which means people will defend the position that gives them funding, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Scientism.
The way Michael Schermer came after Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson on the Joe Rogan podcast, was a perfect example of what you’re speaking about. Graham and Randall were criticizing dogma in the narrative of mainstream archaeology. It’s somehow ironic that Michael Schirmer, proclaimed skeptic, was more dogmatic and less skeptical, in defending the mainstream narrative of archaeology, while Randall and Graham were clearly open to other possibilities which michael was unable to consider seriously, and rather prejudicially dismissed them. And that was the stage from which they conducted their debate. It seemed to be one where Michael had already decided that these guys were wrong, assumed the audience would automatically agree, and only attacked and defended in effort to show how silly any alternative proposals were. The disagreements and criticisms about alternative ideas/narratives would be fine, but it was clearly done from a position of defending the mainstream view against attackers just because it is the “scientific” view, as if “science” has never been in the wrong.
Also that debate between them was just fantastic. Hancock would begin every rant by asking Shermer "Do you know about X? do you know when Y and Z happened? Do you know who discovered X and how they did it?" And every time Shermer would just kinda mumble a bit like uhhhhhh..... no?
This video basically boils down to "Dave is bad faith and anything I don't like is "The Science" and anything I do like is "science"". Very ironic stuff here. It's a good thing that pretty much anyone can upload a video to RU-vid. This way, they can just expose themselves as the idiots, charlatans, and pseudointellectuals that they are.
As repeatedly stated; "science" refers to the epistemological project of engaging with the natural world as a means of disclosing the compositional elements of nature. "The Science" or "Scientism" refers to the ideological conception of science as a clergy of institutionally authorized beliefs - i.e., science as a form of obfuscated religious dogmatism rather than as a pursuit of truth.
@@Formscapes Yes, you're calling anything you don't like a form of "scientism" and dogmatic belief and part of "institutionally authorized beliefs" and anything you do like (and seemingly anthing antiestablishment, surprise surprise) as "the epistemological project of engaging with the natural world as a means of disclosing the compositional elements of nature". All while being utterly clueless of what you're actually talking about.
@@_veikkomies These ideologues dont use reason, they are militant and mock others, just like you did, insulting his own image. If people were honest, scientism wouldnt exist.
“I’ve noticed that many people intuitively sense the limitations of academia and scientism, recognizing how financial interests can influence scientific inquiry. The search for dark matter is a prime example, where opposing viewpoints were overshadowed by established theories and financial stakes in the academic world. This isn’t unique to science; it’s a pattern mirrored across various sectors, from healthcare to politics, where financial biases subtly shape decisions and perspectives, often unbeknownst to those involved. Professor Dave and Formscapes represent different sides of this debate, but it’s essential to acknowledge that financial imperatives can introduce biases into our understanding and dissemination of knowledge. As we move towards a more authentic and truthful engagement with these issues, especially concerning the allocation of public funds, it’s crucial to remain open to new perspectives that challenge the status quo. I lean towards Formscapes’ view, advocating for a broader approach to reality that includes consciousness and awareness in our quest for truth.”
Most scientific journal charge hundreds of dollars for researchers to publish their work and are never paid any of the money made from the charging access. Feyerabend was quite misunderstood when he brought up the problems with scientism compared to science along some of the same lines here which are quite correct.
Since my comments keep getting removed by RU-vid, both on yours and his channel, I'll just say that the ironic chorus of "Trust the science" and "If they proved their case, they'd BE science" can be answered simply with two names: Semmelweiss and James Watson.
While I wasn't excited for you to get into RU-vid debates, I couldn't be more pleased with how clear and professional you made this rebuke. Well done. Heretics: 2 Ecclisiarchy: 0 Lol
I dont mind at all him responding in such a manner. Its just debate. But the fact he has to be such a jerk about it calling everyone stupid with that smug little video title is just really unsympathetic. You dont insult people if you are trying to convince them, you insult them, because youre not really adressing them, youre only adressing the people who already agree with you. He doesnt care to actually change anyones mind to what he believes is true.
