"The great promise of Science is that of knowledge one is able to uncover through one's direct engagement with nature, rather than knowledge which is bestowed from on high by authority figures and institutions." Finally, something that cuts right to the point.
While I agree with the spirit of the video, I have a problem this quote: the first clause is exactly what leads to the 2nd clause. The person with the "direct engagement" or experience becomes the authority figure, like a prophet. "Nature" becomes the institution bestowing the engagement from on high. It's just giving the priesthood new names.
@@rumfordcI believe the quote is about science being a tool to be used by anyone who wants to know more about the world around them. Science should not be shrouded from the unqualified and reserved for the use of a select few who then impart their knowledge to the masses as doctrine. Finally experience does not equal authority in science because experience is not and can not be applied uniformly to each individual.
To an extent, but the idea is that you could, in principle, "replicate the prophethood". The video is correct to the extent of practice, but there is a fundamental difference in how - in theory - revelation and science work. There is, at least in the Western tradition, no methodology of prophecy. There is also an epistemological non-overlap (the keyword is "non-overlapping magisteria") in that science has a tendency to produce contingent predictions, whereas prophecy, in many regards, offers, as far as we can verify, offers no possibility of such. @@awesomespark73
I was in my final course of my biochemistry degree (physical chemistry) about 5 years ago, with a 3.7GPA, and even then, I had sensed something SERIOUSLY wrong with the corrupt institution that Science has become... I hated the fact that SO many absurdly pointless research projects were being funded, but things like herb research was shunned and discouraged. They'd rather have me studying monkeys on meth than something that actually could be useful to the masses. Also, the fact that the pharmaceutical corporations have turned into such monstrosities, as we've witnessed recently, left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. I ended up doing nothing, and going nowhere with all of that knowledge due to this negative experience. That being said, I approve the message you delivered in your video.
I think there is a couple with a podcast called demystify sci that talk a lot about that. The wife has a molecular biology degree I think she’s even a doc- and she cringes at the pointless shit they made her do to rats. You would think for all the pulverizing of rats for the last hundred years we’d have all that info by now
I was like one year old when they tested me positive for hepatitis B and my mom travelled all over the country to save me but nobody could help and I mean doctors. They just blatantly told her in one of our capital's hospitals that she just should take me home and wait till it's over. Basically they told her to bury me. When she came back to my hometown my grandma told her to visit a herb doctor. So she did. He gave her different herbs and told her how to properly make them into medicine(nothing complicated - boiling, extractions) and believe it or not after two weeks of this treatment I was on my path to recovery. Since then I hate pills
as a phd student i see everyday people who believe so deeply in unproven theories and are scared and completely unable to accept that biology is very complicated and our initial impressions on how systems should operate are generally overly simplistic (excuse me for the terrible english im sick and not in a great mood) that being said, science is REALLY hard to do right especially in biology where there are near infinite number of covariates and the aforementioned complexity of these systems is seemingly limitless. We should focus on low hanging fruit when possible and admit when we cannot fully explain certain phenomenon due to experimental biases or factors that are impossible to account for. We should also put less stress on publishing positive results, which are often misleading due to the experimental biases i mentioned. I can say in my experience, i was never formally trained on how to perform data analysis, we sort of figure it out as we go along and much of the data is flawed.
In the words of Frank Herbert, "fear is the mind-killer"... Ever heard of the Dunning-Krueger effect? Combine the two and dogma is almost a given it seems
The only "Science" where you can fully understand every bit going on in a system is prolly Computer Science. But that depends on your definition of science to begin with. Is math a science? Fuck if I know, fuck if I care lol
@@peterstephenson9538 Actually this is a really good point, it is a common misconception that science is about proving things.... Science is about testing theories by trying to *disprove* them. No theory is ever supposed to be considered 'proven' because that removes the ability to challenge an idea and turns it into dogma. Some of what we consider 'proven' are really just strongly-tested theories; even gravity only works to describe the universe if bandaid-patched with dark matter which is unprovable by definition, a theory patched by a theory 🤔
Furthermore, one of the biggest tricks played on college students in this past decade or two, was to convince them that gender is a complicated subject, where it is actually one of the simplest, it is just a matter of either "X" or "Y", quite literally too in this case.
The creepiest thing I've seen people say in recent years is "I believe in science!" the way a Christian might say "I believe in Christ!". I've seen people talk like this in the comment section of things like videos about landing rovers on Mars. I've seen people put signs on their lawn declaring that the people in that household "believe in science". It's a shout of religious fervor.
If you look at the origins of science, this really isn't even surprising; it was a spiritual enterprise from the very beginning, and as with any other form of spirituality, doctrinal dogmatism is an ever-present danger
I find it interesting that there has been a clear correlation with science and spirituality if you will. When God fearing men held more prominence science thrived. If you look at when the world started going to shit morally, youll also find so did our scientific advances.
I think a person saying they believe in science is very different from saying they believe in christ. Believing in the scientific process is a statement regarding logic; saying that u think the scientific process is good, useful and produces reliable results. Whereas believing in christ is a statement regarding faith; u believe in christ because of your faith. Even if the scientific process is flawed, or if the scientific community exercises the scientific process badly. Saying "I believe in science" is not religious, and I'd probably say its a positive thing to believe in, even if the current scientific institutions are fallible. But that's just what widdle ol' me thinks 🥺
@@evilforestspirit I think you miss the point. I see people say they "believe in science" when they see a scientific accomplishment like someone might say "praise Jesus" when they see a miracle. Not only that, but saying you believe in science is like saying you believe in a calculator or a table saw. Science is a tool and a method, not a faith. It's not a concrete set of beliefs but people treat it that way because they have nothing else to place their spiritual reverence in.
As a Christian with a very classically scientific mindset, I find the absolute faith in science to be hysterical. While Christ does demand faith, science is defined by NOT requiring faith. Scientifically, you should be able to reach the truth yourself with observation, and the truth should therefore be self-evident. So to hear figureheads of the scientific community fail to provide evidence in favor of saying "trust me" is inherently anti-scientific.
@@ege8240 like Einsteinian relativity, they're models. They fit the data better than any other model we have but that doesn't make them right. One day a more complete theory will come in, and then an even more complete theory. It's the idea that current models cannot possibly be wrong that's so offensive.
I wish that people would understand this (that "THE SCIENCE" is mere theory and conjecture). I love that the newer science communicators like Sabine speak on that, that science is not truth but an effort to discover it.@@dr.jacksonbright5723
Your desire to experience "getting" something that others seemingly do not seems pathological. Although it feels good in the moment, it seems ultimately self destructive and I hope you can try seeing it in the way you listen to others speak. If others aren't understanding what you're saying, that does not mean they are less intellectual, gifted, educated, or ultimately human. It simply means you aren't speaking on the same terms. Regardless of how you take this, I don't mean to speak down in any way as I have felt the same way myself. Cheers
@@joelvinsant1189 so instead of actually responding to him pointing out the fact that formscapes didn't respond to dave's arguments, you focus on imaginary elitism amazing
@@Seticzech because Dave responded to this video by calling it a conspiracy and debunking the electric universe. Neither of those can be responded to because 1: Dave's anti conspiracy argument simply consisted of assuming his position is trustworthy and working back from there, and 2: Formscapes never defended the electric universe in this video. Dave was tilting at windmills for an hour and his followers came here and proved Formscapes point. When the "yay science" crowds dogma is threatened y'all get HEATED and it's hilarious.
I was just thinking this. Science has done this several times throughout history. Becoming arrogant in thinking they know everything and worshiping unproven theories as dogma.
It's not science itself though. It's culture. Popular political academia of the aristocracy forming religions upon dogma for the purpose of maintaining power. Science, the process of discovery and the methods of inquiry, keeps marching on without the flawed ideals, while it's the people that hold onto their beliefs like a coat in a rainstorm, and the government corporations offer fake umbrellas for sale.
Regarding dark matter, there actually have been numerous attempts to remodel gravity in response to the observations you mention, and some are still ongoing. The problem is that they fail to adequately account for the observations that led to general relativity in the first place. Moreover, there have also been subsequent observations that strongly indicate dark matter is a thing and not an underlying problem with the model. The observation in this latter group that I find most compelling is that we find galaxies where there is no disconnect between observable matter and gravitational force. If "dark matter" were really just a quirk in the math, then it should be found everywhere in equal parts, but this is not the case.
I don't think that Dark Matter is just a quirk in the math, a real thing, or a problem that can be solved by substituting GR for another mechanistic explanation of any kind at all.
@@Formscapes You've just excluded every possibility, so I don't know what you are getting at. And you also ignored the point that you (intentionally or no) left out critical information that, when added in, shows dark matter to contradict your argument, not support it.
You're referring to the bullet cluster, which is often touted as the nail in the coffin for MOND-like theories. Sabine Hossenfelder made a few blog posts and I think even a video on that a while back. According to her, and the paper, the bullet cluster doesn't fit particle dark matter models either. It's not a slam dunk you're being told that it is.
As an astrophysicist I agree about 80% of the points raised. My biggest issues: this video a bit insensitive of various social and practical realities which us professional scientists have to deal with to do science as all. Also Avi Loeb is an asshole who unethically uses his established academic position in toxic ways. If he merely had some strange Idea, I would not mind. It is the other BS that gets me.
