I think what Firas is trying to say is what Einstein was quoted to have said: "We must remember that we do not observe nature as it actually exists, but nature exposed to our methods of perception"
I don’t know if I have ever watched or listened to anything else that has opened my mind so much, I come back and watch it every now and then and it still blows my mind
This guy is a great debater. He's constantly telling Joe how awesome the things he says are to keep it from turning bad and keeping the debate from turning into an argument. Great way to get the other side to listen.
yes I agree and when Joe is getting a bit close to the bone I've noticed that Firaz immediately jumps train and starts a new conversation. He does this to save little Joe embarrassment and fatiguing the conversation@@fullsendit292
Yeah I noticed he kept convincing the person he was talking to... about how solid his idea is while avoiding solid evidence in a clear decisive response.
@@jamesbaker3153is it really a red flag if the person is trying to keep the argument from turning hostile and bad? Would love to hear your thoughts brother
For those who are interested: two famous Islamic theologians mentioned by Feras in the show 1- Al-Ghazāli ( Died 1111 C.E.) 2- Ibn Taymiyyah ( Died 1328 C.E.)
I can see tears of Atheists for who their new religion is Science still crying in comment section due to a guy with very small knowledge of philosophy debunked their whole fake belief in science🤣
The top 20-30 comments are people (mostly non atheists) that loved this very educational podcast/debate about the Philosophy of science and science while the new comments are full of unedcated, angry atheists calling Firas's explanations BS and talking nonsense about religions showing that they never watched this podcast LOL My guess is that this is too advanced for them even though Firas broke it down so any laymen can understand this. These people are so uneducated yet they try to act as if they are the people of science. So sad. PS. I came here from Twitter after seeing a Tweet saying exactly what you said
Firas Zahabi is just trying to win... Observe it when he keeps on telling joe very proudly how what he's trying to explain is not easy... this is what alot of philosophers suffer from.. is they're trying to win.. they're searching for that ultimate superiority over people.. i have that.. its a horrible curse.. Joe was never even in disagreement, they were just in a huge 1 hour long miscommunication.
@@mrmasrawy92 Joe wasnt disagreeing cus he couldn't. I dont think he even understood what firas was saying. I get how you could see that firas was trying to win an argument, but its frustrating when someone denies what you're saying because they dont understand.
Javascript Kiddie what did those idiots know? Theres a reason why that language is virtually extinct. Take any modern science class and the first thing you’re taught is scientific method and basis of hypotheses
@@hunterzolomon1303 What about intuition? You shouldn't follow anything blindly and be people love to pit science and spirituality at odds. Einstein was a deeply spiritual person.There's a difference between spirituality and dogma.
Probably because he’s famous for being an MMA coach. He’s one of the best in the world who trained George st Pierre, one of the best fighters there’s ever been
I watched this many times to fully grasp what he saying. This is one of the smartest humans I’ve listened too. I literally felt a gap open in my head 👏🏾
It sounds smart when he is explaining it to a dumb person. It makes absolute sense that there is no scientific FACT, just hypothesis based on historical events.
@@manbiteslife3110 y'all are conflating fact with probability. Science itself says there are no absolutes, but that gravity, for example, is 99.999999% probable.
Dude this is by far my favorite episode ever. I have come to most of these conclusions on my own but I can never seem to find adequate words to explain to people. Mostly when I talk metaphysics I just get frustrated and give who ever my mantra... " I am you you are me we are all that is has been and ever will be. " To me that is the one fundamental truth, the law of one we are all the same energy just in different states.
Joe and Firas are having totally different discussions. Joe judged Firas as a science denier, while Firas is discussing the nature of human observation
Yeah lol. I realized it immediately. I didn't see him understanding really until halfway through, even still challanging a very simple concept over and over and over. Lol.
@@joeythakyd possibly. I think he definitely understood mostly. But when he kept saying what do you mean by woo. I just don't understand what you mean when you're saying science is woo, over and over lol.
@@devendrasinghbhadoriya234he means to become muslim and by definition to submit to the one true God, Allah, who is to be worshipped alone without joining partners in his worship. Please read His revelation, the Qur’an and listen to it being recited, it will be like opening your soul to the truth. Just trust me. You’ll NEVER regret it.
@@pnut3844able his not crazy his part of the intellectual elite of our generation if you want to learn anything in life you go to the best so humble your self and pick someone who can explain the world to you.
@Bink* not, science is theory, hypothesis, models, experiments and data analysis. If you you add scientists as person and institutions you will have politics and religion also. Don't confuse hypothesis with theory.
@@leliel12th43 I agree with you, but a theory can be both weak and strong. It wasn't until the last century that everyone believe in the theory that the universe was static and infinite with no beginning or end. Science will either weaken or strengthen existing theories, but we can not treat them as fact.
