Karl Popper, Science, & Pseudoscience: Crash Course Philosophy #8
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- The early 1900s was an amazing time for Western science, as Albert Einstein was developing his theories of relativity and psychology was born, as Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis took over the scientific mainstream. Karl Popper observed these developments firsthand and came to draw a distinction between what he referred to as science and pseudoscience, which might best be summarized as science disconfirms, while pseudoscience confirms. While the way we describe these disciplines has changed in the intervening years, Popper’s ideas speak to the heart of how we arrive at knowledge.
--
Wanted: Santa Clause by Kevin Dooley www.flickr.com/photos/pagedoo..., licensed under CC BY 2.0: creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer copyright Rankin/Bass Productions & DreamWorks Classics
Other images and video via VideoBlocks or Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0: creativecommons.org/licenses/...
--
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
www.squarespace.com/crashcourse
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashc. .
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
"Always remain open to the idea that your beliefs might be wrong is the best way to get closer to the truth"
I dislike this gapless editing. It sounds frantic.
I agree, and I also disagree because it implies that we aren't going to get to the truth and that if we did we should leave room for doubting the truth.
Alexander12Roth Yea that argument is self defeating because the belief that a belief might be wrong could be wrong, thus ruining it royally. Clouser calls it self-referential incoherency
Problem is he don"t apply it to himself and his belief in Popper theory.
Because believing something does not make it true. You must be willing to test again and continue to accumulate evidence or refute your belief, is the point. With new information you must be willing to adjust - if no information comes to change your belief than you can continue to believe it, it is the closest to true you have come.
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood."
What a brilliant quote by Popper.
"he was one of those rare philosophers who actually managed to hit on an idea so right that we don’t even really argue about it anymore"
This is probably the most badass line you can give to a philosopher.
This is some fantastic insight into the scientific method. Freud would be so pissed off if we knew we're calling his life's work pseudo-scientific.
LOL
+Rebecca Ohno Hi. I'm did a lot of Psychoanalysis in the first two years of my (fully accredited- not whack a doodle) Psychology degree and Freud wasn't coked off his face in any way (although he certainly took cocaine early on he absolutely was not snorting for life). He researched its anaesthetic effects early in his career for eye surgeries and disavowed it completely when a close friend died from cocaine addiction. He stopped using hypnosis very early on too as he found it unnecessary. I never ever heard mention of massage so you'll have to cite that for me. Anyway the whole point of psychoanalysis as I understand it is that eventually, as an individual human being experiencing conscious reality and assigning meaning to it, you must at some level accept that there is a purely subjective personal experience involved and what your unique experiences in life have done to you makes your set of meanings different to anyone else's. This is not an inner world of Aristotlean logic where A=A. A can also equal not A. A can equal A and B and C at the same time. You can both love and hate your mother for example; the song "Happy Birthday to you" might be the saddest thing you've ever heard because your Granny died while blowing out her candles. The word "love" will mean different things to different people- for some people "love" might mean aggression, violence and pain because of a traumatic childhood with abusive parents. Yes, it isn't a hard science like chemistry but it is used a great deal in psychotherapy and retains the respect of the psychology community.
On the downside though that also makes it completely unfalsifiable and absolutely not a hard science.
That's just my two cents.
Only because he was hugged way too much as a child.
All the logical positivists would be pissed af
+Gary Mohan - Thanks for sharing your takeaway of the field :)) I love the comment section of CrashCourse Philosophy!
It feels like Freud managed to make strides in psychology by throwing so many ideas at the wall that a few of them were bound to stick.
"Always remaining open to the idea that your current beliefs might be wrong is the best way to get closer to the truth" such a beautiful line.
When you talk about the "white swans" example the text box mentions DEDUCTION... but in philosophy this example is actually used to show the riskiness of INDUCTION.
spot on
Yep!
Deduction would be "all swans are white, therefore this black swan must actually be white"
Induction would be "all the swans I see are white, therefore the next swan I see will be white"
Deduction is about explain the present in terms of the known (the really believed).
Induction is about predicting the future in terms of the past.
Google:
Deduction: the inference of particular instances by reference to a general law or principle.
Induction: the inference of a general law from particular instances.