Overconfidence in models and people not completely understanding the derivations that supports those models just depresses me to watch time and time again. I walk into academic fields and find mistakes so large and somehow overlooked so often that I just don’t bother bringing it up to other academics cause of how pointless the effort would be. More likely to cause me trouble than anything productive
@@riverrunpastadamandsteve honestly I don't think its worth attempting to say anything specifically since I'm not going to accurately prove any important claim within the size and format of a RU-vid comment. Also i don't want to start a pedantic argument with anyone here. But one of the most common errors I'll see within the scientific community is due to people using statistics. And trust me its a whole lot more than just mistakes regarding statistics. Scientists rely on statistics heavily. But, Alot of statistics is not rigorous or even mathematically legitimate despite being presented and considered by many as formal. This results in several statistical tests that simply do not calculate the correct probabilities. In other cases where they are mathematically legitimate tests in their own right, scientists often use them incorrectly. Usually its because someone misreads one or more theorems the test depends on then creates a method based on that, and then people continue to use that method without ever thoroughly checking the derivation if at all. This is so common that there's multiple "standard practices" or methods that give bs results in academia and industry across multiple fields. If you notice a discrepancy with the derivation of a statistical test, and you wanna do a sanity check that there's actually a mistake you found. Then it helps to test your suspicions by running a statistical simulation on your computer to see if you get results that would be exceedingly unlikely to occur if the derivation was correct, assuming such a test is feasible to run in a reasonable time. Besides statistics, Generally speaking scientists use illegitimate math alot more often than you'd think, way too often. You might even stumble across a theorem in mathematics with an error in the proof despite the proof having been accepted by the mathematical community. Thankfully though that's very rare. These mistakes go unnoticed either because specific claims or models never actually get tested adequately or they produce results that are somewhat close to the right answer often enough that wildly unexpected outcomes are just considered as random coincidences whenever they happen. The video mentioned the kuhn cycle. On multiple occasions i saw glaring issues with a mainstream model that either were issues because of illegitimate math or just fairly obvious disagreements with observation from several known experiments that should've removed most of your confidence that the model might be right a long time ago. I've been disappointed on multiple occasions, Watching years of countless wasted resources go by before the scientific community finally runs enough experiments that the most prominent scientists in the field can't deny it any longer that the model just doesn't work. Modern scientists have a problem with math likely due to excessive specialization. There's a saying about physicists in particular.. "Physicists love the math they know and hate the math they don't." This saying comes from their common and weirdly hostile attitude towards the use of abstract math that hasn't already been used by other well known physicists or themselves to create models. But they absolutely love to fawn over the math they've been taught as a prerequisite to understand mainstream models. For context i work in multiple scientific fields. Covering Biology, chemistry, physics, computer science, and multiple types of engineering involving those. I'm a mathematician usually doing applied mathematics
@user-gn5do5yq6s Almost immediately after I started working. A lot of technical projects involve many components that relate to different scientific fields. And often individual components require interdisciplinary knowledge to understand completely. I made sure I understood every component because I had to in order to figure out what problems even needed to be solved in order to reach the goal of the project. In some cases I’d design a very large percentage of what we needed in the project from scratch, designs for ASICs or FPGAs or custom analog devices, using CAD for designing mechanical equipment, creating chemical/physical protocols for: creating a material, treating a material, probing or modifying biological systems etc. I made alot of computational algorithms for a very wide variety of applications we needed. But most of the work I like and end up doing is pure math.
Former Christian now atheist and parts of this video really clicked with me. Honestly i got some really bad deja vu asking questions tough about "gender identity" in a social studies lecture... gave me flashbacks of being that one kid in church who asked too many hard questions. Ive noticed so many studies and papies ive read having alarmingly small sample sizes and jumping to radical conclusions even though the result they got could have many, many, MANY causes or factors. This video in some part put into words what Ive been feeling for a long time.
As a psych grad, I felt that the much of the field of psychology had been hikacked by the advertising/marketing field. The only way to actually make money straight out of the field was through social marketing and ads which in essence to me meant taking advantage of the knowledge to manipulate peoples views. Understanding the psyche, to some degree, is sacred knowledge and should be regarded as such.
Even several years ago, it was alarming to me how many people with psych degrees I would speak to who just like... didn't know the first thing about psychology. Like not even the basic stuff about Freud, Jung, Erikson, Piaget... I remember thinking (when talking to one of my exes who was a therapist) "I have no idea what happens in psychology degree programs but it clearly has very little to do with psychology"
@@Formscapes I was pretty lucky to be in an okay psych program in NC. I think they did a pretty good job of communicating the modern day relevancy/ applications of Jungian psych, freud, and piaget. BUT I also minored in human development so that helped add RELEVANT nuance A TON!
I recently took chemistry, and the final assignment for this class was on pseudoscience. I noted that it was odd that there seemed to be no solid definition of it wherever I looked, only Karl Popper's issue on demarcation, 'falsifiability' (which we see here is hard to test due to the institutions valuing quantity over quality). Looking further, I noted that pseudoscience was more a philosophical and socio-political issue than a 'scientific' one, because, truly, everything is connected. I am aware that I probably should have discussed this with my professor beforehand, but despite technically answering the questions, I still got points off! It turned out she (or, more likely the curriculum) wanted my topic (AQAL) to be analyzed from a 'scientific' perspective, and any diverging ideas were unacceptable. Perhaps I've found myself in an echo-chamber in only interacting with this part of youtube (and the internet) as of late, but there is something deeply strange and corrupted about this...
I saw that this comment had initially been liked by the creator of this video, and then there was a comment from Sylvann 'No, you're in an echo chamber. Guys like these thrive on feeding false strawmen to people to get them to oppose the truth'. I was initially going to reply to that comment asking who 'guys like these' were and what 'the truth' was that the creator is opposing, but i'm starting to wonder if that comment got deleted. I decided to look more through the comment section, and I find it odd that so many of these comments are uncritically praising this video and the person behind it. Because thats the problem, is it not? Blindly believing what the scientific institution is built upon; appeals to authority, catchy headlines about this Great New Thing science says will Change The Future when really it had not been peer reviewed and is not replicable. This is how false information spreads, because people examine and believe things incritically based on their own biases... I just find it really ironic.
@@kalebb4 From experience we all agree with him... it's not that I blindly believe him. I already know how the Pontiffs of Scientism work and who they work for.... stagnation is many fields happened for too many decades because of the misallocated grant money and scamming of the taxpayer.... not to mention the Mathematical Abstractions that undermine observational data or even the suppression/cover-ups of evidence that effectively debunks the "mainstream" or conventional models.
@kalebb4 It's also ironic that the channel pumps out a quantity of videos where quality just isn't possible. There also are some videos with very questionable premises. All in all, i don't think the channel is trustworthy
@@Nikola_M These videos seem to just be slideshows, and towards the end they sort of go off the rails... it's most likely that there's some AI generation involved. ('most likely' means little to nothing in the face of no evidence - I could not know unless I contacted the creator themselves.)
I see your point of concern, however there seems to be a lot of actual research put into this, as well as some additional reading. I think skepticism is certainly appropriate, moreso now than ever, I'd like to know the channel's affiliations. It doesn't seem bought and paid for necessarily, then again, hasbara didn't seem odd until I began noticing overwhelming statistical concern. Not everything is as obvious as I wish they were.
I cannot stress enough how underrated this video is and how much more recognition it deserves. "Trust in science" is a fundamentally rotten phrase. If I NEED to trust it, I have enough reason not to trust it
I am adding "science apolegetics" to my vocabulary. Many people's understanding of the distinction between science and pseudo science is merely what has worked for them and what they have seen, in principle that is no different than simply believing in magic.
Man, I would love so much to just sit down and talk to you sometime. I've almost never encountered anyone who feels so close to the views I've gradually come to over the last 10-15 years, and yet I just can't understand how you have the energy to do such projects as this...I still fear I might die with my works unwritten. I fear even more that I will have written them *too late* for it to matter. The solitude is just...crushing Thank you for all of your magnificent effort and the great work it's resulted in.
I may have to get discord as well, I've seen the world this way for a few years now after some pretty traumatic stuff broke me out of my illusory worldview; I so rarely find anyone I can even discuss it with! People mistakenly identify with their beliefs and then any challenge to those beliefs is taken as an attack on the individual... Pretty used to just keeping my mouth shut at this point, sooo much respect for your confidence in taking on this topic; good reception from the community in the comments too, well done 🙏
Where are you when you're the smartest person in the room? - the wrong room. ❤ Don't feel down because most people are narrow minded, indoctrinated zombies. There are a great many amazing minds out here for you to meet, challenge and get challenged by. I live for this, always searching for truth, I especially welcome those with opposing or different theories. It's like looking at a map of Seattle, wondering why you just can't seem to find an address and then talking to someone that points out you're in Phoenix. Lol.
I think too many people think that once a study is published, it's conclusions are proven fact. I'm a bioengineering student and the best most articles give is stating "well this thing happened, which seems to like to this process, but doesn't give anything conclusive". We're also encouraged to thoroughly investigate what methods of data collection they used / where their data has come from. I think it's funny when people think science is big government dictating reality from on high. Really, it's just a bunch of people who love a topic fcking around and finding out stuff that may or may not be useful. An example being one of our professor's most recent paper on nuclear decoupling when cells face sheer stress. It can be summed up as "we stretched it, and it stretched. We squished it and it got squished."
I think that "big government dictating reality from on high" is where we got lost in this video. Science doesn't prove anything, it doesn't provide incontrovertible facts. It says, we've tried this, this happened. This happens enough times and it can seem like a "fact of reality", but science only ever has the best available answer, not the actual answer. The central conceit of this video seems to be sort of "science was wrong a few times, but it's got a whole bunch of believers, despite its flaws, therefore it's a priesthood, therefore...." (a bunch of social extrapolation). Anyway I'm about 20 minutes in and it seems to have dove off the deep end.
Most "studies" are funded by big food and big pharma conglomerates. That tells you all you need to know about the modern, directed cult of Scientism. How the media handled the global corona scandal is another big teller.
"ecclesiarchy" you must have a serious ego on your head if you unironically use words like this. There is no reason not to use common language other than to confuse people and boost your ego.
I call it Scientism. The sad irony of Carl Sagan's quote about being "bamboozled for long enough", is that even he did not forsee how "Science" would be used to bamboozle so many people, it seems.
@@therelentlesswanyou’re absolutely right. Sagan was the prototype of Bill Nye and NDT. Celebrity scientists. Rudolf Steiner lectured over 100 years about the direction that sciences and medicine are heading on this purely materialist path, it will lead to horrors beyond our comprehension. As long as science continues to shun SPIRIT, which is the essence of all physical matter, we will continue down this materialist path which ends in a dead, technomachinist planet.
