Regarding the situation with Kristi Winters: she recently challenged me to a -dUrBaTe- debate on the topics that I have been discussing of late. I declined the invitation, since such topics much better lend themselves to casual conversation of the sort that this video exhibits, rather than the adversarial debate format where addressing Gish Gallops and strawmen, and limitations on the ability to fact check sources, make the honest presentation and discussion of ideas nearly impossible. On matters of independently verifiable fact, such as the manner in which the starlight problem devastates the young earth creationist thesis, it is possible to at least use the debate format for pedagogical aims, as I did in my confrontations with Kent Hovind; but on more subtle matters, such as those concerning the philosophy of science, unless all participants are diligent in their application of honest and charitable argumentation, the outcome can only ever amount to a pointless shitshow. Such shitshows are the lifeblood of hacks like Kristi Winters, who I do not trust to be willing or able to engage in such discourse. This instinct was only confirmed by how she reacted to being denied the notoriety, attention, and adulation that she apparently foolishly believes herself to be entitled to: first, she spammed several of my videos with links to her videos, and attempted to provoke me into responding by calling me a coward. When this failed to garner my attention, she proceeded to distribute my email address- which had been shared with her in confidence- to her followers on social media, possibly so that they could spam my inbox with abuse. These are not the actions of anyone who deserves any more attention than is absolutely necessary for me to share my views on the philosophy of science, and so I will not humor any more provocations from Winters. After the next video releases, I will have nothing more to say about her, and will subsequently leave her to languish in the obscurity that she deserves. I will not feed the troll.
So she turns out to be worse than I initially thought. I imagined she was only incorrect, not actually this petty, entitled, vitriolic and malevolent. To go after someone's doxxes because they refuse to "debate" you is on some another level. Good on you for always being level headed and rational in your engagements KC.
You made the right move but I imagine it was a hard move to make. She would likely be ‘arguing’ in bad faith, while looking for sound bites for her videos in order to ‘dunk’ on you later.
Does Winters think it's the current year? Debates are merely a colonialist social construct developed by white cis-gendered men who created the format to deny people their lived reality. Zi am shaking right now, the racism is an assault on my entire existence which Winters has attempted to invalidate.
I remember when the arguement around women's health being less emphasized was a purposeful ignorance of female anatomy... Yet she poses the opposite strategy for the same purpose.
Yo. I really hope you look into the MMA (mixed-martial arts) vs TMA (traditional martial arts) debate. The whole "bullshido" movement is a grand case study in models having to meet operational criteria, with very clear figures of merit and immediate & personal negative consequences for failure.
The purpose of traditional martial arts is not to win a random street fight. Most traditional martial arts were designed to keep one alive on the battlefield, or in a duel. The operational criteria was that you came back alive. The reason traditional martial arts aren't useful in a street fight is it isn't what they're for.
@Andrew Mayo What is the difference between hand to hand combat in a bar, sidewalk or battlefield? Jiu jitsu, for instance, is used in mma, and was taught to use in battle as well. Traditional martial arts, like Tai chi for instance, offer little to no value in terms of protecting oneself, whether it be on a battlefield or in a bar brawl.
@@mphase7575 The purpose of traditional martial arts was battlefield practice. Jiu Jutsu was taught as part of a standard curriculum, not unlike martial arts like pankration, and was taught to allow a person who was disarmed to defend themselves against an opponent. The goal was to disable the opponent, and then disengage or retreive your weapon. Other schools of martial arts were developed for similar reasons. Iaido for instance was developed to allow one to change quickly from normal activity to combat ready, by implementing the draw cut into standard kenjutsu practice, this eventually became it's own practice. You say that traditional martial arts aren't useful but then ignore the context in which they were developed. In practice, in a fight, any level of training is going to beat no training, regardless of if the particular technique is maximally efficient. You don't have to gouge someone's eyes out to defeat them, or break their legs with your sweep. If you're a budhist monk who spends 10 hours a day in prayer and meditation and abhors violence, then the whole objective of studying martial arts is to disable opponents without doing them any permenant harm, in case you are harrassed on the road. This is why many monks, particularly those who travelled frequently learned bojutsu or jiujutsu.
What does it hurt to know more? Why does knowledge need a goal? Who determines what is harmful? Who’s definition of morality are we using to judge the science ?
« Why does knowledge need a goal? » Because resources are limited and knowledge is needed to act on them, whilst needing them to be expanded, which leads to a need to prioritize what knowledge will be researched, which leads to knowledge being assigned a goal. « Who determines what is harmful? » Reality, and the consequences on wellbeing an increase in knowledge has.
Who determines what's harmful? Those who are harmed, and witnesses and medical professionals who verified that the harm is real and a causal link has been demonstrated in the process from the causal agent to the harm it has caused.
@@zemorph42 « Those who are harmed » Who is to say they were harmed ? I think that’s the issue he was getting at in part. My answer would be the same as I gave « reality », you can be harmed and not know it, or believe you were harmed and not have been at all. So, to take your answer « medical professionals who verified that the harm is real and a causal link has been demonstrated ».
@@zemorph42 I read past that point, which you should know since I literally referred to it explicitly in my answer, to clarify that « those who are harmed » isn’t really what we’ll be using, but rather the ones that can verify that harm has been done to someone/the methods that can be used to verify that someone has been harmed.
@@elisabethdunn8683 -- I think I was telling someone who was talking about the aether that they were an idiot ... but that wasn't me making a claim about anything fantastical like that.
Gotta say, it's been long, long time since I've watched actually good conversation on RUclips by two people with opposing views about something. Now having this gem in front of me, I see it clearer than ever. In a world I wish we lived, this would be the standard, the usual way of having conversations and comparing worldviews, but that, of course, is nothing but a pipe dream. Knowing humanity, never to be achieved.
A hypotheticaly effective conversion therapy isn't science in action. It would be psychological or neurological engineering. The question confused these two concepts. Morality has nothing to do with the scientific process and its conclusions, but it does with the engineering process. Let us also not confuse the qualitative good with the moral good. Those are two different things.
Saying scientists (while performing experiments) were influenced by their culture is parallel to saying they lacked sufficient controls and methodologies to remove bias. Good science attempts to compensate for variables with things like double blind studies and the like. Race, unless part of the hypothesis, shouldn't be a variable. There may be observations that fall along racial lines (people of color having more incidence of sickle cell for example) may be valid but should be a separate experiment or cross validated by additional data.