The mere fact that virtually all of us who understand philosophy to be the foremost discipline when it comes to knowledge of the world arrived at this conclusion by way of having waded through the scientific disciplines, whereas people like Dave have never taken philosophy seriously and completely fail to even understand the points being made in philosophical arguments is evidence enough of who grasps these epistemological problems and deals with them most saliently.
I feel this happens on many different levels archetypally. People who don't go by the restricted doctrine of society are subsequently rejected and beaten on a conscious as well as a subconscious level. Their rage and violence seek to kill the ego of anyone who stands against them. The underdogs damned to the abyss by the righteous to be molded by isolation and darkness. This, however, makes the psychological vegetation of the underdog stronger if he/she survives the onslaught. The more one is repelled into isolation, the more he is burdened. The more they are burdened, the more power they hold. When this individual or group of individuals find themselves with enough 'liberative' power, there is a force that eventually must consume the authority. The abyss must consume the 'light' that's built itself on pillars of salt and sand. I want to live to see it. Personally, I've felt as if my ethos has been completely spiritually broken by society for expressing myself. I walk outside and I find myself paranoid of every single person I come across because I fear what little fire I have left will be stomped on by the righteous. I make myself small in order not to be seen. It is a 1984 dystopia in the subjective perception of many individuals like me. I want freedom and I will stand by any group who stands against this doctrinal force. There's still something burning, awaiting whatever new age awaits. It is channels like this that preach love and truth rather than hate and doctrine that give me strength. I've said this a million times before but thank you Nalhek. You are forever my Gandalf. DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER.
Because people use morality as their own favor, with the "good X evil" dialectic, everyone who sees the world as these arbitrary destructive imperatives driven by desire instead of realizing the things are perfect the way they are and nothing must be done, they will contemplate the world instead of sensoring people by demanding how they should be.
David told me everything I needed to know about him in that one video: you hit the nail on the head and you’re way more familiar with him than I am. Neil DeGrasse Tyson was an icon before he started lying about studying astrology in good faith and then, in tears, started raving about new genders. The meek…. Keep your foot on their necks 😂
Thank you Formscapes for this video response, and more specifically for the class and grace with which you articulate your viewpoints. You show yourself to be wise, and not just knowledgeable, and an intuitive, and not just an intellectual. It seems those that have abandoned a connection to the full spectrum of what the human soul is capable of perceiving are in full blown panic mode. Are they surprised? What did they expect? The age of Aquarius is upon us, and the faculties of a clearer, more precise spiritual perception of the world has surfaced. Unscientific dogma is the "new religion" in the mind that is still haunted by the "ghosts" of a failed materialistic paradigm. Defending dogma has become their conviction, and you have shined a light on their bumbling Egregors. Keep shining it!
it seems so-called schools of science have stopped teaching logic courses as of late. why? cuz we have computers to do logic now. yea that's great, except logic isn't an in-built trait that humans naturally have, logic is a skill that needs to be trained and constantly worked on, and it needs to be worked on correctly. it is the basis of critical thinking. and without it we will just be constantly tripping over our own fallacies and not even realize it. buncha muppets.
I watched all 3 videos in order. I understood your point separating scientist consensus (The Science) from scientific methods (science). The methods of science give us access to truth (or whatever approximation of it), not any scientific authority. So when I saw Dave's video, I quickly figured out that he's not arguing about that. He's fed up with likely false theories being spread (ESP, water memory, etc), and fed up with people pushing theories that don't perform better than the dominant theory (he believes electric universe theory to fit this, which I'm inclined to agree). To me, both of you are correct on your large points. There's a missing clarification about the role of sociology and authority in scientific method. You say that authority does not bestow truth, and has given falsities. Dave says that authority does not bestow truth, yet most often gives the best theories invented so far. These are both true. I think Mike Alder's article "Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword" sums up this debate. A scientist and a philosopher meet about a shared topic, and use the same words, but disagree on semantics. The scientist prefers a performative definition of truth (which is why Dave brought up examples of technology as evidence for the dominant theories), but the philosopher prefers a metaphysical definition of truth (like the correspondence definition of truth). For example, Newtonian mechanics is metaphysically false, but approximately true in performance. These two types of truth are the major disconnect between you two. "So, you compare the theories..."