Scientific investigation requires that we question everything, especially paradigms that are obviously failing. If the search for the true nature of reality requires us to work outside the box, WE MUST. That is the point of science. No limit to which method to use, no limit to what questions we can ask. It is blindingly obvious that there are problems with GR and QT. At the very least, both theories are woefully incomplete. That has been my position on GR for a long time. It’s comparable to Newton’s theory of gravity: it DOES work, but only to a point. When you start to dig much deeper and zoom in and see phenomena more clearly, we know it’s incomplete. But that is ok: Newton is not totally wrong, but his work is not finished. This is the point of science. Einstein picked up where Newton left off. Now it’s time for us (or one of us) to pick up where Einstein left off (btw Einstein knew his work was incomplete).
Thank you so much. I have been desperately trying to get people to understand this corruption. The average person has no reason to distrust "science", the inteligent person KNOWS its faulty.
And, yet, when one is critical of science, or more accurately, repeatability and integrity of the methodology of an experiment they are portrayed as fools. It’s an appeal to authority to claim that one is the authority on “the science” regarding any singular model, or even more maddeningly, as a whole. The arrogance of celebrity scientists who speak on subjects outside of their research and study to issue decrees on said subjects is absurd. Would you trust a plumber to fix your car??? This of course is not to say that the average person is more of an authority than somebody who is studied and disciplined in the scientific fields, just as you probably should take heed if your mechanic tells you that you ought to change your spark plugs, nonetheless it is absurd to take their word when things don’t sound right and it seems like they are giving you bad advice. Don’t designate all of your thinking to others.
@@lordofleaves257 oh no how barbaric an anti-vaxxer? Let me allow your subtle threat change my opinion paid agent. It means when that one guy what was his name oh yeah Epstein, when his partners father Robert Maxwell started the peer review process it created a gateway to data that the public has no abilitiy to view. That then created a level of corruption that led to presumtious and sloppy experimentation and an inabillity to both trust and independany recreat aka verify them. Hopefully that cleared it up for you paid agent.
As evolutionary philosopher I publish papers around SCIENCE EVOLUTION in german language, in which I develop solutions for many of the problems of current sciences, that are also mentioned in this welldocumented video here. It's most interesting for me, what enormous sh*tstorms one can harvest by criticizing the HOLY sciences and their dogmas and offer them alternatives instead. Like priests who fear the fall of their gods they behave like witchburners on the hunt. It's necessary to teach them some humbleness. Good science knows only for sure, that it knows nothing for sure. Everything else is not knowledge, but BELIEF!
What about the other way around? Like with the placebo effect, which works on faith. And if faith can have an effect on curing people, then surely a lack off faith in doctors and the meds could make the meds and other treatments less efficient. And for psychology it's even worse since that's primarily about exploiting the placebo effect. If this leads the science community to conclude that in order to save as many people as possible we should use the placebo effect to our advantage and instill faith in people. Maybe they begin to hide information from the public, create hospitals with awe inspiring architecture, wear strange clothing, speak a "mysterious" language that nobody understands but them, etc. Is it then witchcraft using the scientific method or science using witchcraft? There is already an example of this happening in psychology. The flagship of psychology, cognitive behavior therapy, was far more effective back when it was invented than it is today. And that's very likely because people had more faith in science back then, it was seen as the work of geniuses, almost esoteric, far over the head of the average person. It no longer commands that kind of authority, and pretty much everyone has a fair understanding of science. In that sense you can see the phrase cognitive behavior therapy as an obscure way of saying learning from repeated experience, and then it no longer sounds like a spell from Harry Potter. Not so different from the story of Franz Mesmer, a fraud that invented hypnosis, something still used in psychology today, or at least up until recently. Even though it's well known that it's just a mind trick and there is no such thing as hypnosis or trance, these words have the power of suggestion because we've given them that power by giving them meaning. But is it really a trick though? Phantom pains are not technically real, but the pain is really experienced, the body and brain responds to it the same as real pain. So wouldn't science be neglectful if it didn't take advantage of such a powerful tool just because it's afraid to admit that witches and wizards where right all along? And find that if they refuse to bring the theater back into it, then some fields, like psychology, are just going to degrade further and further until they become irrelevant. Not just psychology either, social engineering on a mass scale, like our societies institutions, countries, even the economy, it all relies on faith, without the public having faith in them they cease to exist. A church or a god or any modern equivalent all relies on worshipers to "live". The royals of the past knew how to employ theater to great effect, still influencing every day life today, like lawns is one of the many things that come from them. Growing grass on a plot of land is absurd, not so long ago it was a ridiculous display of wealth and power, yet Joe Schmo does it today without a second thought, mindlessly mowing his stupid lawn. Now that's some great social engineering. Our politicians today don't command anywhere near that level of power. So maybe science minded people today should stop being all "how did the myth of blue blood start? Maybe it was the clothes they wore?" when the answer is very obviously that they knowingly created such myths to elevate themselves in the eyes of the public they ruled, and did so with great results. And while the myth was unscientific the results are real and scientifically measurable. And that is basally magic, creating real results out of what is essentially fantasy, something we do every day. In conclusion, the bias towards old world wisdom in the scientific community is working against it to undermine the entire practice, and they should learn to embrace it instead and reconnect us to our past. Because if they don't they'll just drive civilization further into the empty hollow chaos the western world, and arguably the entire world, is becoming today. If science wants to be a religion then let, but they can at least do it right. Because belief is necessary to, and if it has no place or structure then we get chaos, and II'd rather have scientifically constructed religion than Bill next door telling me about Illuminati reptilian aliens being in control of everything.
So force doesn't equal mass x acceleration? The universe doesn't for sure contain any stars? Gravity doesn't exist? This is knowledge my brother. I don't know how, with your qualifications, you do not understand what scientific inquiry has done in terms of what is known to be certain or not. Heres some more. So we don't know if... Atoms exist? Electrons have a negative charge? Neutron stars have neutrons? Natural selection happens in an environment with life? (good science knows only for sure, that is knows nothing for sure, right) Energy and mass are equivalent? (e = mc^2) Dark matter exists? Magnetic fields exist? Planets, including those in the solar system, exist? Venus is hotter than Mercury? Pluto is in a binary system with Charon? The Oort cloud exists? Chemical reactions happen? Please retract this statement. It is stupid. All of these were found and reported via academic papers. You can find them online. Science isn't dogma. Science is finding a truth by theory and experiment. There are books on theoretical physics. There are reproducible experiments using physical objects. You can swing a pendulum to find gravity just as much as you can melt chocolate in a microwave to find the lightwave frequency used. The universe, including all of these scientific facts, is all around you. As you read this now, notice all the forces acting upon the environment, and you. The stomach acids in your stomach. Gravity pulling you down. Air drag. Scientists do experiments. You are a scientist. Pull it together, mate.
I appreciate comments like this. Everyone has a different piece of reality and I love putting those together. I hope individuals could also put themselves together in the same pursuit.
You're 100% right. Science is a great tradition, but the popular understanding of science is in a state of crisis, on both sides, from those who think they're pro science, to those who are of course avowedly anti-science. In biology. In earth sciences. In human health. Our poor understanding of modern technology.
When scientists in a specific field frequently speak of "surprising" or "unexpected" discoveries, it means the paradigm guiding their predictions is wrong. The two fields where I see this happen most often is in cosmology and biology.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Well, its simple really. The value of a scientific theory is its ability to make accurate predictions, right? Well, if you have a theory that says that life started through a purely natural process through trail and error and a s##t load of luck, then you'll expect the basic chemistry in the root of life to be quite simple and messy. Indeed, in Darwin's time scientists thought of the cell as a simple blob of protoplasm. So it is odd when scientists says in the one hand that "nothing in biology makes sense outside the theory of evolution", while at the same time, you get articles of scientists expressing surprise at how integrate, detailed, complex and precise biochemistry is, with an almost religious word of praise of how evolution is so much more powerful than they ever thought. (Let's not dwell on the details too much, though.) If, for example, these biologists held to the idea that life was created by a designing intelligence, they would not only _not_ be surprised at such discoveries, you'd expect them. A simple example is the notion of junk DNA. Prior to 2010, most biologists thought of 90% of DNA as being junk, since it didn't seem to have any function. Evolutionists claimed that this is exactly what they expected it to be, since the evolutionary process would produce a lot of such none functioning junk from which new functional genes might arise. Intelligent Design proponents predicted that it is not junk, and it serves a critical function in the expression of genes, although the exact function was not known yet. It turned out, the ID guys were right in the end. Did this invalidate evolution? Ofcause not. You just change the prediction after the fact to fit the new evidence. There are so many examples of that happening. If the theory guiding your expectations is correct, then there shouldn't be all that many surprises.
Yeah and then we immediately go to work modifying our paradigms as we have always done. 🤦🏼♀️ The two fields you highlighted are two with a lot of work to do still and many open questions. This is how science works and they usually teach that in junior high
@@nickallbritton3796 No, they do not. If they did, then Darwinian theory would've been in the dustbin a long time ago. Its "predictions" are constantly updated after "surprising" discoveries refuted the previous set of predictions. How many "surprising" discoveries does it take before scientists will admit the theory is wrong, and we really know a lot less about the history and development of life than we'd like to believe?
@@Hannodb1961 you're literally explaining how science works. You make an observation and attempt to explain it. You test that hypothesis with an experiment. If your hypothesis doesn't hold up, you revise it. This has been happening for over a century. It's not Darwins theory anymore so stop debunking him. There's dead scientists that beat you to it. But the people you listen to are misleading you 🤷♀️ sorry
@@nickallbritton3796 No. That is not how science works. That is how it is _suppose_ to work, but reality is different. Todays institutionalised science is about ensuring your job security, about publishing or perishing, about not rocking the apple cart too much. A lot of scientists have vested their entire carreers into the idea that evolution is true. All evolutionary biologists does all day is to cherry pick data to make their theory sound water tight. If evolution is false, do you think they will admit to it? Ofcause not, that would mean they're all suddenly out of a job. I have seen how dishonnestly they treated the scientific criticism raised by the ID movement, how they _never_ address the real argument (because they cant), and instead resort to every logical fallacy in the book: the genetic argument, the argument from authority, knocking down strawmen, introducing red herrings. Ofcause there are scientists who actually - and perhaps naively - believe that science is about finding the truth. Some of them actually became convinced by these arguments. However, it doesnt matter what your scientific credentials are: if you dare to question the dogma of evolution, you will be pushed out of academia and you will be ridiculed and discredited. Thats because the "consensus" arround evolution is manufactured, it doesnt stand on the arguments and the evidence, but on the threat of being excommunicated. "Being cancelled" has been a thing in institutionalised science _long_ before it became a cultural phenomenon.