There will be countless scientists performing the same experiments and arriving at the same results. How would that be possible unless they are all in on a conspiracy which is not just absurd, but in my opinion actually evil to claim. That sort of thinking is clearly counter-rational and in itself highlights the worst aspects of humanities thinking in contrast to the rationality of science and the rational thinking of some schools of philosophy.
@@xeganxerxes4319 that's not how science work first of all. Most scientists are trained in universities, because to be a good scientist you have to learn good methodology. So most scientists are trained into the culture that surrounds science, and anyone outside this culture is looked at with suspicion(and we all know, despite our better hopes, new paradigms take a generation to be accepted). This is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we can pretend it is not the case
I'm no academic, I'm not even a student, but as someone who likes science as a hobby, all I want is science to be correct and free of politics and opinions as much as possible. If I want to read about human biology or astrophysics, I don't want the writers political opinion or social background to be the main focus, or even a secondary focus on the topic.
Listened to the first 20 minutes so far. It seems that no matter how many times KC points to the methodological problems, the other person simply can't hear it. It's like, "the words we use surely color our interpretations." "Undoubtedly, but we're not arguing about this in an abstract, general case. We're trying to test specific claims that a specific choice of language produced a specific bias. And there's no falsifiability criterion being applied, so you can conclude whatever you want." "Okay, but the words we use surely color our interpretations." No wonder there's a replication crisis. Doesn't anybody learn scientific methodology anymore?
Rigor is just a construct of whiteness. Therefore we must tear it down and replace it with anecdote. The more marginalized you are the more you know... Unless you disagree with me.
@@alkestos also, liberal societies are fascist. People thinking for themselves... That's definitely white supremacy keeping blck people enslaved! People should think what they're told to think and be placed specifically in society to end fascism.
It took a long time for the motivation behind Jangles reasoning to show itself. Of course those who want to impose their social programme on science try to naturalise their ideas by claiming that science is already a biased. Unfortunately social justice warriors can't know what innovations we'd miss out on due to proscribing 'bad' science.
I’m about 30 minutes in and I genuinely do not understand what this dude is complaining about. Scientists are people and people are imperfect. So it is only natural that scientists and their institutions might accidentally come to bad conclusions from time to time. But so what? The whole point of science is to identify those mistakes and CORRECT THEM! So pray tell, how exactly does this guy propose that we go about finding and fixing our mistakes?
@Apistevist SS1964 if they build workable, testable, repeatable models with predictive value by interacting with the world, it sounds a lot like Science to me. I'm not totally convinced but it seems to be a pretty sound argument.
@Apistevist SS1964 you should look into similarities between modern scientific modeling and neuroscience. I promise kc's argument makes much more sense.
I disagree with a lot of your conclusions KC, but I appreciate that you approach these questions with serious curiosity, and the rigor with which you seek answers and make interpretations. You’re about the only of the new atheist movement I still hear out. You critically challenge ideas in a way I think other new atheists have mostly failed.
How much reading and study do you do? And how much of what you read and study do you retain? I'm always gobsmacked at how much information from various fields that you can rattle off and how you can tie it all together so easily. I'm pretty good at tying things together but my ability to retain information is ridiculously low, as is my amount of study.
Could you clarify what you mean by « sociology of science » ? Because you can study the sociology of how science is practiced, both in terms of methodology and in terms of fields of inquiry, how it’s perceived by its practitioners, the effects of science, etc, and I see nothing wrong with calling all of that « sociology of science » :|
@@nathanjora7627 Well I do. This could be a Tomayto/Tomahto thing. But I hold that how is practiced and perceived by its practitioners is a study of the practitioners and their social milieu, not of . There is no sociology of Rock Climbing. There is sociology of Rock Climbers, and the sociology of "Rock-Climbing" as an activity in a society. But an isolated tribesman in Papua New Guinea will rediscover the same principles of effective and safe (operational criteria) rock climbing that a Parisian youth would starting from scratch. So much so that they'd be able to compare notes and equate the different names they came up with for various identical forms and techniques. This happens with Martial Arts all the time. So it is with Science. There is no Canadian version of geometry. There will be no Judeo-Christian Quantum Physics. Though there may be some social pressures in deciding how much funding and interest Quantum Physics Research receives.
@@dileepvr Just to be clear : we agree that science will discover the same things everywhere as long as it’s actually science, on average with enough time and resources to properly gather data and investigate phenomena, no matter the culture the conclusions will be the same as long as they are actually doing science. There will be differences in the speed of discoveries, primary fields of study, etc, but the actual content of the discoveries should be the same everywhere in the end (ie : given enough time and resources, obviously at first the conclusions could differ but they should eventually converge as more time is given for models to be tested against reality). So there is definitely a bit of tom-A-to, tom-AY-to going here ^^ Because I don’t understand how studying how something is practiced not the same as studying the sociology of that thing :| Like, for starters, it seems like to you saying « the sociology of science » is in itself an incoherent meaningless sentence. Is that right, or would you simply say that it’s an inadequate sentence because what people are actually describing isn’t the study of science but the study of scientists and their work ? In other words : do you think that « the sociology of science » is a meaningless concept, or do you think that it’s an inappropriate concept ? In the latter case, can you explain to me how you’d define « sociology of science » ?
@@nathanjora7627 Yes. We agree on the entire first paragraph. You have rightly deduced that I am being a stickler for terminology. I believe that confusion over terminology is one of the major reasons for all of these conflicts King Crocoduck is having to engage in. We literally saw this played out in this interview with Jangles. At the 1:07:50 mark, J brings up a hypothetical "model that could successfully convert homosexual people into heterosexual people" as an example of "good" science when judged by its adherence to the big 4 operational criteria, but "bad" science when evaluated on SocJus figures of merit. There is no real conflict here once you clear up what the terms mean. The former adjective is an analog estimation of mathematical congruence (a goodness-of-fit, if you will), whereas the later one is a moral judgement. The claims are not mutually exclusive. Plenty of ink has been split over the decades declaring that biology is sexist, that physics is racist, or that gravity is ableist, or what have you. Such sophistry inevitably paints itself in a linguistic corner, and starts lobbing nonsensical and destructive policy proposals across the two-culture divide that the scientists on the other side are linguistically ill-equipped to disentangle. This asymmetry is also open to abuse (intentional or not). A lot of headaches could have been avoided, to take a specific example, if that Feminist Glaciology paper just cataloged (and boldly claimed to have cataloged) the negative impacts that past (and perhaps present) standard practices of field research in Glaciology has had on the local environment and indigenous cultures. That is something everyone would have gotten on board with. The linguistic morass which has taken root in academe has trapped even the authors of said article. They themselves often confuse field-research praxis with the cognitive content of glacier research, which is evident from their remedial "bad" science policy proposals. We agree on your first paragraph, but many do not. And I am claiming that abuse of language is a major part of the reason why. Terms like "knowledge production" lend themselves to excessive social constructionism in domains where they are inapplicable, leading to absurd adjectives being inappropriately paired with inanimate nouns, resulting in confused and dangerous policy discussions. On top of this, there is a question of exploitation by vested interests with an activist bend. I won't go there if you'd rather not.