Something else Science is not . . History! Why some atheist scientists think they can discover the Truth of our origins by playing at being Historians is beyond me! What is the point of trying to prove the big bang or some other universe origin theory? Or the evolution of man from nothing into sentient life that makes cars, buildings, computers and stuff??? So desperate to throw God out of the "equation" (really, there is no equation that can contain God), eh? As far as I'm concerned, The Purpose of Science is to gain enough understanding of how things work and what its made of, to develop Technology to better the human race (and maybe better some animals too) Leave the History to the Historians!
The most impressive thing about Firas isn't the depth of his knowledge regarding philosophy, it's how clearly and concisely he's able to transmit those ideas to a layman. It's not hard to see why he's one of the great sports coaches of recent times.
No it's not. It's a set of principles that govern the process of determining that which corresponds with reality and that which doesn't. It makes no proclamation that tomorrow will be like today. What it does say is that IF tomorrow is like today then you should expect to see certain things. So tired of people reciting stupid religious apologetic nonsense.
@@Haunting1981 science rests upon philosophical naturalism which presupposes exactly that the future will behave like the past. That being because there is no randomness under naturalism. Keep up gaytheist
@@Haunting1981 No, it necessarily does. How would you go about determining those principles? Through observation and experimentation. a)Things don’t all happen at once, therefore time exists. b) There’s no such thing as ‘now’- as soon as you mention it, it is not 'now' anymore, but instead then. So you’re using *past* experiences (i.e. observation and experimentation) to determine *current* principles of reality, hence, by necessity assuming the regularity of behavior. Sufficient regularity is an effectively reliable correlation, absolutely, but that doesn’t demonstrate certitude. Assumptions are requisite for engaging with reality, not ‘apologetic’. Besides, you were attempting to define science, Firas was simply explaining its underlying paradigm- you’re barking up the wrong tree.
@Haunting1981 you clearly don't understand the first thing about the philosophy of science. How do you test a hypothesis? The scientific method relies completely on the future acting like the past
What Firas is talking about is about the philosophy of science (eg Hume). He is saying that the current scientific "facts" hinge on the next big scientific discovery; so in the grand scheme of things, we do not really know anything.
@@manchesterunited4619 Yes man,nothing beats fair play like justifying and defending rapists by arguing "BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE OTHER RAPISTS AND PEDOPHILES??"
@@lancevance6346 Lmao, you weren't even able to understand what he said. He said you were the pedophile and wasn't trying to defend anyone. He never talked about other rapists and pedophiles. Well, what can I expect from a joker with no morals. If don't know watch the Dark Knight.
What Firas is saying and I share, is that our level of science just takes us to a limited explanation of physics and "reality". As time passes I hope our knowledge continues to keep building up and come with better explanations for different phenomena that our scientific knowledge just can't explain at the moment. Probably when we have quantum computers we're goong to be able to generate experiments that prove different things that at the moment we just can't, only have different theories about stuff.
@@raymo189ikes! Peterson doesn't understand philosophy. He doesn't understand anything other than psychology. Maybe he's a good clinician too. That's about it. He's a good orator who has Prof in front of his name and spoke out about something that many people believe but no one represents their view in the mainstream discourse, which JP did, this won over a big audience.
I don’t think Joe can get past the fact that our current level of knowledge will, in the future, be looked upon as we look upon our level of knowledge in the past.
Firas is such a patient man its truly amazing because i understood it the fast time he said it and he made joe take a loop to just end up on something he was saying from the start. what conversation because joe stays on the offense just to get more and more clarity and abundance of information out.
@@dickfitswell3437 So you are reading comments simultaniously with playing a vid. That kinda decreases the quality of both ngl. Although I certainly just watched it to the end only to see how long he's gna be confused.
When the bald guy realizes he can handle the convo without the woo woo. The “woo” was preventing his comprehension of the points and their depth. It was in his head all this time and he kept asking where is it?
@Jacob Carlson You and @Ghost are being pedantic. I'm an Engineer. If I went as crazy as you every time someone described some concept slightly incorrectly I'd have a stroke by now. Learn to let things go.
@@pnut3844able that’s what I thought you pissant troglodyte
8 месяцев назад
To sum up this amazing Firas Zahabi's exposition. Knowledge can not be achieved through senses and the interpretation of the ego, the only way to reach knowledge is through complete consciousness. And the only way to have complete consciousness is to get rid of the ego (or putting it in his own words: "chop everything that might be imaginary, inferred, logical, empirical... to take off all your paradigms"). This is the transcendent experience of the one thing (or enlightenment), and that's why he says that it takes a very brave human being to do that, because few men are willing to get rid of their ego. And this is why I agree there is a point where religion is true and science is faith.