Absolutely worth the time. Science has devolved into scientism, and nobody can earn recogniton for any opposing diverging views. In their own lifetime it seems. Yet there is urgent need to press forward with new ideas if we want to have a stable future environment.
Why do we need urgent new ideas? Humans lived just fine before the scientific revolution for thousands of years. All the science and human nature is still the same, the stick just got bigger that's it!
You've certainly gone over an essential issue in scientific inquiry (qualifying what science actually is, the problems between epistemological assertions and reasoning methods) as well as having called out the kind of people that believe in scientism instead of the method of science, which indeed there are schools of thought and we as always require one's presuppositions in which their views are set upon. Here here! To Formscapes!
@@The_Epicness9000is this actually true? You mean you replied with actual examples of incorrect statements and the replies are mysteriously gone? I've been looking for legitimate criticism and have yet to find any from Dave's crowd.
@@joelvinsant1189 One point of legitimate criticism you ignored from his video is Dave calling out Formscapes for excluding a massive amount of his electric universe debunk and not letting another content creator talk whatsoever.
@@The_Epicness9000 I definitely think that's fair on one level. If you're gonna attack someone on the same platform, at least let the audience hear their words. I can see why that wouldn't necessarily fit into the style of video that the creator of Formscapes generally creates, so I don't see it as a necessarily nefarious move (maybe it is, I don't know), but I can see why it could be seen as such. I totally understand Dave feeling defensive in an instance like that, but his complete misunderstanding of the foundation of Formscapes' creators' views on science and reality itself is really a turnoff. Completely labeling someone as stupid and completely beneath you while clearly not having a clue as to what they're even saying is very dangerous and personally disgusting. The heart and intellectual vigor I have experienced in all of Formscapes' videos is truly incredible and deserves at least to be acknowledged in a video like Dave's rebuttal.
Man, I just love this. All of the reasons for my departure from academia presented in such erudite manner. I love science but despise "THE Science". It's extremely saddening to me that my dream of making a real contribution to theoretical physics was a near impossibility from the outset due to all that power- and money-hungry rot within. I kept being pushed towarfs medicine but declined studying it, as I could plainly see how corruption within made making and implementing discoveries that *truly* heal people an uphill battle against the entire pharmaceutical industry.... What I've not anticipated though was that the world of academic physics would be just as bad, just a different flavor of it! At this point I only see art and speaking to people through media creation (like you are doing right now for example) as the ONLY avenue that's left for any divergent thought to reach anyone and help them. So, thank you for what you're doing and adding fuel to that fire within me that is my will to make this world at least a little bit better through contributing to it by the use of my talents and intellect
I agree, physics doesn’t get much funding at all anymore. Physics as a field has slowed down dramatically other than the hadronic discoveries and the updated standard model (Higgs boson and so forth), I’ve not heard of any other major scientific advancements in physics. I’m just an undergrad biophysics student, but I attribute this to pointless theories that are mathematical mazes, mainly string theory. It’s robbed the attention of so many scientists with no real observations that can support this theory. At best it can be called a hypothesis. The model has been found to be insufficient and unstable since it works with multiple dimensions, further making it hard to integrate with the macroscopic world like Newtonian mechanics (as is the problem with quantum mechanics). I don’t think we’ll see big breakthroughs in physics for many more decades. The political climate has to change and there just has to be more interest. I believe this century is the century of biology though, just as the 20th was for physics and the 19th for chemistry. Biology is extremely popular and ever advancing.
@@restitutororbis964 we just launched the biggest, most expensive telescope in the history of mankind that is massively increasing our understanding of the universe but let's ignore that.
I studied architecture, and in my singular experience, many professors completely ignores subjectivity and urges there to be some scientific basis behind every choice. While I do agree with some instances of this, way it was taught was this sort of unquestioned reverence towards scientific research and belief that it gives legitimacy to very subjective experience of design. I remember being told by one professor to conduct a research to prove my design was appealing to "majority of people", otherwise it is not a legitimate design or to have papers explaining reason for choosing a certain colour etc. It goes beyond just having functionalist mindset or using knowledge from other fields to design. It felt like many were using scientific findings without the proper knowledge or the context behind it to give one's design this armour against criticism. And, it worked, because while people are much more critical of things when it is presented as artistic choice, they will not question any further if you say it is based on some research.
An absolutely cucked mindset that any great artist would be horrified and disgusted by. Not surprising though. Scientism manages to worm its way into basically everything, even fields which have absolutely no business trying to be scientific to begin with.
I really like this presentation. Science went from a tool to help understand life into a tool for social control. Well, perhaps it may be more appropriate to say that science went from a tool for understanding life. Someone shifted the goalposts and used it as a tool of social control. I have suspected this for a while, but you took a deep dive into this.
They're all jockeying for supremacy. The whole reason the big bang idea exists is simply to compete with religions offering of a beginning. Science had no such thing so the big bang was created.
Yes, life - continuing life, improving life, expanding life - is the central thrust, the central value, the central thing to be served; everything else - every concept and model and paradigm - is peripheral, a servant, a tool. Without life, there is no experience or evaluation, beauty or science, fact or truth. As you move to the edge of science, you slip into philosophy; as you move to the edge of philosophy, you slip into spirituality and art, awe and wonder. Medicine went from serving life to serving financial profits. Money and social control became the "god" to be served instead of life, the source, the flow. The powers that be want separation and closed categories, insecurity and neediness for their addictive balms, comfortably numb; they don't want healthy, holistic, confident individuals, in love with life and the universe, filled with joy and spirit. They see you as a tool to their end rather than an end in yourself. "Ye cannot serve life and mammon." "By their fruits, ye shall know them." "What profits a man to gain the world and lose his soul." Clear age-old wisdoms that have become clouded by the dust thrown up in the stampede for control over others. We have subsumed life itself to the pride of the intellect, to greed, to fear, to the herd instinct, to false idols.
Extremely well thought through arguments. You seen to put into clear language some vague, uncomfortable and largely abstract impressions darkening the corners of my mind whenever I have lately considered "science" as a process, as a philosophy and/or as an institution. Thanks for the hard work on this video! This helped me clarify those hazy intuitions about the direction science seems to be heading. Also, thanks for calling out Mrs. Astro (or whatever get handle is) for that crackpot video which I unfortunately watched and was so taken aback by the hypocrisy therein that I couldn't even think of an appropriate comment to leave voicing my objections to her propaganda. Well done in general! You certainly earned my thumbs up and sub!
This video went way harder than I expected it to. I've always had a problem with the "shut up and calculate" mantra because I've always had a problem with the way math is taught. It's simply easier for the institution if kids memorize math techniques rather than understand the math, but as I come to the end of my physics undergraduate program, I realize that understanding the math is so much more important than being able to blindly apply it. Peoples hatred of word problems stems from the lack of practice abstractly applying the math that they've learned in a rigid environment, and yet from the very beginning of our education this "shut up and calculate" mantra is embedded into our psyche. Ironically, Einstein would have never came up with Special Relativity and Newton (the penultimate crackpot) would have never come up with gravity if they had followed the idea of "shut up and calculate." There was a moment in my modern physics class where the teacher seemingly used that mantra to shut down the idea of being like Einstein, and I couldn't help but wonder why he doesn't want another Einstein. Now I know.
I have been using the phrase Priesthood of Academdia for the past few years to describe my experience and observations. Thank you for putting together all the pieces that show this is true. I facilitate holotropic style breathwork and when you actually transcend your consciousness you cannot help but put together the pieces of the true nature of our reality.
Most "studies" are funded by big food and big pharma conglomerates. That tells you all you need to know about the modern, directed cult of Scientism. How the media handled the global corona scandal is another big teller.
Yes! About time someone went after "Mr. Dave." That guy is so angry, and so insulting. He is the type of "popularizer" who foams hatred and shrinks the scope of science
This was phenomenal. It said a lot of things that I remember being discussed at length in my philosophy of science classes in undergrad, but that seemed unknown to anyone actually doing scientific research. Excellent work.
yea he said a lot of things that were true (mostly pretty basic things in philosophy of science like what you would learn in a basic undergrad class) but many more things that were untrue. he cited very few sources and his claims are mostly unfounded. so no not excellent work
@@nickallbritton3796 you are so right. I now hate this video and have reported it for misinformation. Thank you for deigning to inform an ignorant Cretan like myself about how wrong a random video I liked was, and leading me on the path to true enlightenment. I have abandoned all of my concerns about scientism and modern academia and fully embraced the unequivocally based and correct notion that the universe is filled with Dark Matter. Thank you for taking the time to inform a random stranger who had four likes on his comment that he was /wrong/, because it has changed my life forever.
@@rosifervincent9481They are NOW but for decades (if not for centuries) they weren’t. Also, do schools finally mention Newton’s obsession with Alchemy or is that fact conveniently ignored?
@@MichaelPohoreski it depends on what level school you are talking about. At university level, where you are encouraged, and required, to conduct your own research, any decent biography of Newton is going to mention his alchemical studies. It may not get mentioned if you are studying Newtonian physics. I have no idea why you seem to find something sinister in Newton’s alchemical studies not being a mainstream subject.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440Alchemy is a way of enlightenment - by applying it one leaves the cesspool of ignorance and dogma of Science. In Newton’s case it is a perfect lesson demonstrating that as intellectually smart as Newton was he was spiritually dumb trying to interpret it in a Literal manner instead of a Spiritual manner. It is rather ironic that this foreshadowed the Fallacy of modern Science (in that it focuses on reductive materialism.) Men tend to ignore what they don’t understand spiritually. Another lesson wasted by the education system.
During my 7 years of university, computer science, we were forced to take a lot of other courses in other fields like phisics (with a little quantum mechanisc), mechanics, very advanced math. logic and others. Professors who teach physics or mechanics to computer science guys are aware that we will not care about, and not actually use his course, we just learn to pass the year. But this situation makes him teach differently, they do not put the priestly robe with us. They teach us without arrogance and with a desire to make it interesting. And I remember quite a few *accidental remarks done by my physics professors that goes in line with what this video talks about.