I feel like RUclips 'Conspiracy theorists' need this video
Giselle O.O you, i like you
I feel like religious people all over the world need this video
a feminist has. my opinions have not changed lol
conspiracy in what exactly?obviously you have doubt about something you heard or learned, inform me on what aspect seems so unbelievable to you and the 47+ others that agree as well Giselle?
+Giselle O.O Lost
I love watching crashcourse at 5 am during a terrible insomnia attack.. Thanks for making my night suck less
+Bull Rider MotoVlogs this video came just after my inmsonia attack ended, what a bummer
Thank Zeus! I'm not the only one.
"explained in terms of penis envy"
Good old Sigmund Freud.
That saucy dog
+SubscribeToSyndicate saucy dog? Did you mean wet pen- I am not even gonna go there...
We're discussing Sigmund Freud, you're allowed to go there just this once.
daedra40 No, I didn't. How Freudian of you.
@@DragoniteSpam there is a joke that refutes the concept of "penis envy" which involves a young boy and girl playing "doctor". The boy is boasting that he has a penis and the girl doesn't but she simply replies that she has a vagina and with one of these she can get as many penises as she desires.
I LOVE that you did an entire episode on karl popper. No one considers him in these discussions of scientific demarcation anymore, and if they do it's like a foot note. He was able to link modus tollens (on a lot of ways the implication that most closely defines logical form itself) to the scientific method. His critical rationalism is, in my opinion, the foundation of an epistemic pyramid. Thank you crash course!
"The world is filthy with the evidence of Santa."
I love how "*pseudo science*" is written in comic sans xD
I might be wrong - said no one on the internet ever, sadly.
Yeah, and you could seriously go on and on about that.
You wouldn't know if that's absolute because the internet is big, and you can't read every single person's comment or work on the internet.
+Kyle Dolor And that.
i have, multiple times
+Kyle Dolor I completely agree with you and I know Popper would be proud of ya ;-)
I'm not sure why, but this entire episode made me so incredibly happy! While I'm sure I'm not the only one, I feel like I've come to the conclusions and thought experiments that a lot of these old philosophers did on my own. But there have been so many light bulbs going off in my head during this series!
Pseudo-science is in comic sans, Ahahaha. Nice.
What you mean Santa isn't real?
This is one of the most important CC philosophy videos.
Your videos are amazing. I am a student at University and I have been watching these since my foundation year. I am now currently on my masters. When ever I am struggling to understand a topic, your videos are the first I come too!
This course is 1000 times more awesome than I thought it would be! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Let me rephrase that: You don't prove your hypotheses right, you *fail* to prove them wrong.
+Victor Kyrg technically you prove them right by failing to prove them wrong, if you fail to prove them wrong multiple times, it becomes accepted until someone else proves it wrong, but lots of people dont like letting go of faulty ideas even after theyve been proven wrong.
+WeAreGRID Actually Victor Kyrg is on the right track. You can never truly disprove something in science because everything, statistically is possible. If you took as stats class, H0 and Ha is basically the mathematical representation of this. You do not accept the H0, you either fail to reject or you reject the H0.
+WeAreGRID Proof exists for some branches of mathematics, but in the sciences we have the "theory" - it's not quite the same thing.
+Rand Huso Maths is a pure science, completely removed from ostensive reality. It's fully analytical, in Kantian terms (though Kant himself claimed it to be synthetical). It's one big tautology: a network of definitions, fully a priori. Hence proof exists.
If we define 2 as the double of 1, and 4 as the double of 2, then it follows that 4 is the quadruple of 1. This is irrefutable, because it all depends on definitions made beforehand.
The being white of all swans does not: no matter how many white swans you come across, there is always the possibility that somewhere exists a black swan ready to prove your hypothesis wrong. Hence: finding more white swans does not prove you right about it, it merely adds to the not-being-disproven quality of it.
Victor Kyrg
Science n. "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
Mathematics isn't the study of the natural world. It's just a tool. And it's only some branches of mathematics that have "proofs". For many of the more enjoyable mathematical disciplines (many of which use complex numbers) there's theories. The "theory of residues", for instance. Two of my degrees are in mathematics, the others are in sciences. I see them as very different things.