@@dileepvr « I won’t go there if you’d rather not » Well, we can go there if you want, but before we do I’d like you to answer to the questions I ask in my last paragraphe please ^^
I can't help but think that all this focus with bias and the supposed influence of society on science is a way for non serious individuals to claim a seat at the table. They see that it's impossible to perfectly remove these aspects from scientific inquiry (and even in life more broadly) they'll always be able to hold onto that seat.
For a moment i had to double check that i was still on youtube. A productive, well mannered debate between people who have a disagreement. Thats a rarity. I really enjoyed listening, and it helped me refine my own views quite a bit again. The only point where i really have a hard disagreement with the host is the SJ argument in the end. Not only from the scientific value persepective, but even from his perspective of social betterment. Since he deems a solid theory of sexuality conversion as a "bad science" i would like to inquire if he thinks the same way about research into gender transition, which seems to be a really popular fad in the more insane parts of the SJ movement at the moment. If it is good to provide a person who feels they have the wrong gender with a way to transition, why would it not in the same way also be good to provide a person who feels they have the wrong sexuality with a way to transition. Both have a significant potential for abuse - i would argue the gender transition even more - so the same standard should be applied.
I agree. Of course, there could be ethical objections to this kind of research, but given a method for (he said curing, which I think is too much of a loaded term) converting homosexuals, I don't see that as a bad thing. One might also turn that around and ask whether it would be bad to find a way to turn straight people gay. If we had both methods, people could freely choose to be whateber they wish. Of course, people might also be forced to undergo such therapies, but that in my mind is dosconnected from the scientific inquiry about them.
In my opinion, the last few minutes of this discussion perfectly demonstrated why science and ideology don't (or shouldn't) mix. Jangles, my guy... your refusal to accept that there is a difference between a tool and the manner in which it is used was just childishly stubborn... is a knife good or bad? The correct answer is n/a, as the question is nonsensical. Do you use it to chop yourself some salad - good; plunge it into your neighbor's neck? Bad! The knife doesn't care either way. Similarly, to take your hypothetical, if you use the discovery of GayAway to forcefully ungay a bunch of people, that's tyrannical. But what if, for whatever reason, John Doe doesn't want to be gay anymore? Fuck him, right? But nevermind John, he's got the wrong opinion anyways so we don't care about his rights and freedoms. What if, while reading the paper on the discovery of GayAway, some medical researcher on the other side of the globe figures out a method for cancer prevention? "Oh but surely that's never going to happen" well, how do you know? You don't, nobody does, that's kind of why we do research... duh! But you know what... nevermind that as well - we don't care about John Doe and other such apostates and we don't care about furthering humanity's knowledge! GayAway is evil, because we say so, and any research into it must be stopped at any cost... That's what computer scientists call security through obscurity and all it's good for is to slightly slow down and considerably annoy and potential wrong-doers. Finally, the notion that any group or individual gets to decide if a research is good or bad and, based on that decision, obstruct the pursuit, discovery and dissemination of knowledge, is retch-inducingly disgusting! As far as I'm concerned, anyone who tries to restrict your access to knowledge - be it a book-burning nazi, a dress-clad old man citing a magic book or a bolshevik, telling you at gunpoint that, in spite of appearances, you are not starving - is a tyrant who wants to hurt you! You decide what you want to do about that.
Here's the thing though. Research for researches sake isn't always good. That in on itself is dogmatic in nature. There is wisdom in not pursuing a certain line of inquiry if if leads to social harm, or any kind of harm for that matter. This reminds of something Neil deGrasse Tyson said to Ben Shapiro in a relatively recent interview about transgender people. Your simplistic take of the GayAway hypothetical is just dumb. How we measure what's good or bad, and the social harm something can cause isn't as simplistic or absurd as you make it to be.
@@ArvindRajAgnosticAtheist "Research for researches sake isn't always good" That rings true in my mind, but I can't for the life of me figure out why; i.e. if pressed I'd have to admit that I can't support it in any way other than making a very broad argument about the dangers of absolute statements. "Your simplistic take of the GayAway hypothetical is just dumb" Could you expand on that point? For instance you could point out how some of the possible positives I suggested are so unlikely as to make them unworthy of consideration; Or maybe there is a simple way to demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that the negatives will outweigh the positives, and I stupidly failed to see it... or, maybe I maliciously omitted to mention it. You could give some historical examples, or even make up a hypothetical scenario. In short - have you anything to say? I'm asking, because I got that you disagree and I can see that you very much enjoy the word "simplistic", but your replay may be honestly summed up as "Nah, you dumb". Now, if you wanna say that then say it - no skin off my nose; but don't go around pretending you have well reasoned arguments where none are to be found. Cheers!
@@dimiturtabakov1108 I will need to more time to formulate a good response. I'm trying to think and see if I could skim through some research papers on transwomen in sports to see if I could come up with a good example.
The notion that we ought to consider the ramifications of the research we choose to do has nothing to do with religion. Good science (sound science) can have bad consequences (it can increase human suffering). Insert Ian Malcom quote here.
@@dannyeisenga with all due respect that sounds like justification for willful ignorance. Information is morally neutral, it is what we do with it that has moral dimensions. I understand that potentially uncovering some information may potentially lead to that outcome, but that same argument can be made for harnessing fire. Someone may be burned, and someone may use it as a weapon, where will it end!? That ian Malcom quote in context is warning about the dangers of acting on research without giving it due consideration. More information can only make us more moral, not less, as we can make more informed choices.
@@DocOmally101 I don't disagree with that in principle, but one of the informed choices we can make is whether something we're interested in researching is likely to have positive or negative consequences. Research into 'cures' for homosexuality, for example, could hypothetically have some unforeseen positive outcomes, but would certainly have disastrous negative outcomes as well. Concluding that we should not research this then becomes perfectly rational rather than political or emotional. Knowledge is _theoretically_ separate from how that knowledge is put into action, but in practice knowledge doesn't exist in some ideal vacuum. It exists in the real world where there are immoral people. I don't think Oppenheimer can defend his contribution to the destruction of Hiroshima by saying he merely helped to invent the bomb, he didn't decide to drop it, and I would say the world would be better of if we never had the knowledge to make atomic weapons.