The cliche criticism of useless theology is wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I’m sure this can be reworked as a calculation to land a massive federal grant.
If you want to turn science into something non-scientific, promote these four beliefs: 1: science tells us the way things SHOULD be even if they aren't that way 2: science cares about you following it 3: science is mankind's duty 4: science is the only path to truth Actual real science never makes any of these claims. These are philosophical value statements.
The fact that the Luddite Christians hate science is nothing new. People like me are going to spread that meme and trope more and more. It's been known for nearly 2000 years that Christians hate and fear science 😂 All denials to this post are "dogmatically" dismissed and denied 😂 Muwaahaha I love it 😂
@@jamesmorseman3180 basically there is no evidence, nor scientific theory that proves science is the only route to truth, or that it is mankind's duty Instead these are views, and values that you (and myself as well), hold about the world
I listened to this one morning last week, but it just now struck me that the two first examples of things that came to mind for me, well before you even mentioned them, were the two examples you used of RU-vid channels toward the end. For the first one, it was the exact video by the exact creator; for the second one, the same creator but a different video of a similar tone and subject matter. You're doing God's work, man. Science needs to be revamped and revived for the good of all of the life on this highly unusual planet we love to consume.
Right on man, solid video. It's about time someone raises these serious topics and necessary conversations in such a well structured presentation. Glad to see this up on RU-vid. 👍
Thank you for this. I’ve been wanting to make a video or record myself ranting about this exact topic, but you thoroughly nailed it. So I’ll just share your video with people instead 😊
Thank you for making this video and pretty much nailing the state of science perfectly, it’s philosophical problems, mainly metaphysical and ontological, and the problem of induction. A lot of people are simply too scared to admit it and defend it tooth and nail as if it was a religion. Taking the word of the priesthood with a white lab coat as divine command, not allowing anyone under them to criticize them. Seriously great video.
The worst part is when science is used to make proclamation on religious matters, e.g. taking atheism as a _fact,_ instead of just another philosophy. There is no reason that the Universe _couldn't have been_ created by a God any more than we have a "rigorous proof" of the form "'GOD' spelled out in the sky" that it _was._ If we are to take its origin as unknown, a God is/should be on the table _along with_ many other possible explanations; though it's quite reasonable to say at least certain gods of certain religious dogmas are indeed ruled out (e.g. the right wing Christian "God" god).
@@shimrrashai-rc8fq I agree that science has turned into pretty much an ideology with a shaky foundation rather than a process. I do think that the process itself rules out some religious dogma but the Christian God is far from one of them. The elements and attributes of the Triune God provide the most consistent worldview possible under philosophical rigorousness and scientific scrutiny.
As a doctor I am ashamed that we are literally playing with patients' lives while obeying drug companies' propaganda and disregarding articles. Our quality of research dropped significantly and along with quality of the doctors. New ones literally do not know anything but old ones isnt really that different. We are just accepting what is taught to us without questioning and we are forced to obey guidelines that are not scientific. And worst part is you get mocked to the ground if you try to fix the wrongs because almighty doctors(old geezers with no new knowledge) know better than you. The way we see illnesses and treating them is outdated. Most do not know enough physiology and pathology to understand the diseases they treat. or the mechanism of action of the drugs.
Going through this with my father right now every doctor we bring them to just throws drugs at him and does nothing to actually figure out what the problem is we’ve had five doctors each given a different prognosis.
@@willbilly8738 - When I was a graduate student at university, I had an itchy rash over my stomach area. The first dermatologist said it's a virus and spread this cream on it: no effect. The second dermatologist said it's bacteria and spread this cream on it: no effect. The third dermatologist said it's neither virus or bacteria but a stress reaction and told me to relax and swim in the salty sea and lay in the sun: it worked. I had been stressed filling the (pedantic, nit-picky, random) academic requirements, while holding down a job and breaking up with my longtime girlfriend, sibling envies, financial worries, etc. Stress is the killer. It robs your body of energy to ward off diseases (pregnenolone, etc.). We should take a more holistic approach. The body can heal itself given enough space and time, nutrients and light exercise, sunshine and oxygen and salt. I am now 65 and very healthy, exercise regularly in the fresh air and sunshine, yoga and meditation, and, above all, not worry about things I can do nothing about. It's a physical-mental-spiritual alignment. A process. The circulatory system, energy metabolism, digestion, mitochondria, cardio-vascular, etc.. Let it go to do its nature-designed thing. I also supplement with magnesium, zinc, vitamin C and D and K, boron and methylene blue and pregnenolone. Fast-grown foods today do not have the same nutrients as the same slow-grown foods 100 years ago. Everything neatly categorized in closed concepts instead of the open-ended awe and wonder and gratitude to spirit and nature of former times doesn't help either.
When I was a graduate student at university, I had an itchy rash over my stomach area. The first dermatologist said it's a virus and spread this cream on it: no effect. The second dermatologist said it's bacteria and spread this cream on it: no effect. The third dermatologist said it's neither virus or bacteria but a stress reaction and told me to relax and swim in the salty sea and lay in the sun: it worked. I had been stressed filling the (pedantic, nit-picky, random) academic requirements, while holding down a job and breaking up with my longtime girlfriend, sibling envies, financial worries, etc. Stress is the killer. It robs your body of energy to ward off diseases (pregnenolone, etc.). We should take a more holistic approach. The body can heal itself given enough space and time, nutrients and light exercise, sunshine and oxygen and salt. I am now 65 and very healthy, exercise regularly in the fresh air and sunshine, yoga and meditation, and, above all, not worry about things I can do nothing about. It's a physical-mental-spiritual alignment. A process. The circulatory system, energy metabolism, digestion, mitochondria, cardio-vascular, etc.. Let it go to do its nature-designed thing. I also supplement with magnesium, zinc, vitamin C and D and K, boron and methylene blue and pregnenolone. Fast-grown foods today do not have the same nutrients as the same slow-grown foods 100 years ago. Everything neatly categorized in closed concepts instead of the open-ended awe and wonder and gratitude to spirit and nature of former times doesn't help either.
@@1TieDye1 Statins terrible drugs. Have zero uses using long term both cause diabetus and worsen aterosclerosis(worsening diabetus is why they worsen aterosclerosis) it is a known fact but fda still forces us to use it as main drug for aterosclerosis for a long term. Another could be butter and saturated fat being bad for health. It is based on one article came out in 80's. There are dozens of newer articles debunks it along with meta analyses ,we still use that one for some reason. Cancer treatments , traditional chemotherapies are basically useless they are too general so they kill normal cells,no effective enough,cause a lot of toxicity and side effects. There is an ex soviet cancer researcher called Burzynsky the man found a term called personalised genetical cancer treatment. Basically you throw whole cancer evaluation out of the window for treatment and only look for genetical mutations. Give specific drugs that are already fda aproved for that mutation. They scrunised him then stole his idea now we are slowly shifting his idea but well it is very slow. (Ps this aproach can treat stage 3 even some stage 4 cancers with minimal side effects and only with chemotherapy sometimes) Again mrna covid vaccines, not having a shot would cause better outcomes since most complications of covid about our immune system freaking out not covid itself causing issues directly. Mrna vaccines basically eases viruses to get into our system and integrate with dna. It increases some proteins increasing risk of covid caused neurodegenerative diseases and neurological disorders. (I just got out a nasty disease called autoimmune ensefalite ,a disease we didnt even learned in medical school because it was so rare that only specific cancer patients and children had it. Now I know 6 people who have it excluding myself due to covid.They are just relatives and people near us btw) There are many more to physiology to pathology medical education sucks right now. Fda is absulutely corrupt. And medical research is in shambles
As someone who enjoys philospopy of science and always has it in the back of his mind, this was a great overview, I appreciate the throughline through the ways of thinking about this and your no-bullshit summary of the positive and negative aspects of each. Look forward to watching more of your stuff.
As someone with a philosophy degree that included several graduate-level philosophy of sciences courses, this guy is spouting a bunch of crap and totally out of his wheelhouse (if any). You will do yourself a favor by watching non-conspiratorial channels if you are actually interested in the subject.
I think this video makes a lot of great points, and it makes me think that science and scientists would be better off if they tried to remember that we have *never* been 100% right about any theory, ever. They’ve always had to be updated or replaced, so why would that change now?
In the past great scientists had either a religious belief, or a philosophical belief that it was their duty to further humanity's understanding of the world, we have in more recent times turned our back on both religion and philosophy, resulting in many academics having no true conviction for learning about reality.
@@paloim I think Newton and folks of his time were all who believed in god, even if not in religion, but a creator. I think it is indeed true that the scientists of that time would have seen science as a tool to further humanity not as a tool for mass control without any moral aspect involved
I’ve been doing analytical biochemistry research at a top-tier university for years. Not only is this video truthful, it is actually even worse than what you’ve so meticulously documented.
Miss Astro published a video where she condescendingly tells us why non-carbon based life is a crackpot theory. I don’t really have the perquisite knowledge to argue against her “points”, but I’d like to point out that deep ocean life was generally considered impossible until it was discovered, lmao. She is infuriating. Such a prime example of human hubris.