Using the scientific method, and the knowledge I obtained from this video, I can reasonably assume that you have had a bigger influence on my intelligence then all other forms of education I have recieved. I went to disprove this theory by visiting my RUclips history and have found that I have watched at least 90(+/-5%) of Crash Course, 75%(+/-10%) of SciShow, and
than*
The intro tune is sooo good, it calms me everytime i listen it and makes me excited for philosophical learnings ahead!
Fantastic video! Perhaps my favorite of the series so far. I really loved the quotes in this one - took screenshots of them. :) Thanks for your hard work to make a fantastic collection of videos!
0:48 Pseudo-science is the comic sans of knowledge
That is awfully accurate
I can't wait for the flame war next episode
Yep it's gonna be L-I-T
Im just as hype as you
Exactly what I thought when he said God.
+Ben Cobbs I can't wait! 🍿
I will always always always be thankful for this channel because they have videos for nearly every topic.
I LOVED this episode. It was exactly what I needed to hear.
Thank you, CrashCourse!
You look like John Green, almost like you could be his brother
I am just surprised that a bunch of oblivious idiots didn't reply to you..
Lol. HE IS HIS BROTHER! 😂
It was bound to happen eventually.. people don't read threads at all usually. Unless he's just joking.
Gerry Michael Really?
+Siberius Wolf It's funny how you wondered why there isn't any oblivious idiots replying to this clearly sarcastic comment, than all of the sudden, the idiot crashed in.
I say crash you say course
Crash!
+Jackson Mugar course!
+Jackson Mugar COURSE!!
+Jackson Mugar Course!
DEAD FAMILY!
Man i watched so many videos on this and this video saved my life, i hope. I feel like i understand it now. Thanks.
I just realized the importance verification and validation in Computer Science after watching this. Very interesting. Thanks for yet another revelation. Looking forward for the next one.
...wait santa isn't real?
Lili Rose McKay hello queen
Noooooo!
Of course it’s real! My parents taught me this when I was a child. Besides, I saw the real Santa this Christmas on TV. Do you really need more evidence?!
lol damn it i was gonna say the same thing
If Santa isn't real, then who keeps putting presents under my christmas tree every christmas? Btw, I live alone.
I can only imagine that the comments on next weeks video will be full of thoughtful and new conversation. Conversations that are completely rational based, and everyone is willing to admitted that the other side has a point.
Not. If only.
+The Leaf Thinker hope so. sadly the internet is a cruel place most of the time.
Yes, oh well.
The meaning of these two words is literally a tool for the integration or rejection of ideas. This tool has helped me a lot.
Thank you.
This whole series is beautiful. Thank you for putting it together.
Next episode is gonna be awesome! *salivates*
I HAD THIS ESSAY DUE A WEEK AGO.... perfect timing -_-
Rekt
+Christian Tomagan , a cautionary tale! The moral: never sign up for a course that hasn't been covered by the Green brothers yet.
+EyeLean5280 Crash Course: homework completion for lazy people with good timing? :)
+Christian Tomagan MURPHY
I really enjoy listening to this person speak. He's a good choice for videos like this. He has a good voice and presence.
Watched eight videos in a row and then succumbed to despair when I realized that this was the most current video. I wanna binge!
By far one of the best episodes of this series.
Yep, thanks to Popper.
without knowing this was my exact approach to religion, and why I gave it up. Really enjoying this course it resonates with how I think very well.
the best crash course I've seen so far. and there is stiff competition, I love astronomy, history and egale punching.
Wow, the last thing you said was powerful. This show is like someone putting my thoughts in a clear way for me to learn.
No philosophy course is complete without studying David hume 's work
vwazp reason?
i think he came closest to proving the weakness of basic logic itself
knowing it would better than to think.
that depends on your interpretation of the word "know"
Hello World Hume created the problem of induction and the is ought dichotomy. Astounding stuff
we want the physics now
pls
+Correctrix Without philosophy there would be no "real science".
1st episode of physics is out tomorrow (31st)
Just realised today is the 29th ahahha anyway it comes out 31st March
+司此雷 THURSDAY. ALMOST THERE!