@@KatameWazaBushi You got some unresolved tensions with Muslims you wanna get off your chest bro? We both understood his thought process. You can understand what someone is trying to communicate to you and still have a differing opinion. It's funny because that's exactly what's going on in this comment thread right now. I understood what both of them were saying, and while you may or may not understand physics, you're clearly missing the larger philosophical discussion being had here. Here's a big one: being able to understand or entertain ideas without subscribing to them. Why are you targeting me anyway? I made the most passive comment in this entire comment section. You flex though bro, if it makes you feel better.
The same happens to me. It’s incredible how our perspective changes a lot when we try to look at reality based on this way of thinking and observing reality. In fact, nothing is random, but what really frightens me is the idea of how our consciousness crazily believes or perhaps on purpose it was made to be conditioned to believe that it’s in control of every single aspect of decisions that are made by ourselves consciously, otherwise, life would entirely lose its sense.
@@joeking8789Like you just said “there are things” therefore, it’s not applicable to everything. Quantum mechanics brought up various interesting profound understanding of several stuff, but I don’t think that it has proven that what the guy said in the interview isn’t valid at all. What we call “ random” doesn’t mean it’s surely an infinite state of randomness, but like he suggested it might simply mean we are not yet able to calculate. Something that’s it factually incalculable is addressed as something random, that’s what the definition of randomness suggests itself, in which whatever that is not susceptible to measured is inevitably called as random.
@@jes8253 " Something that’s it factually incalculable is addressed as something random, that’s what the definition of randomness suggests itself, in which whatever that is not susceptible to measured is inevitably called as random." Yes and in quantum mechanics, electrons have been shown to act randomly, by your own definition.
@@elevatorincident9519 because you're looking at it from a philosophical pov. Every chemist and physicist is watching this and grinding their teeth to the gum
@@suheilpinto6964 his point was that: the world accepted it was a pulling force, even though it wasnt proven, when in fact we now believe it is a pushing force. But still is can be believed as something else in the future by the same logic. Seems you didnt get it either, but im not surprised since you jumped on the Muslim comment which already shows your bias on the conversation.
@@suheilpinto6964 He has an inferiority complex typical of muslims?? What the hell are you talking about? Your post displays that you do not understand what Firas is talking about at all. It's really not that hard to follow, maybe you should replay the video and try again.
@@EvanUthus Inferiority Complex “Symptoms Fault Finding. ... Performance Anxiety. ... Craving for Attention. ... Increased sensitivity. ... Easily Feeling Disrespected. Now watch the video again and you will see what i'm talking about. You will find that some of these traits are being displayed when he was talking to joe rogan. And if you dont see it because of your ego, you urea and chalmango are fuckin morons.
Because we're not born brilliant, a good teacher in any setting is the same way because they recognize what's missing in the other person's understanding, not being entitled to the receiver to have all the information that they -the teacher- already have.
Right, like when this clown doesn't know the fucking difference between 'reflection' and 'refraction'? 56:07 - he says it not once, but twice. He's a fucking moron and so are you if you're falling for this faux-intellectualism
allrequiredfields Um.... Firas Zahabi said "the reflection of the light off the water is bent." He wasn't defining refraction. He was saying what we observe. Refraction is bending of light. The light bends in water due to change in medium and we see a reflection of it. We observe light because of reflection. That is why we can't see in a dark room. Anyhow Joe Rogan is pretty smart also in my opinion.
c'mon... what your proposing is preposterous... he arguably knows a great deal more than your average person... which is why he is able to have these kind of conversations. he may nod his head in understanding sometimes when contrary but on average who doesn't! give the guy more credit! (my opinion and potentially wrong)
The way Firas explained himself was spot on. Sometimes Joe can be very stubborn with his way if thinking, as we all can be, but to the point of frustrating.
It's because Joes idea of wuu and Firas idea of wuu are different. Firas said there is alot of wuu in science. Firas went on explaining why. Mean while Joe is like what? How is that wuu where is the wuu. And Firas kept going. They engaged in a huge conversation because of a lack of agreement on what wuu is.
Same here, I think even Joe understood it, but for the sake of the podcast he pushed back. Otherwise there won't be a conversation and therefore no podcast. Really makes Joe's job much more complicated that I imagined.