I've heard some good arguments that silicon based life is not possible, but then again, an AI who was told about the possibility of carbon based life would probably also conclude it is impossible for equally good reasons so saying that silicon life is "crackpot" is pretty rich lol
I’m actually a biochemistry undergrad and here’s why I agree with Dr. Collier, even though carbon and silicone has very similar chemical properties to carbon due to being in the same group, but it’s too bulky so it’s harder for it to form double bonds(double bonds are everywhere in biochemistry) , it can’t form as many chemical bonds with different kind of atoms which is essential for metabolism. Silanes, which are compounds composed of silicon and hydrogen are reactive in water. Now maybe in some really weird conditions it could happen, but I believe if we find alien life it’s most likely gonna be carbon based. I hope I’m wrong though.😊
While many areas of science are corrupted by money and outside influence and the replication crisis (such as medicine and psychology), the continued usefulness of others (such as physics) is self-evident as it is the basis of the technology you are using to try and communicate its supposed "religious" nature. Meanwhile many of your own beliefs are completely unverifiable and indemonstrable almost by design, and subject to the same criticism you lay validly at the feet of certain sciences, only to a greater extent. It's also very interesting that you affirm the sanctity of your own beliefs when they are criticised due to their basis in faith while criticising science for, in your view, having a basis in faith. You simply apply higher standards to science than to your own beliefs. "Sacred knowledge" is a complement for you and an insult for science, because you already know the difference in rigor (which is not to say science has no problems). And the seriousness of the video contrasted with the VPN shilling only makes it funnier. Clearly the influence of money does not fail to reach your heart also. Darwin's theory as it was originally proposed is not unquestionable and is not identical to the modern theory. He got a lot of things wrong. There are also more factors in biological evolution as it is currently understood than natural selection. Our understanding does change, and theories that simply shift to ignore falsification are criticised for being unscientific. String Theory has been under fire recently for this reason.
If you think I'm wrong about something, then give me an argument instead of insinuating ad hoc bullshit like a coward. I am quite capable of defending my beliefs, including the ones you think are beyond the pale. Fuck around and find out if you've got the balls, bucko
I did exactly that on your structures of the archetypal realm video. Then as now, you got very angry and sounded like the living embodiement of twitter. I'll say what I said then: It's always the people who claim the deepest and most spiritual knowledge who become unimpressively snarky and emotionally defensive the quickest. Your claims to deeper knowledge, contrasted with your actual behaviour and impotently aggressive use of the words "buddy" and "bucko" embarrass you more than anything I could possibly ever say in a thousand lifetimes.
@@someguy4405 Bruh I am not and never have claimed to be some enlightened beacon of moral perfection. I am an asshole on the internet talking to another asshole on the internet and if you are gonna criticize me then you can either come up with some real arguments or you can eat shit and get fucked lol
I never said you needed to be a beacon of moral perfection. I was just mocking you for being obviously, impotently irate. I've already given you arguments that you failed to address.
I feel like me and a lot of the people I listen to have become increasingly aware of this issue over the last decade. I think this video did a great job describing the structure of the matter.
Fantastic video, sir. As a Nigerian (and Christian), it is very refreshing and surprising to see a westerner actually call out the current trend of scientism that has tainted actual science and its principles of objectivity, verifiability, and experimentation. One real irony i also noticed is how it is mainly radical a-religious types, like Sam Harris, who have been at the forefront of this terrible trend while moderate a-religious (Jordan Peterson) or religious individuals (Charles Foster and Kizzmekia Corbett) are highly accomplished scientists/intellectuals who advocate actual science and are as religious as they come. This is not too surprising since, as you correctly point out, the scientific method stemmed from Christianity as a way to understand the natural world and bring man closer to God and this necessitated the standards of objectivity, experimentation and verification which current scientism is opposed to.
Sorry for another comment. My school of thought as you say, is very much the constant and continuous engagement with nature. The more I've learnt, the more I've realised how little we know about the perfectly adapted machines which are living organisms. The idea of people not thinking of it any more than some kind of hierarchy sickens me, which is why I detest arrogant academics.
"What we need and always have needed is creativity, honesty, and humility" "My school of thought as you say, is very much the constant and continuous engagement with nature" "The idea of people not thinking of it any more than some kind of hierarchy sickens me" you said you're right wing, but these are some of the core positions of anarchist communist theory lol I think you might appreciate the ideas put forth in these texts (all works freely available online @ The Anarchist Library): Mutual Aid (by Peter Kropotkin), anything Emma Goldman wrote, The ABC of the Revolutionary Anarchist (by Nestor Makhno), The Unique and Its Property (by Max Stirner), Toward the Creative Nothing (by Renzo Novatore), Desert (by Anonymous) the recommendations are in the order I would read them in if I were just introducing myself to the ideology (and only had those books... honestly I don't recommend reading Max Stirner's nor Renzo Novatore's works until you're very comfortable with putting yourself in that mindset. and for the love of all that is, do not read Desert unless you're extremely, extremely resilient to being disabled by doomerism) even if you're adamant that you wont be Converted, you should still read these texts; anarchist communists make the best arguments against State Communism/Socialism/whathaveyou. edit: unrelated I'm just genuinely confused; how can one possibly agree with the premise of this video while also being 'gender critical'? are you aware that "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" research was based on the experiences of parents of trans teens lifted from explicitly anti-trans forums?
"perfectly adapted machines which are living organisms" Organisms are not mach... Error 337 could not compute non materialistic world view... non science... self destruct of unit "prometheus" in 3..2...1..... *static noise*
My grandfather was one of the handful people who caused and predicted this conundrum. Not in the capacity 'of an old white man', but as the inventor of what I have hearddescribed as the most important invention of the 21st century by science historians - the semi-transistor. He anticipated that his invention wouldn't lead to a better informed society but that its applications (radio and TV back then) would actually make people dumber. I can only imagine the horror he would feel, if he saw the state of science today that churnalism and clout-chasing has turned it into.
@Ben-uk5qt At the same time some European scientists were led by the idea of solid-state amplifiers ... Finally on 13 August 1948, Mataré and Heinrich Welker (1912-1981), working at Compagnie des Freins et Signaux Westinghouse in Aulnay-sous-Bois, France applied for a patent on an amplifier based on the minority carrier injection process which they called the "Transistron".[16][17][18][19] The device was shown publicly on 18 May 1949. .... As Bell Labs did not make a public announcement of their transistor before June 1948, the transistron was an independent parallel discovery and development. from en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_transistor It was Prof. Heinrich Welker. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Welker He was one of the students of Arnold Sommerfeld, whose legacy spawned the most physics Nobel Prize winners in history. And probably some of the most famous ones like Pauli and Heisenberg. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Sommerfeld He got his PhD from Sommerfeld, when he was 23 and to my knowledge assisted by Heisenberg. I have the original patent and the model sitting 3 feet away from me, as I write this.
This, funnily enough, reminds me of a concept that struck me from other research I did recently. Modern culture, especially in western civilization, is entirely consumed by the perceived dichotomy of Reason VS Madness. In the middle ages, and into the renaissance period, Madness and Reason were not dichotomous opposites, but instead seen as similar if not differing sides of the same coin. However, with the age of enlightenment, a separation was created based on the concept of rational thinking. Des Carte is famous of course for the utilization of this mentality, the “I think therefore I am” quote is derived from his thought exercise to rationalize his own existence. Rationality in this sense then spread and became popular amongst philosophical circles, and then eventually helped bring about the modern concept of science that we see today. In this, Madness was separated from its traditional definition, becoming synonymous with the idea of instability and irrationality. Madness was determined to be, in scientific terminology, an illness of the mind, something to be cured. However what also came from this was the dehumanization of those determined to suffer from madness. In the eyes of newfound psychological institutions, to suffer from madness was to be incapable of rational thinking, the lack of reason within the self, and to them, rational thinking and reasoning were foundational to the human experience, a necessity to be determined a human being, and without these capabilities, they argued, that they were effectively inhuman. Their treatments were hidden from them, because they believed those inflicted incapable of understanding the methodology and purposes of these treatments. Like you say, this is not to say that the entire system is broken, there are parts of it that work, but it is to point out that there is a fundamental flaw in the foundation of this system. Institutional science has this same flaw, foundations built on incomplete theories, with holes and gaps in explanation, all to be made with patchworks consisting of cloth made from other theoretical ideas and models in the hope the foundation’s tapestry will hold. Even if new models, explanations and theories are introduced, their addition would make the foundation unstable, incapable of bearing the weight of the centuries of institutionalization above them. So what is there to do? Truthfully i do not have the expertise, but my measly suggestion would effectively be a social revolution within the scientific community, a reconstruction of the entire medium within the necessity for foundations and institutionalizations, making a pyramid is harder and more unstable than planting a forest, after all. Metaphors aside, its clear a fundamental shift and reconstruction of the existing system needs to occur.
Sounds like you've either already read Foucault's *History of Madness*, or like you definitely should. > but my measly suggestion would effectively be a social revolution within the scientific community Yeah that's essentially what I'm advocating, though frankly I think that process is already well under way at this point, regardless as to what I say or don't. The times they are a changin.
@@Formscapes Foucalt’s History of Madness was a very eye opening read, especially as someone who psychologists could reasonably classify as “Mad” because of my experiences. And as someone who is currently studying anthropology, my whole thing is taking cultural suggestions and foundations with a grain of salt. Doesn’t help Marxist philosophy and thought, along with Anarchist theory has kinda been an everlasting impression of my perspective as well. Guess it just makes me more liable and open minded to changing systems of thought and processes.
@@TheParadoxGamer1bout the whole creationism vs evolution debate, or just evolution as a whole is it a bad theory or??? Im like brand new i came from daves video, i had stopped watching this halfway throught on its original release.
Amazing video, I studied biomedical sciences at university. I experienced this corruption first hand when conducting a study on cholesterol. The dean stated that I had to work as part of the team regardless of what the data says
@@dawnsites4232 exactly, it's a bit of a long story for a RU-vid comment but the group I was in used newspapers for their research instead of academic sources because "this is the answers they want" I completed my part with the raw data (before flora and big food filtered it for their profit) And surprisingly our conclusions didn't match. I complained to the dean about being stuck with a group that was about to publish something based on newspaper clippings and flora ads while ignoring my analysis of the raw data because it contradicted them I was told that it's more important to be able to work as part of a team than to be completely correct all the time
I am really curious about your raw data findings@@stevenjackson6360 . Anything interesting? I have been researching this topic for my spouse due to cholesterol issues, and it seems all "scientific" article sources are tainted.
I'm so confused. At 1:29:15 you say that thousands of textbooks are filled with theories that don't work. My understanding is that relativity correctly predicts: the formation of black holes (which we just took a photo of), the existence of gravitational waves (which we now have functioning detectors for), the orbit of mercury (which newtonian mechanics failed to predict), the existence of gravitational lensing (which newtonian mechanics failed to predict), and relativity is necessary for the correct function of gps satellites (which we all use every day). I don't understand how you've concluded that these theories simply don't work.