@@alkestos disgusting. I must speak, as it is my ability to speak for I am a human being communicating on the world wide web, that I, as a human being existing on the earth, which is the only known carrier for life known to us in this universe, am unable to or cannot find it in the grasps of my power as a human being to give life to, express, or show the workings of my emotions, those which i can express as it is in my ability to as a human being, namely in this case the emotion of anger, frustration or hate, one which incites aggressiveness in the homo sapiens, and that emotion of anger, that I as a human being posses, cannot be expressed for this edited image that is shared on the world wide web of the world which includes an interconnected web of technologies such as iPads and computers and so i can conclude that this picture or frame of reality, which is called a meme and has been created to give me joy, has failed in its so called task and has instead incited in me, the common man, an expression of anger that cannot be expressed or grasped using the limits or extents of my mind that evolution has granted me throughout the years of human existence and after all these years humans have arrived to the current state yet even in this evolved state i am unable to express the anger emotion, and so not only has this image failed its purpose but also has the whole years of human evolution.
@@Rakhujio I hear you loud and clear. Or read. As a human being. On this series of tubes called web of inter. On this pale blue dot, to us humans known as earth. Which infact is flat. Hah, checkmate science. I bet you didn't expect that! Wait... What was this comment thread about again?
I fundamentally disagree. It is not mutually exclusive to be real and to not have heard of this conversation until glorious Master King Crocoduck brought it to my attention.
King Crocoduck, What are some good books you recommend related to epistemology and the scientific enterprise? I am double majoring in both civil engineering and particle physics. Would love to hear some of your recommendations so I got sumthin to read over in the summer :)
So, at around 22:35 in the video, you made a point trying to distance the history of people attempting to use science to justify racism from science itself. I agree that the science, when properly engaged with, will eventually lead us to a better conclusion than the horrifically flawed conclusion that is racism. What I don't agree with is that their methodology wasn't science. It most *objectively* was. They did it badly, but it *was* the methods of science. VSauce put out a video discussing the practice of reason relatively recently, and whilst I think that video has flaws, his description of the evolutionary mechanism of and the evolutionarily ingrained practices of reason are on point. Even in a layman understanding of the scientific method (Question -> Hypothesis -> Test -> Conclusions -> Repeat) you can see how what they were doing was science. They had a question about the hierarchy of "race." Race may not be real, but in asking the questions would that fact be found. They made a hypothesis about that supposed hierarchical structure. They were wrong because race isn't real, but they didn't know that yet. They performed tests and discovered, through poor sample sizes and poor measurements, some "average" of differences in cranial structures. They mistook correlation for causation in certain instances, but they were engaging in the process. We don't often attempt to reason the "purpose" of datasets. We attempt to find datasets that support reasons. That's *how* hypothesis works. You assume a conclusion and attempt to find a dataset that supports that conclusion. Its possible your assumed conclusion is wrong, and when your dataset points to an exclusive conclusion that is incongruent with your hypothesis honest people will conclude they were *wrong.* You express this, in a conversational way, in this video. You lead with an argument about your conclusion. Your "opponent" (he was amicable and kind, so this is a very loose usage of the term) in this debate was unconvinced. So you add more arguments. You add more reasons to the reason you already stated. You reason more as your idea is challenged or not accepted. This is why science cannot be done in isolation as effectively as it is done communally. As our conclusions are challenged or not accepted, we, as people, are prone to double down and create more things to stick onto what we believe to protect those conclusions; especially if we view those conclusions as axiomatic or capable of effecting our social status. I am ultimately in a third camp. I think the methods of science are probably objective, but I do not think its results come without any form of subjectivity. Just as we perceive an objective world, our perception is subjective. There is a bridge between them, made of series of subjective interpretations being discussed in discourse of these observations of the objective. You talk about the 3-cylinder defense in your last video and in the description of this one. Science is naturalist. Institutions are social constructs. Discourse though, is a weird grey area that bridges the two. The language and interpretations are subjective, but what they are discussing isn't. You're not arguing the improper use of science when you critique the racialism of the past. You're critiquing the discourse as not being reflective of the science. It *was* science... poorly described and poorly communicated and poorly organised, upheld by an institution looking for the version of the discourse that upheld its assumed conclusion.
Your well-reasoned comment cannot be adequately addressed at this time. I hope that you will watch the third part of the Nuking Social Constructionism series, where I intend to address this argument in detail.
Whats the null hypothesis? Until you demonstrate the null hypothesis can be ignored you are not being scientific. The racialism of the past is both exaggerated in the present and was assumed true without reason in the past. The racialism of the past was not science, it was a reflection of the people engaging with pseudoscience. There have been innocuous examples of bias in science, even in physics. I do not remember the exact constant being measured, but its value changed over the last 100 years because the person who discovered it made an error and everyone who measured it after assumed they made an error unless they made a similar error in measurement. This caused a gradual drift in the published value. The bias of the humans involved in science has a multitude of effects, this no more means that racialism was scientific than the physical laws of reality gradually changed because of a famous mans cock up. Screw ups happen.
@@KingCrocoduck Thank you for replying. I understand that you can't take the time to address it when you're busy doing things on the other side of the screen. I've enjoyed the first two parts, and this little side trek and will gladly be watching the third part when its out. I'm not a science person, ultimately. I'm a philosophy and ethics person, so I will admit to being just a tad out of my element, as well.
@@AvNotasian Well, the null hypothesis in regards to racialist pseudoscience would have been "race doesn't exist." My point was more that to engage in science, you have to attempt to prove positive claims. You can't prove negative ones, and collecting data purposelessly doesn't serve to further understanding. They were attempting to prove positive claims. They failed, because race doesn't exist and is entirely a social construct, and that's evidenced by genetics. Just because they failed to prove positive claims that were based on false assumptions about the world doesn't mean they weren't engaging in the practice of attempting to prove positive claims that adhere to Crocoduck's big 4. Failure to prove a hypothesis in science is not an absence of the methodology. Its an absence of the truth of the assumed conclusions.
There's no way to tell with any confidence "what's in the poet's heart" from a single poem. You would have to read the poet's entire body of work to even make a somewhat informed guess, and it would still be just a guess. "heart" here is figurative, not literal.