Also, I'll add that paying for journal access is an incentive for a journal to provide quality information. Open-access doesn't have that aspect, and pay-to-publish has the opposite incentive.
You're correct but the point here is to disparage and belittle any opposition. If the point was to engage with each other this jousting wouldn't happen. Look at the comment sections on each video, a virulent circus.
Since you used ESP as an example, I have to ask. How many scientific studies about ESP have you read? Have you ever read a book on parapsychology? Have you ever looked at the metastudies? Have you ever read any theories pertaining to parapsychological phenomena? Are you aware of the history of parapsychological research and the controversies surrounding it? Or are you just assuming that the entire field of study can be safely dismissed because certain people slap the word "pseudoscience" on the topic?
@@Formscapes To be honest, not much at all. But I think I'm still consistent. I put General Relativity in "theories I haven't investigated, but most people say it works", ESP in "theories I haven't investigated, but most people say it doesn't work", and water memory in "theories I have tried at home, it didn't work, and most people say it doesn't work". So for me, both GR and ESP lack the personal type of performative truth. I should withhold belief. Yet, if I was to begin investigation of both, I think I would be consistent in approaching GR with less suspicion than ESP. I think group consensus and expert opinion are still important, and that they do form evidence for some theories over others. They are useful shortcuts to tentative belief because life is short. Of course, personal scientific investigation is a better method (that's your point). I largely agree with C.S. Peirce's "The Fixation of Belief", which shares that idea. I personally don't make much of a distinction between pseudoscientific theories and scientific theories. I might call "theories I think are likely false" pseudoscience, but that's just language. The things worthy of being called pseudoscience are deceptive methods of coming to truth. Magic tricks, advertising, and marketing stunts are pseudoscience. Emotional experiences and drug trips are pseudoscience because the brain is too chemically compromised to make reliable conclusions (there can be science studying such powerful experiences, like neuroscience or psychology). And for a fuller list: Authority, tenacity, a-priory methods are not science. Personal experience is lesser science. Reading scientific reports is second-hand science. Writing observations is better science. Hypothesis, testing, and analysis is greater science. A double-blind is better science than a retrospective. Studying the natural world is science.
The big contradiction about Dave is that for someone who believes in Science and knows about it so well, he believes in Gender identity which is a post modernist psycho-spirituality belief created by french philosophers and psychologists, for an example his "What is a woman" response video, he provides 2 definitions of what a woman is the other definition just being psycho-spiritual nonsense of being "A feminine person", but isn't science about being objective and studying the physical world?
Why would we have to research what a woman is this second definition of what a woman is if Science is about being objective? That would be up to the psychologists and not the scientists
The man isn't cancelling science or whatever as he already emphasized its good aspects many times. As a researcher myself, well replication has always been a big issue since ever....And i can point out that more than 70% of researches nowadays are way far from being for the sake of society and morality. There are so many ambiguous and hidden things as well as competition which set former things apart.
You deserve credit for even bothering with that guy. I’ve not seen a single video of his in which he refutes an argument he disagrees with in a reasonable way. It’s straight to personal insults with him. Such an absurdly angry dude.
Luv you bro, amazing vid, totally agree. That said why did you pick the serial killer look? Those frames, the goatee, the messy hair, the plaid.... I mean... is it symbolic of how you're gonna serially murder our preconceptions?
keep it up Formscapes. you resonate with me on a deep level, and your response on this issue was really accurate and well spoken. I hope you keep this humility about you. because I haven't seen you step outside of your moral / noble demeaner. Not only are you doing a service for the minds of man by talking about such deep topics, but your showings in this way paint an image of calmness and authenticity. something the world really needs. If you blow up, I hope you keep that same level headedness about you.