-Nicole
This 10mins video has taught me more than what i have learned in the last 2 years of my life. Thanks @CrashCourse
The best video of the playlist! It gave so much goosebumbs
Binge-watching ❤ Awesome series!
I can see next week's flame wars on the horizon already...
+Roy Bellafire I know
+Roy Bellafire I love the smell of napalm in the morning...
I'm enjoying this series so much! Congrats on getting picked up by PBS :D Can't wait to finish this series. :D
I love watching this guy and channel! I’ve learned so much from them. Really good for knowledge building that’s for sure
Not even a mention to philosophers like Feyerabend and Kuhn who argued quite successfully against Popper's falsificationism. Not even a nudge that a lot of people actually disagree with Popper on his idea of scientific method and demarcation criteria.
All of these videos are limited in how much dialectic they can abridge in even a run of videos. Perhaps you can summarize Feyerabend & Kuhn's cases for we the open-minded public.
MRCKify
I know that there is no space for dialectic. But I dont think it was prudent or honest to say that Popper 'got it right' when his view is considered outdated. John always mentions in his history videos that different point of views are viable but in this video there was no such mention.
In any case, here are the basics of Kuhn and Feyerabend :)
Kuhn and Feyerabend both argue that scientific progress is not a rational process. Kuhn argues that most scientists work within an established paradigm and never question the fundamentals until the fundamentals are in crisis and a new paradigm is established.
Feyerabend is completely anarchical, believes that there is no point articulating a scientific method because for every rule we set, even the most basic, there is always an expetion from the history of science which defies it.
If you are interested in more, you should check out Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn and Against Method by Feyerabend
I just posted a comment basically saying the exact same thing right before seeing your comment. It's quite dishonest of Hank to make it sound like Popper's theories were so right that they seem self-evident. He's almost universally rejected by philosophers of science today, as far as I understand.
Dre Jay He certainly is rejected in my Uni's philosophy department and we have some world class philosophers of science
+Nakas Dougen so what is the problem with falsification as the standard of determining science from non-science?
Would have loved to see some connection made between this and the work of Thomas Kuhn and WVO Quine. For instance, Popper's idea was that you cannot prove anything only disprove it. However Quine (and to a lesser extent Duhem) showed that you can't actually disprove anything either. Rather you have a system of beliefs that are interconnected that color your interpretation of data (there is no neutral observer). You will change tertiary beliefs to protect secondary ones, and secondary ones to protect primary beliefs (eg the explanation of retrograde motion to avoid heliocentricity). Eventually the system becomes too untenable and must be abandoned. Thomas Kuhn labeled this a paradigm shift. Since then you have two primary methods of observational science. Popper's null hypothesis (one you try to disprove) and independent confirmation/verification. All valid scientific theories must not only be falsifiable, but they must be testable and the tests reproducible.
However, not all theories can be scientific, as Quine would go on to point out against the Logical Positivist movement of which he was a central figure until his publication of "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," arguably the most important philosophical work of the twentieth century.
+treymedley Agree! Maybe they could bring it up in a future video. I was also interested to hear more about Quine and Duhem, but I think it would have made the video too long.
+treymedley They might bring it up in future videos. But in general, this whole course will only ever be able to introduce people to some starting points of thinking (which is better than nothing), but leave a lot of room and necessity for personal further study.
+treymedley It's certainly understandable for a series like this to skip the more difficult reads (like Wittgenstein or Quine). It is a shame later thinkers like Kuhn (or Lakatos and Feyerabend) weren't mentioned as a way to show how we've moved past Popper in the last century or so.
I am really happy to understand the very basics of the what scientific thinking thinking is actually based on.
Crash Course you are doing a really right, great, and required job for the people of this generation.
This is my favourite Crash Course playlist. Can't wait for the next episode!
scientific hypothesis: the next video will mention flying spaghetti monster
+DestinyQx
or a tea pot
On this subject, I wish you would've also brought up Kuhn and Feyerabend's answer to Popper
This is so much more clear than my professors explanation of poppers falsification and the difference between science and pseudo science. I wish you did more videos specifically on philosophers and their beliefs. We've discussed popper, kuhn, and lakatos so far in my course
Extremely awesome video, it's helping me a ton with writing a paper. A million thanks to Crash Course.
do an episode on the philosophy of science and david hume
Holy crap. I think I need to erect a statue to Karl Popper in my yard. All of that is the modern definition of scientific knowledge.
erect
*Sir Karl Popper.