But if I don't take it literally how am I going to use it as an excuse to cut out a poet's heart? I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees here. The goal is right there.
All of the easy problems are solved, so only hard problems remain. This makes knowledge production more difficult, requiring more time and resources to produce advancements. Add the pressure of 'publish or parish' to that and you have a pressure cooker. This creates a fertile ground for ideas which can lower the qualitative bar.
I'm glad I just found you on Benjamin Boyce's channel. I'm in philosophy of physics and I share your point of view. It has been very frustrating to me to see the idea that science is socially constructed take hold in the way it has. The way of thinking seems to always come down to "science is done by people, and therefore all knowledge is socially constructed, hence everything we know is relative to a point of view and all points of view are equal so screw science" .....something like that. The problem that I'm pointing at is that social constructivists demand of science that it has no human influence whatsoever in order for it to be able to claim that scientific knowledge is mostly objective. They have a kind of all or nothing thinking: science is either perfectly without human influence or it is all socially constructed and therefore all claims are equally true. And you can see it in the way you are not allowed to say here that something is bad science...because "who decides what is bad science, it was good science at the time".....etc. In other words, you can't have standards because all standards are instilled by humans, and when they are instilled by humans they are arbitrary and equally valid ...etc. the all or nothing stance. I'm looking forward to checking out your other content.
When science first started looking in animals and plants, one of the first things done was to create categories based on similarities and differences. These categories were necessarily based on pre-existing understandings about animals and plants. For example a Westerner might look at this analogy: rabbit is to rat as turkey is to [a] horse, [b] chicken, [c] pig [d] cow and chose chicken because both Turkey and chicken are birds. A non-westerner might choose horses because they are work animals while the others are food animals. Race is a cultural construct that appearred long before the 19th century. By the time science was applied to people, race it was a category like ethnicity, language spoken, nationality etc. And so it was an object of study. OTOH, a hypothetical 15th Chinese scientist would probably not have a category of race based on skin color as they had few direct dealings with African people. They would more likely focus on language and culture. So phrenology might not be a thing for them.
Sorry this comment is coming in so late, but I really wanted to speak to the final end point here. I would like to argue that social justice concerns halting a hypothetical avenue of scientific research which would allow us to find a means to change sexual orientation would be a bad thing. I'm gay; ergo, I appreciate the concerns social justice minded individuals would have about the potential harm such research could cause, especially if it was forcibly applied to people against their will. However, if there was indeed research and development that could lead to such an understanding of human sexuality, I would argue that it would be important to pursue it. Such knowledge would completely alter our current understanding of human psychology and sexuality. It could potentially offer insights into the workings of the human mind that would have a profound ripple effect. We have no way of knowing that such a development would necessarily lead to increases in anti-homosexual bias or even that it would lead to the eradication of homosexuality. Those are presuppositions based on fear of people in the current zeitgeist who already suffer from such biases. There's really no way of knowing what the social knock-on effects of such a radical reimagining of our conceits about a fundamental core of human psychology would be. Avoiding such a line of research, *especially* if it were promising, is the exact type of well-intentioned harm social justice brings into the realm of scientific discourse. I felt the need to comment in spite of this being two weeks old at this point because this is exact case where "not your shield" is specifically relevant to me. I don't want a profoundly useful expansion of our understanding of consciousness and the human mind to be willfully abandoned because it *may* embolden people with prejudice against me. This perfectly encapsulates to me how social justice in academia is cancerous even at its most benign.
I'll admit that I'm not a scientist in the traditional sense, but wouldn't the study of "black hole cosmology", which I acknowledge may be out of my scope of knowledge, be useful for future attempts of space travel? In that one of the goals of humans, as it stands right now, is to go out into and explore the universe and other galaxies and knowing the most that we can about black holes, something that up until recently we could only detect the effects of, would help us avoid some potential pitfalls of future space travel. Like, it doesn't have a great use as our technology stands right now, but part of science is collecting knowledge that we can potentially use later to some end and while the application may be just an abstract right now, that doesn't mean there isn't the goal of use of it later. Again, I might not understand what you mean by "black hole cosmology" and that may be a flaw in my interpretation. I'm kind of a moron, after all. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I found the arguent against the reaseach into homesexuality very week considering SJWs want us to believe gender and sexuality is fluid and can change. If this is true why would the research into conservation therapy be controversial at all, you are 100% correct Crocoduck
Conversion therapy is unethical, as the reason anyone would attend it is either through force, or being put through propaganda that tells them that what they are is wrong. The only reason someone would research into it is to reinforce an anti-lgbt agenda. It is the wrong method, and even if it worked (which it doesn't), it does not fix the actual problems of a society. Gender and sexuality are somewhat fluid, but they aren't easily changed from the outside. Your expression and sexuality can change over your life, that is what is meant. You say SJWs, but you use that term to just laugh at a group. You find it preposterous for some reason, I used to too until I actually started listening to the arguments that are cherry-picked and swatted aside.
Social justice is subjective. That single fact about it is reason enough for you to keep it to yourself and anyone who accepts it without being forced into it. People should still have a choice in applying whatever knowledge exists to their lives or not. The problem with social justice is that it's too often invasive and speaks for people that don't want anything to do with whatever it advocates for.
@@howtheworldworks3 I mean, I do agree with what's said here, those are important details but I feel like activists today are ignored because of fatigue, "We already had a civil rights movement!" sort of stuff for a lot of what's more acceptable today. It's been translated to a lot of people that these movements happened way in the past and that none of the things affecting them are still there... Which is demonstrably false, there is still a lot of legislation, culture, and infrastructure targeting minorities within the US. To give a personal example: I'm disabled, I can't drive. However, due to the car-dependent infrastructure of the US, I have no freedom to feasibly go anywhere without aid. This wasn't deliberately targeted, but is an extraordinarily damaging choice made by car manufacturers to endorse in the early 20th century. The only reason the US (and some nations thereafter) view this as normal is because it's been in place for long enough.
Everything can be used in multiple ways. For instance, anything that can turn homosexuals straight can probably also work in reverse. Or nuclear power vs nuclear weapons. The progression of science is a step towards prosperity and self-destruction simultaneously. Tje scientists can discover whatever they want but it doesn't mean it cant be used as a weapon. They may get stuck in a cycle where they have to invent solutions to the weapons they just invented.