My senior year, Air Force General "Van Halen" came to sell us on the idea of the Star Wars weapons platform. There are a lot of Professor Dave characters out there.
Through a memepage on Facebook lI discovered this video and I feel happy seeing that the study of philosophy is bringing people to the same ideas. I subscribed. Really nice to meet you! With warm regards , a friend from EU
Welcome aboard! Someone was just telling me that there have been a bunch of facebook memes about this but I don't use facebook so I haven't seen any yet lol very awesome that people are talking about it though
@@Formscapes and I don't really surf around on RU-vid, making this fusion of horizons all the more special! With the word out through the means of meme magic, it seems you can expect a lot of new acquaintances these days. Cheers to that, my friend!
I found, which isn’t mentioned here, that the big problem is also communicating effectively. Dave doesn’t realize how much confusion and misunderstanding can arise from mistaking the map for the territory. The city map is not the city. Mathematicians and physicists alike confuse the two all the time, we see that rabbit hole with the nonsense of black holes, big bang and string theory.
I just discovered your channel tonight and am loving it. Actually LoL'd to see you've been 'debunked' by the 'professor'. What a positive endorsement. You're spot on, keep doing what you're doing. Clowns like him are gonna clown.
You don't need to put a cosmic soundwall behind your words. It adds nothing but distraction. Would have loved to just listen to this, now I am charged with this useless bombastic energy. So many do this, pure poison. Serenit silence flow of speech, that is all. Your work is incredible, thank you.
One thing I learned from YT very early on is that about 98% of people are going to appreciate the music or barely notice it and 2% are going to think it's annoying or distracting. I can't please everyone and I can't upload two versions of every video.
Your point at 28:00 regarding metaphysics is very salient. It's the metaphysics of scientism that keeps them from asking the kinds of questions that would explain data, instead of sweeping anomalies under the rug. And the assumption that phenomena are universally consistent AND emanate from a single source is also just an assumption. If Metaphysics were allowed to be discussed more openly, then those who value genuine discovery and exploration might just discover that being a little more Poly-metaphysical-amorous would benefit their explorations.
I've found that no matter the metaphysical framework it really only captures a sliver of the whole picture. Like 2 dimensional slices out of a 3 dimensional shape. You don't want to hold on to any one of them, better to stand nowhere so you are better able to step anywhere.
@@triskelionchi3747every model of the world, no matter how much improved and sophisticated it gets, will always fall short by virtue of being a model. The only perfectly accurate model for reality would be an absolute Recreation of it, which is to say reality itself. everything will always be a candle in the darkness. We need to keep our humility in mind when we acknowledge this, while also respecting its power, because you can see a lot further with a candle than you could with no light at all.
Like a painting; the more we study into why it's aesthetically pleasing to look at, the more we lose sight of it. This is proponent with any idea that comes to fluition, it will eventually and paradoxically warp into dogmatic singular points of view in which will fight against itself. Destruction of truth. Even the flat-earthed theory while seemingly a ridiculous concept, should not be rubbed into the dirt. It's an idea and ideas are compulsory for discovery.
"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Don’t know if this applies at all but, I had a coworker who told me about reading a book that his mom gave him to his 6 year old daughter. The book was religious and was talking about rain or something and the book said god made the rain. He told me instead of saying god he said science. I found that very disturbing. Not because I’m religious but because that would skew a developing mind in a way. Science does not create rain. You can use science to study rain and weather but to give science a “magical” power? I think saying Zeus would be better than saying science. God and science should not be interchangeable in my opinion.