@@virajchavan724 i dont think so, joe tends to agree alot with most of his guests which is natural since he invites People in that he respects and admires. Therefor i believe that in moments of debates or indication of scepsis/disagreement from his side i think it comes from a genuine place
He has a good point. We accept what the scientists and experts tell us and we believe them without questions we assume that it's a proven fact that they are telling us but once you go a little deeper you will find that many of the things we believe have changed over time because they were proven wrong and forced to change because they are often based on assumptions and they assumptions made to come to the conclusion are all made in favor of reaching the desired outcome of whoever is funding the study
@@noelmalik5018 He really only is "questioning" science degrading it to a belief to a certain extend because he himself believes in a allpowerful being; a god that created the universe. He believes islam is true. A mythical belief system from 1300 years ago without any proof its actually real. So he isnt really genuine.
@@ponchovilla6189 You mean if i study the subject, not "document". Your english is off. And how do you know i dont know anything about the subject? This Firas dude questions everything about science but not his religion; islam which is a fairytale at best. Get my point?
I really liked the portions about how nothing in science is random it is all variables we have the inability to calculate, as well as how they talked concepts like water boiling at different temperatures. In the future if we were to populate other planets we would clearly see these ideas painted before us when our environment is different from what our science is acclimated to.
I'm trying to learn about "orbitals" "diffusely". It's not so easy for lots of ppl to get everything other ppl talk about. It doesn't automatically make them "stupid" tho
@Mohammed Al-mawla I had the same experience in my AP Philosophy class back in high-school. Truly, we had a weekly essay to write every Friday and once the question was "How do you know you exist", and my reply was "if your reading this then that's proof I exist. This is a stupid question.". I. Got a B- lol.
what bugs me is Firas keeps ignoring the math.....Math predicted the light would bend around the sun,the math predicted the curve of space time and it still makes predictions we still cant explain..Such as dark energy or dark matter...its not dark it literally a stand in name for something we have yet to prove physically but has to exist for the math to add up....My point is i get what he is saying but i disagree with him when it comes to things math confirms or even predicts long before we could ever prove it...Black holes was only just proven to actually exist though we have had the math of them for 100 years or so......
❤Love these types of conversations ! Thought experiments ! Thank you ! An excellent guest ! The purpose of a thought experiment is to encourage speculation, logical thinking and to change paradigms. Thought experiments push us outside our comfort zone by forcing us to confront questions we cannot answer with ease. They demonstrate gaps in our knowledge and help us recognize the limits of what can be known.
Yeah, too bad his thought experiment was entirely devoid of any logical thinking or speculation outside his preconceived ideas of determinism. Where did he depart from that comfort zone? I would have pointed out his primary assumption of a single causative action in the universe as one of many different possibilities. What about randomness, multiple realities, intention, consciousness as additional causative influences?
Pretty sure Joe gets it, but its such an impractical philosophy to own because you go around in life feeling like you don't know what reality actually is. It either makes you absurdly skeptical (like Firas seems to be) or it makes you more susceptible to believing or considering obvious bs as reality.
@@baltejbains5959 @Baltej Bains you can still entertain the philosophy and know what is "real". You won't doubt that taking the stairs will lead you to the upper flow, you will just have a different view on it (all).
@@baltejbains5959 firas is not absurdly skeptical he just sees things for what they are. he is saying alot of what people believe to be "self evident truths" are not even close to that.
@@baltejbains5959 firas is a Muslim, and unlike many other religions it's very pragmatic. you would be hard-pressed to find a debate about the Islamic god where an atheist "wins" the debate other than them saying "we know we don't know". and just like Firas (BELIVES) in science without the need of a 100% proof he also BELIVES in god without the need in 100% proof.
why is irrelevant, "why" automatically suggest that there is some thinking being behind it all with a specific order, first you have to prove that's the case and only then "why" comes into play.
@John permeswar they dont know the difference between "how" and "why" they're either ignorant on the matter or they're deceptive. you can't find out why without knowing how, science tells us how and why is irrelevant in science, religion can't explain how but tries to explain why instead to fool people.
@@allrequiredfields just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's semantics. Semantics is if I were to say that a mouse is small and then you were to correct me and say it's tiny. That would be semantics but what these people are talking about is a theory that you clearly didn't understand
Well of course, that's the way to go. He would be far more ignorant if he accepted everything Firas said. I'm sure with time he'll understand it. Firas just planted the seed, you cannot expect the tree to grow in one day
I would love to see Firas and Neil DeGrasse Tyson on a podcast to debate each others thoughts. That’s the beauty of free will and humanity. We all bleed the same blood and need the same basic necessities to live, but we all think differently 🫶
Neil is not a good person to have a conversation with. Neil just like his own voice too much. He is a good Lecturer or a Speaker but definitely not a good person to have any legit conversation.
He didn’t really attack science at all. Everything he said is the scientific method and accepted in science or debatable through and within science until you start talking about what is beyond reality that moulds it.
@@re_i_gn I looked into the guy and apparently he has a degree in the philosophy of science and moral philosophy so I guess to some extent he knows what he is talking about