I think I found the disagreement and can summarize it, you can correct me if I'm wrong. They both agree that pursuing research into curing homosexuality should not be funded based on our social values BUT KC and I would say that once that knowledge exists it should stand on its own merit as being a good science (if it is) whereas Jangles would say that we should STILL apply our social values and supress the knowledge and to put it crudely burn the heretical text and outlaw it. So for Jangles I have this to say: If we never developed nuclear weapons for the reason that they're good at killing a lot of people, we'd never have nuclear power which is THE ONLY technology that can realistically save us from the greenhouse catastrophy. Think about that.
Nah we'd still be able to get nuclear power, we just wouldn't have put so much effort into death machines. Just because war applies some form of pressure for certain items does not mean that you can't get similar outcomes in peacetime, or even without any competition at all.
About the question using science to discover a "cure for homosexuality", ill make an analogy: If someone makes a blade, the the criteria I'd use to evaluate if it is a good blade would be things like cutting capacity, edge retention, resistance to the environment, and maybe others. A blade that excels in all of those would be a good blade. If that person made the blade with the intention to go onto a murdering spree, id say that's a bad reason to make a blade, and would probably try to stop that person from even making it, but if the blade is made, it would be a good blade made for a bad purpose.
It's so damn interesting to me. There's so many angles... It's hard to filter them to be honest. Just when I felt like I was done considering the implications (with sci-fi-esque scenarios) another variable pops up. The philosophy stuff really fries my brain I swear. Work through a whiteboard sized equation? Sure. Consider science, philosophy, and ethics all at once? Excedrin please. I'm glad I stuck to mathematics.
Generally, someone going out to find a cure for homosexuality will more than likely have ulterior motives in the first place, since the first question in that case would actually be; "Why?" In general, it is good to have a "why not" scientist attitude, but those sorts of experiment bases are inherently unethical for a multitude of reasons.
Vsauce recently uploaded a video you may want to check out. Most of it was beyond me and I have no idea how to determine if it is valid or sound. It is about reason.
Very interesting debate. I wasn't a fan of Jangles when I saw him on Modern-Day Debate, but here he is very much a gentleman. One thing, somewhere around 31:00 the discussion was about whether or not there are objective truths that exist outside of humanity and it seems (from my understanding) that both KC and Jangles agreed that there are none. But what about the laws of physics? What about the regularities and ratios that are universal? Surely you can argue that expressing them in a formula is a human endeavor, but the fact that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is π surely is an objective truth whose existence is not changed by the emergence or disappearance of humanity?
As far as I can tell, the fundamental disagreement with ScienceLad is this age-old question: Is nuclear bomb research in itself bad science? King Crocoduck world be on the position that nuclear bomb research has enough predictive accuracy as well as his other criteria, therefore it clears the bar for good science. ScienceLad would be on the position that nuclear bomb research is bad science because its application is morally wrong.
I suspect that a lot of the confusion about science would be resolved if people more diligently separated their is’s and ought’s. Knowledge of how to be cruel is still knowledge. Its truth can be described in causal terms without any additional normative terms: pouring hydrochloric acid into a person’s eyes will cause great pain. Its truth does not make it any less evil, nor does its evil make it any less true.
@@dannyeisenga I am quoting him, but yes, that is not a wrong conclusion. Races are indeed a thing. We are genetically different enough that it is medically significant, for example higher risks of certain diseases and such, ad it stands to reason that other traits may well be affected. Although naturally the variation between individuals tends to outweigh the variation between groups, so its not like you ought apply this reasoning on an individual level, but acknowledging trends within groups is reasonable. Its also worth noting not all the differences are genetic, some are cultural. The races developed largely out of geographic isolation cutting off genetic interactions with other groups, and this also cut off cultural interactions with other groups as well, so unless you are dealing with someone who grew up in a foreign culture far away from the geographic location their ethnicity developed in, then they are likely to share a similar culture to each other as well.
@@chrisr3120 If I remember right, what he said specifically was that the old model of the 'five races' was wrong, so I'll go ahead on the assumption that that model specifically is what you think is correct. Genetic clusters certainly exist and correspond to geographical regions, but there is no diagnostic genetic characteristic for any of those proposed five races. There is not a single allele that is found only in Europeans and in all of them, so Europeans cannot be considered a race by the zoological definition. It does go without saying that ancestry plays an important role in susceptibility to certain diseases, but race and ancestry are two different things. I like the explanation here[1]: _"Unlike “race,” the concept of “ancestry” does not focus on the static categorization of humans into groups, but rather on the process by which a person’s history unfolded."_ [1]: sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
@@dannyeisenga He revisits it again at closer to 24:25 where he alludes more to the idea of races in general. However, even if this is what he meant however many races there are depends on what characteristics you choose to define them by. Because while groups were isolated, they were more isolated from groups that were further away than their neighbors, so they share more in common with other groups from the same general area historically. If you choose a very broad set of criteria, you get very large but few groups being defined, a narrower set of criteria that not picks a bit more will define more, but smaller groups. When it comes to biological things, how we define such things in a model can be a bit more arbitrary than with more mechanical things. Now, as for what they believed about what this model meant, well to outright say ot was wrong, maybe not the most accurate, unrefined might fit better. It's a very broad model covering a wide range of topics with very broad implications, so there are always bound to be areas for improvement, but certainly there are elements of truth present even if the model as a whole is unrefined.
@@chrisr3120 Well yes, you can identify genetic clusters in geographical regions, but to call these clusters 'races' is inaccurate as they do not meet the criteria of a biological race. _"The available studies show that there is geographic structure in human genome diversity, and that it is possible to infer with reasonable accuracy the continent of origin from an individual’s multilocus genotype. However, clear-cut genetic boundaries between human groups, which would be necessary to recognise these groups as relatively isolated mating units which zoologists would call races, have not been identified so far. On the contrary, allele frequencies and synthetic descriptors of genetic variation appear distributed in gradients over much of the planet, which points to gene flow, rather than to isolation, as the main evolutionary force shaping human genome diversity"_ Barbujani, Guido. (2005). Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity. Current Genomics - CURR GENOMICS. 6. 10.2174/1389202054395973.
@@samael1981 so this completely applies to war as well. No matter how that war is done as long as it's done "correctly", no matter what one thinks is equitable or fair. No matter war crimes committed along the way.