No I'm not lying, he was knighted.
I'm looking forward to a crash course on Philosophy of science (if it's possible) like that of Kuhn's, Popper's, Lakatos's, Hesse's, to name a few. Thanks for this one.
This was my favorite one of these. I guess because it made the most sense. I liked the part about certainty. You should keep your mind open.
I'm very excited for the next episode, as I'm a Christian who was led to philosophy from some of my studies of theology.
Should be an interesting episode! I commend you for "going there", despite the ocean of criticism you'll wade through.
I've loved the course, thanks for doing it!
+Josiah Robinson I'm with you, I am a christian as well and I'd rather have a balanced and challenged faith rather than one that is shut off to criticism that becomes bigoted and harsh.
+Steffen Vriend Absolutely. Not only will philosophy help solidify my own faith, but help me learn to share with others more thoughtfully. Philosophy is proving to be beneficial to much of my faith.
+Josiah Robinson "solidify my own faith" ... Is that not going in to the upcoming video with a preconceived notion? The pseudoscientific method, as this video explains, because you are seeking to verify your beliefs rather than be skeptical and pick it apart... Just though this was worth mentioning. Would you honestly say you are going into the next video open to the idea your beliefs might be picked apart and leave your in more doubt?
+Bananaman I was not referring to the next video, I was referring to philosophy as a whole. It allows me to think critically about my faith in a way I wouldn't otherwise. Would you not say that philosophy solidifies one's understanding of what is being examined?
I am learning about philosophy so I can challenge and critique the views I currently hold. Is that not what every philosopher has done?
If the evidence was substantial enough I would be persuaded abandon my faith, but I do not think anyone would rest their entire belief system on a single video.
I can say I am approaching with as open mind of a mind as any. I will examine my worldview as critically as possible. That's one of the goals of philosophy after all.
god bless you Hank for saving me at 2am by making sense of my university final exam topic I take in 10 hours
Amazing episode, I'm really enjoying this series.
I hope this series sees immense success! Love Crash Course, always worth my time :)
I love this so much. I feel overjoyed. I had a basic understanding of philosophy but not on an academic level. but this, this makes me feel as if im not just crazy, or that I just over think things. I fucking love knowledge.
Reminds of the saying "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
+Adrian Duran Edison?
+charlidog2 Yep
I wish I could give you thousands of up-thumbs. I've never heard anybody put this idea so succinctly before.
i learned this the hard way my biology teacher made us read about a type of nematode worm (C.elegance) and then next day in the lab got us a similar looking new type of worm to observe, we explained most of the observations through our knowledge of C.elegance. most of us failed but we learned a very valuable lesson about the importance of the scientific method and how it can help eliminate the observer bias.
Beautiful, thank you! I keep trying to show my science colleagues how they are falling prey to pseudoscience due to their beliefs as well but they are blind to see it. They are so busy confirming, that they truly think they are critically investigating. They are having a really difficult time seeing that they are doing this. They think random isolated facts about their beliefs is evidence.
This episode should've include Lakatos and Kuhn; that would give the whole explanation about Science's Theories and their refutation, falsation, etc. Anyway, I love CC!!
Nice suggestions- helps people like myself even hear such names for the first time :P
Never understood this in philosophy class, thank you so much Mr Green you are a TRUE teacher
I love all of your content, and this course is awesome. But it would be great to be able to contrast Popper with someone like Khun or Feyerabend to explore other perspectives about what it means to DO SCIENCE in a modern context
I wonder if Alvin Plantinga will show up next week! I'm currently taking a university course about his arguments for religion and God.
I have an academic / scientific background and philosophy is one of my dearest hobbies, but I have to say that Popper's much celebrated philosophy of science diverges increasingly of both the practice of actual research scientists as well as my ideas on the topic.
Using established theories / methods etc. and extending them in regions where they have not been explicitly tested and seeking to confirm the starting hypothesis is the bread and butter of most experimental scientific efforts. Often the initial results do not agree with expectations and the preferred method is to consider what might have gone wrong and to investigate a tweaked theory that is consistent with the data. Typically the initial hypotheses, if not confirmed, never make it into the publications, usually the method and interpretation that seem consistent are the ones written about (usually for good reasons). These are not poor practices, but the standard way in which science progresses.