We have a photo which we were told was a black hole. An actual photo of a black hole is by definition impossible bc light cannot escape a black hole; the reality is probably that black holes do not exist, and that we really have no idea what that was a photo of.
As for gravitational waves; Let's say I have a theory about the existence of clouds which are shaped like dogs. I then create a scientific instrument for collecting enormous amounts of data by looking at clouds. The data filtering systems of the instrument are designed specifically to filter out any images of clouds that aren't dog shaped. After combing through unimaginable amounts of data, I produce an image of a cloud that bears an uncanny resemblance to a dog. I declare that I have successfully proven the dog-shaped-cloud theory That's essentially what the "detection" of gravitational waves was. You really need to stop uncritically guzzling down the bs which is being fed to you.
@@Formscapes Thanks for the video! If you’re not already familiar with the channel: Dr. John D, I think you would appreciate his work such as “Phlogiston Theory, Mass and the Birth and Demise of Gravity.”
@@Formscapes That gives more clarity to the criticism you made at 1:25:00 where you mention the exorbitant cost of our data collection systems. If I'm interpreting this correctly, projects like the Large Hadron Collider and James Web Telescope are overly expensive data collection tools designed to affirm our pre-existing biases rather than reveal new information about the nature of reality.
Such great work. I've not heard any of this before. The visuals & narration are spot on too. I'm on my second watch; there's a lot to take in. Keep doing the good work 👏
@@Formscapes You should be really proud with this dude. Very well written. Well spoken and full of wisdom. But you should of included this quote! It's my favourite! “My favourite definition of an intellectual: 'Someone who has been educated beyond his/her intelligence.” - Sir Arthur C Clarke
@@FormscapesI need to mention how much i enjoy hearing you say "Ghislaine", as though you need to scrape it off your teeth and spit it out. Also, the media pronounces it differently, but when pronounced the way you say it, it almost takes on a sinister tone. Gizz-lane really sounds like the name of someone sinister. Perhaps she's the real mastermind?
Quantum mechanics was nothing to do with "ideological academics things". Quantum mechanics explain things that classic mechanics cannot explain in microscope level and we have tecnology that comes with the advance of quantum mechanics like microelectronics per example.
Quantum mechanics isn't what he brings issues with. He is calling out quantum physics. They are linked, but you can have one without the other. Not all of the faulty physics works in reality.
Quantum mechanics doesn't explain anything, it just gives probabilistic predictions. It models the function without explaining the form or reason for its being.
@@MisakaMikotoDesu it explain many things. Like molecular, atomics and subatomic interactions, electromagnetic fenomena, decay of atomic nucleous, lasers, leds, transistors, supercondutivity and so on. Almost every tecnhological and scientific concept we know in modern civilization is explain by quantum mechanics. Being probabilistic does not even mean that cannot explain nothing.
@@wergserium7515 Quantum mechanics can't explain what a wave function is, only how it can evolve into a measured result. It gives us a way to model reality, but there are many interpretations of what that model implies about reality. The official stance being: "Don't think about it, just calculate".
I just recently found your channel, and your videos are awesome. I was already planning on talking about some of your videos on my show tomorrow, and this video will fit in oh so perfectly.
@@Formscapes I think youtube removes comments with links, but it's this channel, under the live tab. I have a VERY small show, Rewriting History With TheGOOB. Half of it is about trying to reframe the present and understanding the world we currently live in, so that we can then try to understand history. Your videos do that part much better than I could myself.
Any alternative often gets bashed into oblivion. Imagine how far we would be if we gave every alternative theory and hypothesis a chance, no bias just the clashing of all ideas.
10/10 video going to recommend to everyone, I have a large hope that the paradigm shift will rectify contradictions not only in science but also society, the biggest push towards realizing has been reading however not many people have the attention span to read and as a result rely on what others tell them to believe so although many have the ability to read not many exercise that ability :(
since you love to read, read the "sources" of this video. And then since the amount of research that went into this video was pretty lacking, you should probably go beyond that and make up your own mind. This video is far from a 10/10 and the guy clearly doesn't understand the fields he is talking about better than your average youtuber. maybe that's why he's so upset about "priests" (experts in a field he doesn't understand) being the only ones taken seriously (in their field of expertise which he doesn't understand). a million half truths still doesn't support his conclusions
@@jadapinkett1656 because i told you that his sources don't support his conclusion? I'm sorry that you're offended by that. It's not my fault you people believe anything some guy on RU-vid tells you
@@nickallbritton3796 it is pretty telling that you made accusations, and then when politely asked to explain yourself, you got angry and couldn't actually elaborate at all lol
great stuff. i'm 45 minutes in, so far everything checks out. thank you for being aware of mindset of the century you actually live in, rather than regurgitating paradigms from the late renaissance. people who live in the present are so rare.
WOW ! I am so relieved that there is a channel that tackles the problems of institutional "science". I have a formation in epistemology so I have been reflecting on those concepts for several decades. By the way, I am one of those "crackpots".
Learning institutions stagnating and becoming dogmatic in spite of their underlying philosophy being wholly against such things is quite common, the easiest example to point out is when the catholic church became dogmatic over Aristotle, which is why they got mad over acknowledging gravity exists, even though Aristotle himself would've studied it were it brought to his attention.
Two views from me; 1st time mesmerised by the graphics, 2nd time to hear it with full attention. Thank you for such quality content, high octane brain fuel! Much respect & love.
Few videos and their comments sections have come so close to articulating my very thoughts, though in a more articulate form than they usually take in my own mind as this one. Good work. You earned a subscriber.
Well now why would you let a silly little thing like that control your worldview? You're really gonna let a picture you saw from a government funded, internationally accepted company tell you what to believe? Have YOU seen a black hole with your own eyes? I mean, sure, I know if you got close enough to do that you're pretty much already screwed, but until you do, we can't know for sure that it really was a black hole Besides you can't just quote "IR imaging" like you know what it means. Clearly, since you used the acronym, you weren't trying to save time but cover the fact that you don't even know what it stands for. Who's to say that IR imaging is even real? I haven't verified its authenticity for myself and haven't met someone who can explain to me how it works. Clearly it must be made up by psuedo intellectuals to make money On an unrelated note, I have a full course on how to avoid believing these "scientific" lies so that you don't have to go through the trouble of figuring it out yourself. Although this took me years of my life to compile and is worth thousands of dollars and will change the course of your life forever, because I want people to be free of institutionalization, I'll discount it to merely $800 if you buy it today!
Since I started listening to your videos, I have started to see the world differently, and I'm trying some different experiments. The first was to try to affect my dreams. First, to remember them, second to have more light and color in my dreams (they had gotten dark, not in theme but in illumation), and third to recognize I'm dreaming. Over the last month I've been very successful on all three and I lucid dream several times a night when I want to. My other experiment was to talk to a couple of warts on a single finger that have been plaguing me for more that a year. I told them that was enough of that and you need to go away now. Almost immediately they started to shrink and turn black. I'm so stoked I don't have to go to the dermatologist! This seems like a little thing but they were painful and irritating daily. As you say, actual magic is really real, actually. I'm going to have to find your Discord. 😂
I'm glad you brought up that Astro chick. I enjoy much of her content, but in the end she's just another one of those high and mighty hoighty-toighty science elitests who doesn't want to honestly engage with people who dare to question the mainstream. I have always, always hated the terms "quack", and 'crackpot", because they are pejoratives, A personal attack and a logical fallacy. It isn't an honest, respectful way to refer to someone, it's a way to make someone look bad and ostracize them. The fact they feel the need to be a bully (and I'm sure many of these scientist types do this to take revenge for perceived inadequacies of their youth) and a mudslinger instead of engaging openly and honestly, with a true spirit of enquirery really tells you all you need to know about them. They aren't scientists. They're politicians and bullies who don't want to share their place at the table.
So then tell me, in any religion ... lets say Christianity, using thier full belief that God created the universe did they ever find evidence? NO. Now compared to science which is belief in a theory based off evidence. REAL EVIDENCE.
Great video! A lot of problems I've been observing with distress for some time. And really, this is the tip of the iceberg. There are still other corruptions of science you didn't mention here!
1) The proposition, during Covid, that the state is the fountain of scientific credibility and authority; the fetishization of the CDC and FDA and the dismissal of any other opinions - or at least the subordination of them. That's not science, it's Lysenkoism. 2) Over the same period, the endorsement by not only the government and the media, but the scientific community itself that censorship in science is acceptable in the name of public health. Fauci and Collins confessedly used social power to suppress the views of equally, if not greater, credentialed and experienced voices that were not endorsing the trumpets of the establishment and their messages. There was a saying during the Vietnam War that "Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity". The saying works even better with "censoring for science". There's more, but that's enough@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440
The great promise of religion (for most religions) is absolutely certain knowledge. Science, by contrast, can be used to become very confident of a theory (say, five sigma significance), but it never promises absolute certainty, which would require an infinite number of observations. How many observations does any one person have that directly provide evidence of the existence of the supernatural? Honestly, I personally have to say I have had none, which is consistent with my working theory that there is no such thing. A spirit that insists on remaining in stealth mode is indistinguishable from a non-entity. Why posit the existence of an absent thing, especially a presumably foundationally significant yet conspicuously absent thing?
It is really sad that in the 21st century that only those that can afford to go to university are automatically able to participate. Where the real potential is held is that nearly all university lectures are available on websites like this for anyone and everyone that wish to consider their premises are now free to do so. Making science available to anyone and everyone to make critique or theorise about.
yes. I've made use of many online courses even though I'm in university. I also think it's incredibly important that universities be opened up to the public as a right to education not a privilege for the well-off. Future doctors shouldn't have to go into debt to get their degrees and the only people that can afford a physics degree shouldn't be those who can afford not to work through undergrad. Of course, there's a danger in those online courses though which is that one doesn't have an understanding of the entire field and how different parts interplay. The temptation is to feel like you have done your research well enough, but this video is a perfect example of that. This guy made a few good points, but mostly his political framework is obviously blinding his reasoning. He cites very few sources and makes several mistakes and after reading his sources that he did cite, his claims are usually completely unfounded.