So, I think I have a (relatively) small problem with your big four, in that I think that to one degree or another it is incomplete. And again, as someone who is not a formal scientist, it may be that I just do not have the tools or mental capacity as it stands right now to understand the full scope of it. I hope that, if you do read this, that you are patient with my potential ignorance. I think that a fundamental part of science is the conveyance of knowledge to one degree or another. So, were I to define science, I would probably lean very heavily on your Big Four, but I would add a small fifth to it. One that is intrinsically social, at least as I understand the terms. The ability to explain what we mean to others. In your previous video in this series(? I'm not sure if you consider this upload to be canonical with your Naturalist Nuke series or not), you used a story in order to convey your point about encountering a snake on the trail and using the big four to identify the source of potential danger and then using this information to create a model that one uses to move away from the danger. I agree with your analogy in that form, but I would like to expand upon it a little to make a point. So, we encounter a snake that is on the left side of the trail. We successfully avoid it and get back to our group and I explain that there is a snake in the area and another of my tribe asks more details about it. My ability to explain to him with greater detail than "There be a snake in these woods", the conveyance of this concept can help others avoid potentially fatal pitfalls, is . . . perhaps not as important as the ability to create a model in and of itself, but still pretty important to the application of scientific knowledge. To bring this back to our current use of science, I will use an admittedly anecdotal experience that hopefully at least gives you some idea of what I'm talking about. I live most days in pain. I have chronic migraines that affect my ability to function in society. I had gone to the doctor several times to try and seek help for this, but when I first started this, I did not have the language available to me to convey the problem. In that when I would explain the problem, they would just assume it was a minor nuisance and not something that was actively causing me to deteriorate, as far as my ability to function in society is concerned. It was my lack of language (in combination with the fact that doctors are very busy people and arguably cannot spend enough time with each patient to necessarily get a full scope of the problem) that led to the problem not getting solved. As I had more doctor's visits, I learned how to better convey the problem to them, which one might argue is developing a better model, and they started to try alternative means of helping me. Unfortunately, those still have not worked, but they are taking my concerns more seriously. To continue in the medical line of thinking, there are a few studies that show that doctors and other medical professionals tend to make assumptions about people of color and people assigned female at birth that cause their relative diagnostic abilities to be lackluster. There has historically been less AFAB in medical studies due to concerns that their menstrual cycles might alter the results, which might be true, but is still probably something we should be looking into, given that they are half of the population. AFAB people experiencing heart attacks or symptoms are seven times more likely to be sent home instead of being treated. And while you might argue that these people are simply not doing good science, and while I might agree with that, it does show that there is at least a small flaw in this line of thinking about the Big Four. Because the social aspect of science is our ability to collect and convey data and that is a social aspect of science that I feel that is lacking. Some hypothetical scientist might come up with the best model of explaining [subject] but if they do not have the ability to explain it, then their model is worth less than if their model had the ability to explain it coherently and convey it in a way that helps other people understand it. So, while I agree with you that the core of science is pre-social and pre-historical, I think, and I may be misinterpreting what you're saying, which is not my intention at all, that modern science requires the social aspect of explanations and without that aspect of it, science is far less useful of a tool. In addition, biases in even the most rational of thinkers can become a big problem. There is the case where seemingly a large portion of the medical community believes that black people have less sensitive skin than other "races". This is a bias that pervades a lot of scientifically literate people. And it shows how bias can affect science.
Yeah even the last example could be turned into a thing most would consider good. Namely people attracted to their own gender in people who can't give meaningful consent. I understand that we don't use the term "sexuality" in this manner but when it comes to that part of human psychology, if we could manipulate that part of it, it seems unlikely that it wouldn't be fruitful in tackling actually harmful sexual perversions. The thing about conversion therapy. much like the now youtube banned race realism, is that even if the scientific theories backing them were rigorous, it seems to me that tackling the unnecessary and needlessly costly disenfranchisement of the groups based on such theories is what social justice advocates should lobby against; not the banning of such fields of study entirely. Especially because, if they are wrong, their inefficacy in making predictions will make them entirely dependent on funding by bigots.
:D I often unconsciously open my mouth, as if slack jawed when I’m listening intently. It helps. Some people say they have a third eye. I maintain that the mouth is the third ear.
I think that our best empirical theories are a subset of "reality" since "science" cannot encompass the full range of experience. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, science does not engage in WHY but HOW or WHAT; our understanding is approximate at best.
4 views, 10 likes. People really *love* this stuff :) Well at least I know I do, just pressed the little thumbs-up thingie. That, or the king is botting :) I doubt he would though, he doesn't really need that.
@@ArthurWolf its a little different. For long videos you have to watch some portion before it counts as a view. You could watch less than that and hit like, causing likes to be greater than views. Algorithm eventually recalibrates though and fixes that.
The difference between the definitions of good or bad science is *critical,* if for no other reason than to prevent the strengthening of the social construct argument. If science is only good or bad based on appraisal of potentially 'harmful' (another flexible term used as a cudgel) outcomes, rather than hard criteria, there is no framework to hold science as more useful or valuable than the shaman's claim to be able to call down lightning. That is a nightmare scenario for not just our culture, but for humanity overall.
You've probably already had this question, but do you think that humans have a kind of science module in our brains the way that we have a speech module?
Problem with social justice science is that they have a heavy creationist bias, which is their motivation for denying knowledge through elaborate obfuscation and word games. They can't get around the basic problem that their beliefs go against the foundations of evolution and logic, after all diversity is inequality defined, but they'll spend their time talking about how colors are a social construct, its just wavelengths, which on some level is true, but its all done to obscure differences that do matter. Social justice is incompatible with science because at its core its a faith, a faith in some arbitrary idea of "equality".
I have a feeling that RUclips is yeeting my comments. I have a good question for the opponent in the debate which would criticize his promotion of utilizing Social Justice, or morals, to mold what should be known.
29:20 Nobody determines that, whether or not the model is predictive and accurate determines that. That is a property of the model itself. People do not determine it, they can only verify it. For example, you state phrenology was good science at the time, but no... it wasn't. Just like Lysenkoism was also not good science of the time. Neither model was predictive of anything. They were not pushed based on their efficacy, they were not science at all, they were politics masquerading as science. Politics is also a natural process we have been practicing since before we were first able to speak, and it often comes into direct competition with science. This is largely because while science persuades entirely via efficacy, political will often persuade via censorship of the opposition. If people were able to test a model and find that it was wrong, that it did not predict anything, but were disallowed from reporting those findings, then it wasn't good science for the time, the good science was being suppressed politically, as was the case with lysenkoism, and know it to have been the case in that instance.
Crocoduck, i love you, watched you for a long time and you've helped me expand my horizons when i was a christian testing my ideas out there, seeing peoples arguements and applying them to my life. So let me maybe try to return the favor, check out this channel Professor Sunday, i think he has done a stream recently that would help you learn and grow.