So, Popper's observations do not always apply at the level of data collection and interpretation, but are rather inherent in a layer where they lurk beneath the surface. An example of this might be most analytical science (analytical chemistry).
+Jason93609
I am really trying to grasp what you are on about. First you are a proponent of what I call the lab-coat fallacy, so dubbed by me in disrespect of one John Pendelton who dons a white lab-coat to prop up his credentials.
You claim an academic/scientific background? What does that mean? And why do you think this important unless you have non like Pendleton and think it impresses people to suggest that you do. If you were someone with an academic title you probably don't feel the need to mention it but should go by argument, so I assume, out of experience, that you have non. Or probably something basic like a bachelors degree and feel ashamed to say so.
That philosophy is a hobby of yours doesn't make you an authority either. What is the point of mentioning it unless it is to prop up your credentials? Maybe you read philosophers all day and totally fail to grasp what they mean.. so what does an interest in philosophy say?
You claim it diverts from actual current research, can you proof such?
In fact, wondering I asked a friend of mine who has been a researcher for fifteen years with a doctor's degree for the AMC in the Netherlands and has been a researcher with the HIV research department(a specialty with the AMC) and who is currently a manager for a private firm in charge of one of the departments that tests medicines. One of them..
I have yet to get a hold of him, which will be in the next month, but actually I already know from his live time partner that it isn't as easy as is suggested. In fact your argument is totally vapid because it demonstrate to have no knowledge of research at all. Popper's central thesis is what guides research but on the details it is different. My friends department has just one task: to proof the research wrong. One of the methods is using a placebo control group. If at any point the placebo group reports an equal or more improvement than the other group that got the medicine, the medicine has been proven to be wrong. So it is very much like Popper states. That research doesn't seem to follow Poppers theory is your lack of vision. You stare at the details and say: oh look here: they don't try to proof a theory to be wrong when gathering data... Thus Popper is wrong.
In actuality it is that in general Poppers theory is followed, yet some departments are just for information gathering, hence they do no have to proof things wrong but merely concentrate on getting the data right. Just like forensics doesn't have to proof themselves wrong in a court case. That is for the court case to decide. You so mix up stuff.
Merit Coba
What a pointless tirade.
The only reason for mentioning my position as an active researcher is simply to note that I have direct experience of popper being irrelevant to most research, including almost all analytical research.
I would be interested in any resource that supports your case.
www.quora.com/Are-Karl-Poppers-views-on-science-still-relevant
I speak from direct personal experience, so my case stands on its own merit. Popper has clearly has had an effect, but his theories are not the end all and be all of philosophy of science. And most of his thinking doesn't apply to a lot of how science is practiced, it sort of lurks in the background. Also there are cases where falsificationism, in particular, doesn't fit in very comfortably - I can bring concrete examples if you wish.
But, in short, I would say that applying established ideas to new systems is one of the main way new scientific discoveries are made.
Reading back, I think I was a bit to confrontational and you were right to point that out. I am sorry about that. As I am no researcher I cannot talk from personal experience, but only ask a friend of mine who is involved in research. I met him quite by accident yesterday morning. It was only a brief meeting we had, but he said something along the lines that in general the falsifiability is practiced, but that it depended in the details and what kind of research whether it is directly practiced.
However it seems to hold true overall. In some cases it seems even that falsifiability is not practiced because it doesn't apply, but merely because it isn't being done. The thing is that is might be done is what matters.
Amazing explanation about science and pseudoscience! This Channel is just perfect
I really like this series. I am not much into philosophy. To admit, I really dislike it to the point that I got into an argument with a friend about it. But I like the series and would really recommend it as a quick way to get a grasp of the basic concepts. Of course.. I can't say if it is wrong or right to do so. I am just not very well versed in it.
And this one, Karl Popper really got me interested. Thanks for that!
God next episode? I'll go pack my popcorn!
Better bring a beer, too.
millenniumdragn Sorry, under-age... not that I would want to risk poisoning my mind anyway.