Dear Sir …. You are an incredible human being !!! Thank you for your phenomenal work! More genuine, good hearted intellects to shine as you do … and our beautiful planet Earth and my brothers and sisters could possibly be saved from this snowball effect of wrongs, ego driven mistakes into complete dissonance! Thank you!!! … there is hope
Idk if you are going to mention it further in the video but they've recently fired a professor in Japan after finding out almost all of his works were fraudulent, forgeries or just straight up gibberish
There was a similar thing that happened a while back with a South Korean stem cell researcher who got disgraced after it was revealed that he faked absolutely everything and exploited his own grad students to produce the fake samples and data - forcing them to "volunteer" their egg cells. Really sick shit.
You know, anyone who would take the time to watch a 2 hour video challenging institutionalized scientific frameworks may also appreciate Edgar Allen Poe's "Eureka: An Essay on the Material and Spiritual Universe". Not as doctrine, but in his own words, "as a Poem". With lively spirit, humor, and humility, he challenges the clockwork universe of his day, and presents a far more "intuitive" and fluid worldview. Per wikipedia (fwiw) "Poe considered Eureka his greatest work and claimed that it was more important than the discovery of gravity.". If nothing else, it's a thought provoking read, and a window into the mind of a alternative thinker from 2 centuries ago.
"These ancient ideas confined investigation to crawling; and I need not suggest to you that crawling, among varieties of locomotion, is a very capital thing of its kind; - but because the tortoise is sure of foot, for this reason must we clip the wings of the eagles?" - Poe, Eureka (1848). A disclaimer, I am a fan of Poe, and it may be that having read much of his work and adopted such an attitude impacts my ability (for better or worse) to judge the quality of the essay mentioned.
@@chrisjswanson"“Ah!-‘Ability or inability to conceive,’ says Mr. Mill very properly, ‘is in no case to be received as a criterion of axiomatic truth.’ Now, that this is a palpable truism no one in his senses will deny. Not to admit the proposition, is to insinuate a charge of variability in Truth itself, whose very title is a synonym of the Steadfast. If ability to conceive be taken as a criterion of Truth, then a truth to David Hume would very seldom be a truth to Joe; and ninety-nine hundredths of what is undeniable in Heaven would be demonstrable falsity upon Earth. The proposition of Mr. Mill, then, is sustained. I will not grant it to be an axiom; and this merely because I am showing that no axioms exist; but, with a distinction which could not have been cavilled at even by Mr. Mill himself, I am ready to grant that, if an axiom there be, then the proposition of which we speak has the fullest right to be considered an axiom-that no more absolute axiom is-and, consequently, that any subsequent proposition which shall conflict with this one primarily advanced, must be either a falsity in itself-that is to say no axiom-or, if admitted axiomatic, must at once neutralize both itself and its predecessor." Hardly readable, meaningless drivel. Poe agitates against certain dogmatic trends, but he proposes to replace them with a cult of imagination in which the greatest artists are regarded as the most enlightened and truthful - rather conveniently for himself. He expresses deep resentment towards people he regards as of middling intelligence who have been elevated for their adherence to scientific method, while geniuses like himself have apparently not been given their due reverence. While there are grains of truth in this - certain aspects of institutional dogmatism _do_ stifle scientific discovery and discourse - Poe's motivations look more like jealousy than having anything to do with righting institutional wrongs.
@@chrisjswanson "It mattered not whether the truth was even demonstrably such; for the dogmatizing philosophers of that epoch regarded only the road by which it professed to have been attained. The end, with them, was a point of no moment, whatever:-‘the means!’ they vociferated-‘let us look at the means!’-and if, on scrutiny of the means, it was found to come neither under the category Hog, nor under the category Aries (which means ram), why then the savans went no farther, but, calling the thinker a fool and branding him a ‘theorist,’ would never, thenceforward, have any thing to do either with him or with his truths." The 'hog' is Francis Bacon; 'Aries' is Aristotle. The former Poe says represents phenomenon-based analysis and the latter noumenon-based analysis, both of which strike Poe as unimaginative plodding (or _crawling_ as in your quotation). Poe's view is that *scientific method can be entirely disregarded,* and that if a theory is sufficiently poetic, it should be designated 'true' without establishing that it was arrived at through reliable means.
"In the beginning, let me as distinctly as possible announce-not the theorem which I hope to demonstrate-for, whatever the mathematicians may assert, there is, in this world at least, no such thing as demonstration-but the ruling idea which, throughout this volume, I shall be continually endeavoring to suggest. My general proposition, then, is this:-In the Original Unity of the First Thing lies the Secondary Cause of All Things, with the Germ of their Inevitable Annihilation." And this is his reason for disregarding method: _there is no such thing as demonstration, only ruling ideas._ He eerily presages Nietzsche or Foucault. And then he tells us he's going to 'suggest' the proper "ruling idea," which, once expounded upon reveals itself to be self-serving and irrational. He also keeps referencing religion as if it were reliable throughout the text as you might catch on from his pseudo-first-cause conceit (although he seems to have mixed it with some Hegelian 'dialectic' influences). Overall his proposal is unserious, and he even puts a disclaimer out front suggesting that one should only judge the essay "as a poem" after he dies. Sounds prudent until you realize it's just to cover his ass and he was very much trying to air grievances and influence people with this essay, and apparently it still has meaning beyond mere poetry for you today, OP. It's a shame; I enjoy Poe's writing but he embarrasses himself in this text.
Also, just watched the video. This guy you're following is manipulating the public for clicks. If you want to dig into that claim, please be my guest we should discuss his dishonesty in detail.
I watched the whole 2 hours. This was a great listen, and the whole part on General Relativity and Dark Matter was very enlightening. Thank you for this. This has changed my perspective on so many things that happen in the scientific community, and especially why discoveries in Physics at the moment seem to be at a complete halt.
Never heard or watched your channel, came up on recommended, When I heard you start with Robert Maxwell I knew I'd be a good video, that's the right place to start
I also think sometimes we have expectations of results and some "scientists" can't accept when they're wrong so we end up with twisted truths to fit a hypothesis as supportive evidence
This is a fantastic video! This is the critical thinking people need! As a Christian, physicist, and a person who constantly wants to think deeply (for some background of my thoughts and beliefs) I really think this video really brings the important issues and questions to light! Fantastic job!
So why are you a Christian exactly? Like if I were to ask you why you're a physicist it would be because in school you learned about Newton's laws and all the other shit and then at some point you also got to demonstrate those in labs and actually empirically measure and verify the claims of your physics class. But what about being a Christian? Is there any foundation to the belief?
In recent years I find myself having to explain even to "academics" and doctors again and again that science is a practice and a method that leads to models, theories or bodies of knowledge. The main job of actual science is to find flaws in the existing theories in order to reach for better ones.
I have a degree in bio and have worked in a lab with the stereotypical white coat in some capacity for several years now. Science worship has always made me uncomfortable. It’s supposed to be a self correcting field, and that requires some conclusions to be wrong, but somehow that’s not ok. Academia pushes for more and more publications and yet the quality of those publications and the repeatability has severely dropped. We need to encourage bachelor level students to try to reproduce the experiments and trials that others have done beforehand instead of just going for more and more publications of something new. I remember one of my professors being impressed with a paper I did in his class, he offered to submit it to a journal on my behalf. I was horrified, we had a sample size of less than 10, I had never seen my lab partner’s setup in person, and my own sampling data probably had different criteria than he did. That experiment was good enough for an undergrad assignment and lab, not to be submitted to a paper. The fact my professor even suggested it when he knew the problems as well as I deeply concerned me. In a research lab probably a year later, my name was added to the bibliography of a study with what I would describe as poor experimental methods. It had a higher sample size, but I was deeply concerned about the findings as they contradicted generally accepted understanding of the disease in question. To this day I strongly believe that a replication study is necessary, and should have been done in house BEFORE any of the data was published to the outside world. I had little to do with the study in all honesty, just observations and animal care, but I can’t stop thinking about my name being connected to dodgy results.
I’m most of the way through the video and I have to say, while I was generally supportive of the first half of the video, I found some inaccuracies and parts I disagreed with in the second half, mostly regarding astrophysics. We don’t have to agree on everything though. It’s be an awful boring world if that were the case.
I studied science but dropped out due to personal reasons. Anyway, I've always kind of wondered the same thing. I mean we did repeat some experiments. But all of that was - ofc - with the idea that we are just practicing. If the results were off that was our mistake. No complaints but one day I began wondering, who actually repeated all these experiments in earnest? Like what if someone had been dead wrong at some point, we'd be going in the wrong direction all the time.
The relevance of institutional science is a thing of the past. We will leave them in the dust. These people will keep going around and around in the circus ride of nonsense, but we don’t have to. We don’t have to try to convince them of anything, because they simply can’t open their minds.
ultimately i think that science is a human endeavor and therefore it has all the hallmarks failures of us humans Science is always going to be somewhat flawed, but at the end of the day it is probably our least flawed method for aggregating knowledge, there really isnt alternate
@@SSs-zj6bkare you all idiots? Science is simply trying to find the patterns of logic and outcomes in reality, and building them into a functional model that can be use to create tools and technologies, and anticipate reality. If it obviously not absolutely perfect or complete yet, that is why research is done in unknown areas of the functional model to further refine or redefine it, if necessary, to ensure the maximum functionality and understanding of our reality. If you assert than any mental head canon would be better, outside of for purely thought experiments, I question the number of brain cells you have active
Idea for a Formscapes drinking game: take a shot 🥃 every time you hear the word "concretize" 😂 In all seriousness, great video 😎
9 месяцев назад
I'm a psychiatry resident here in Brazil trying to research and publish whilst my government has consistently cut funding to research in the last decade or so. During my bachelor's degree in medicine I was told by my professors that if I wanted to publish I would have to pay an exorbitant amount out of my own pocket. Doing science in the "global south" sure is challenging... Thanks for such a thought provoking video!
Also "global south" is just a term based on prejudice and ignorance, with blatant polarization, especially today, you are dividing the world and classifying it in hierarchies, this can never ever deal with all the complexities of the world.
9 месяцев назад
@@Nature_Consciousness absolutely, i used the term in a somewhat sarcastic way, but that tone might've been lost in translation...