At least saying that Zeus or God makes the rain would be instilling a sense of wonder and connecting the rain to a broader tapestry of mythic and poetic meaning. Science worshippers really love the idea of disenchanting the world - of reducing it to nothing but lifeless mechanical processes so that they can self-righteously scoff at their enemies. In reality what they end up doing is creating a picture of a world which is completely robbed of meaning and animacy. A world which noone wants to be in.
He was already a joke for his engagements with Pierre-Marie Robitaille... then a bigger one for his debate with Tour... and now this misrepresentation has solidified his status are mentally inept to the highest order in the debatebro sphere. I hate to say it... but we found somebody worse of then Hasan 😅
You are such a brilliant and phenomenal soul, and you are SO ahead of the times… I value everything you do on this channel to the depths of my soul. You take my speculations about the way I observe and understand the world and string together that information so eloquently having observed life in general from a similar perspective. I hope one day I can achieve the same preciseness with my word that you have, please don’t stop sharing this important information. The perspective society currently takes is so flawed and your videos are one of the first stepping stones to helping humanity shift. I come here and watch your videos and I feel like I’m finally not “the crazy one” ❤️
I love drama like this, it makes my brain churn seeing two knuckleheads discuss about something I don't understand the slightest. It is like when the two smart classmates debate to see who gets the correct answer by a nonexistent and ubiquitous teacher.
I think it's one thing to have strange new ideas and then put those through the scientific method. I think it's another, and I'm not saying you're doing this necessarily, to come up with strange new ideas and make RU-vid and social media posts about them as being both valid and true.
Assuming you're out of the loop; none of this was about any particular mainstream or divergent theory/hypothesis. It was strictly about my criticisms of dogmatism in academic culture, which resulted in Dave throwing an hour long temper tantrum in which he made it abundantly clear that A) he is an indolent manchild who is utterly incapable of serious conversation about literally anything, and B) that he hasn't the foggiest idea as to what my beliefs even are, let alone what my arguments for my positions are.
hey Formscapes i've been subbed to your channel for awhile but never really got around to watching your videos yet until after the controversy. i appreciate long form channels a lot but realize a lot of them are straight-up garbage and a waste of time so for that reason i like to hear critiques of those channels as well. i just wanted to let you know that i've come across hundreds of channels like yours and yours is the one i'm most impressed with, hands-down. after seeing how you respond to the science guy, and how you elaborate on all your points, i'm certain your channel is one i will be watching for a long time. cheers!
Part of the reason I feel Dave makes videos like that are purely for views. Look at how many subscribers he has, yet hes failed to crack 10k views on most of his recent videos. Unless the videos are attacking or "debunking" other people He also has this supremely smug, gross aura about him. It's very off-putting
this has been really interesting for me. I have recently gotten into your channel and it's new territory for me because I usually find it difficult to respect the critical analysis of people who tend towards the metaphysical, even though I do myself. you are quite similar to myself but you have put an impressive effort into thoroughly developing a paradigm that I'm more in the beginning stages of working through. I watched your critique of science and thought it was very well done. when this video popped up, I went to watch professor Dave's video in response to you. in some ways, it was quite impressive and he had some decent points but I agree with you that there's something far deeper going on. if I recall correctly, his subscriber count is in the millions and it's kind of shocking for him to "punch down* with such aggression. you really struck a nerve in him and I don't like how nasty his attitude was. it was excellent advertising for you though ☺️ I hope you get some well deserved exposure out of it. he was triggered by exactly what your video was about, that he literally cannot respond to without questioning his entire world view. he's a pretty intelligent guy but you really got him where it hurts and I think that's the most powerful validation of your point. he ripped you to shreds but totally failed to truly respond to you, regardless of how well structured his arguments are.
Wouldn't it be funny if a group of occultists had taken over the scientific establishment and created a cult from it and now those cultists defend the cult at all cost. Obviously that could never happen though. Dave would root them out immediately,
That video somehow ended up in my feed and I clicked on it thinking it would be a critique of today's science. Boy was I wrong. His video was unwatchable.