Oh, gosh. I can already smell the flamewars.
I have now watched this twice, at least. It is that good. It made me think about consciousness as a thing, how to test my mind, my ideas, & weather or not a cigar is just a cigar.
On the APA website there was a free look up that had a paper I found. It was titled, "The Feeling of Personal Ownership of One's Mental States: A Conceptual Argument and Empirical Evidence for an Essential, but Under Appreciated, Mechanism of Mind", by Dr. Klein from December of 2015. The article brings up a clear point, can you scientifically prove something so obviously real as consciousness? "Despite the optimistic claims of some (e.g., emergent materialists), continuing struggles with this topic show little evidence of any imminent resolution." Thousands of years, & we are not really closer to cracking the case. Can we even use his methods to inform our conclusions on such things? I guess as far as to know things like, what an unconscious person is, sure. That is not a definition of what it is to be conscious really, as that is like saying your awake, but then there are things like sleep paralysis. Your conscious & trapped in a dream, kinda, but your awake, sorta. Or what about meditation & altered states due to trances. How about if we were to simulate an entire consciousness on a machine? Do we understand it then? Or just understand our simulation of what we approximate it to be?
All this to say, I watched this video & it sent me searching. What can I prove? What can I safely apprehend? Lastly, what is beyond apprehension? Most things, I have found fit into the first two questions neatly. Things like God, consciousness, & 'Am I allowed to kill this ant?', do not fit the first two. I have found things, science can not explain, & have little reason to think they ever will thanks to the second question in my last set. It has been a pain, I hope it lasts.
Thank you for my disquieted soul, I appreciate it. Keep learning & seeking even if it is not Popler.
I must say, I'm really enjoying the Philosophy series which I didn't think I would considering I've never really taken it as a subject anywhere..
3:19 lol I thought he turned Italian for a second... "So, you look-a-da-swan!"
Popper was a great thinker, truly. It would behoove any rational debunker-type to closely study his ideas. The philosophically unsophisticated can be made to look like fools, even if they are defending sound points.
I'm so inspired by your videos - great job. You are a credit to humanity :)
I loved the reference to Black Swan! It was an interesting choice for where you put it in the piece due to the implications that it makes.
I have grabbed my sword and shield and will patiently await the coming flame war! Oh, how wonderful it will be!
And take my axe too!
+daedra40 and my bow!
GOD! We're coming for youuuuuu!
+Björn Kihlberg So, after this episode, every atheist should work hard to prove God's existence, and every theist should work to disprove His existence. So you are a theist, right? :D
+Björn Kihlberg Hahahaha xD! We're gonna get uuu goooddd
Ptaku93 No, it relies on theists to prove God’s existence, they are making the assertion therefore they must prove it. Atheist merely say “yeah I’m not gonna believe in something without proof”. It wasn’t incumbent upon other scientists that didn’t believe in Einstein’s theories to prove it, it was incumbent upon Einstein to give sufficient evidence(by trying to disprove it)
Sooo looking forward to next week's episode!
Oh man, this episode was mind-blowing to me. Nice work!
Fantastic episode, looking forward to a calm, civilized discussion next week on the topic of God!
+Christian Hansen Unfortunately, this isn't how the internet usually works.
Someone will eventually call religious people idiots. Even if it could be a debatable point, he won't back up his claims. A religious person will reply saying he can believe whatever he wants, which is true but doesn't address the initial claim. Therefore, someone will make a comment about Hitler or the Nazis and there's shit everywhere.
+Mathieu C I for one am curious to see how Godwin's law will show itself.
***** Has to be different people though. We'll see that next week.
Anyone, any thoughts on Austrian economics in relation to this topic? Even the chicago school of economics?
I love this series. So interesting and accessible.
In the Netherlands and Belgium the topic on the philosophy final exam is scepticism and I like how I recognise the things I have to study in these video's.
Wow, next episode is going to be flame-war-tastic.
This video should be shown to every high school kid ever.
My God!
Favorite episode so far!
Loved it!
Wow I remember hearing a lot of this in anatomy and physiology but I never heard the name Karl Popper. I'm really glad to know the name of the person that came up with a lot of these ideas that guide scientific practice today