Jangles ScienceLad contradicted himself at 26:25. I agree that until something better comes along, the science that we have now is the best science that we currently have, and this is the best knowledge that we have right now. But this doesn't mean that the science back in the 16th, 17th, 18th century was good science. The science we have now is better science than all those race theories, simple because we know more. It was good science back then, but now we can call it bad science. Just because we have to accept the science that we have now as the best knowledge doesn't mean that the current science is good for all times. Maybe in the 24th century people will study our science and see how bad it was. Why does he thinks that good science is "good" for all time?
Greeetings from Germany I'm so sorry KC but your pronunciation of that word (around 52:15 ) was so bad i didn't understand it. Could you write it down so i can read it? (I don'T know why but it's bothering me that i don't get the word ). It almost sounds like you say "Wissenschaft" but that would make no sense since "Wissenschaft" means Scienc in german.
Consensus is very important in science. That's the whole point of per review. Science is hard and people make mistakes. Having other scientists check your work is a form of quality control. And yes, sometimes the consensus is wrong, but it is the consensus that gets put into the textbooks. An excellent example is global warming.Svante Arrhenius proposed the idea of greenhouse warming in 1896. Four years later, Knut Ångström published results from laboratory experiments which showed that CO2 wouldn’t be a very significant greenhouse gas after all. At the levels the gas was present in the atmosphere the absorption bands were already saturated (and so insensitive to increased level of CO2). This work led most scientists to conclude that Arrhenius’s idea that changing CO2 level could affect global temperatures was wrong and most meteorologists to conclude that the greenhouse effect does not happen. Most extbooks did not mention greenhouse effect. An exception was a 1950 textbook that describing greenhouse effect as an interesting idea that turned out to be false. New measurements in the 1930's and after WW II demonstrated that under the conditions in the upper atmosphere, the bands were not saturated--differential absorption with different levels of CO2 did occur. Further work fleshed out these observations until the 1967 publication of Mannabe and Wetherald's landmark paper.Since then greenhouse warming has been in the textbooks.
You are wrong. In science, consensus is nearly always wrong and corrected by individuals against great odds. Even a cursory examination of the history of science would demonstrate this undeniable phenomenon.
I don't think science is an extension of the sort of model building your brain does to make sense of sensory input. This latter is product of biological evolution and is present in other animals. Science is unique to H, sapiens. It is a cultural construct, sort of a technology/tool. It is a fairly new development, about as old as capitalism, which is another cultural construct like religion or the state. These constructs develop through cultural evolution, they appeared in embryonic form and spread through the relevant population, preventing them from being lost. Most new ideas either don't spread or make an initial splash and then disappear like fads. Some ideas have legs, they further evolve and become important institutions in our societies. Science is one of them. The issue you are discussing is one of these new ideas that will either fade out like fad (King Crocoduck's view) or add something of utility which will persist (Justin's view)/
I feel like you missed an issue here. If subjectivity is bad in science, and you believe science is being conducted WITH bad subjectivity, why is the Social Justice approach to WILFULLY engage in deliberate subjectivity and bias, rather than reinforcing objectivity?
Would really like more push after explanations, since ScienceLad seemed like he wasn't listening to half the things you said, and the things he did listen to, he either needed simplification, or he just decides to ask tangential stuff that has no baring on the topic of the time.
You should have asked him "who decided computers work?" if the science is social and people decide what is and isn't true, then why not just decide we can flap our arms and fly?
I think Neil degrasse Tyson answered the riddle at the end the best when talking with Ben Shapiro. I'm fine with science finding out a cure for queerness. What that really means is whether is nature vs nurture. The problem home boy has is "well if that answer is nurture it could harm queen folk in society." Which could be true. Which is why Neil had the remark of wondering the purpose for asking the question. If it's a politician asking that question then it can be much more of an issue. The results of the findings are neutral. Its the question of what do you do with it. So the goal is to keep with the questions and the answers wherever they lie in the realm of science. Its when someone seeks to make policy based on it that we need to be worried. Freedom in society is still what I value most so even if queerness were 100 percent nurture that wouldn't give a politician a right to enact policy that could harm their legal protections. I agree with the worry but I dont think that makes the science itself harmful on that example. I fundamentally disagree that the goal of science is human happiness
I’m not a fan of this guy’s views on physiology. He definitely sounds like someone who has read a few blogs about fitness instead of someone who investigated the science.
I don't see how you can have the position that "science ought to do more good than harm" for it to qualify as "proper science". It hinges WAY too much on subjective values. I can easily bring up the pill and birth rates. Is that bad science now? Let's just stick to whether or not you can research ethically, hm?
I think you over emphasize the strong program versus far more moderate takes on the limitations of science due to cultural bias. the moderate position doesnt deny existing research and our body of knowledge based on cultural bias but does call into question 1. The bias in what questions are considered worth investigating 2. Bias in peer review if the reviewer knows the identity of the author 3. Willingness to overlook rigour due to cultural confirmation bias. Like the scientific method itself isn't desconstructed here just the distortions on the scientists and the purity of their application of the scientific method depending on bias. We don't have to resolve these issues by injecting in "other biases" and its worth acknowleding or at least just let the people interested in the question put their wares in the free marketplace of ideas.
I don't buy the idea that we know more about the female reproductive system then male because we find that most important. The reason we know more about it is simple market forces. Look at the pill for example. It is a common contraceptive that women are free to use or not use. It work by fooling the body so it can make a stabilized and predictive menstrual cycle. We put so much money into research to make better productives because there is a demand for a better product. More knowledge is a direct necessity for a better product. We can not make a pill for men because the male reproductive system simply do not work like that. It doesn't work to make a pill which means there is no product to sell. If there is no product to sell there is no point pumping money into research when it is not going to become a reward for it outside of the honor. But the honor does not put food on the table. So if we look at simple market forces, we know why we know more about the female preproductive system then the male preproductive system.
Thus was absolutely wonferful to listen to. I have a i guess more rhetorical question rather than an addition or criticism of anyones point. I feel the other guy did make a strong argument for a mkte populist view of how scientists can have value laden theories whose attitudes make it into their work and thus become accepted science. However the exampkes listed were for the most part prior to refining the scientific method to specifically remove biases from the lab. Now im going to be that guy that brings up gender and sex being fluid, or that sex itself is also on a spectrum. The reason i bring this up is because the ppl conducting the research seem to have an entirely different and limited method to define both sex and gender that dont seem to be in common discussion or application. Recemtly i watched a 2yo video on yt from either pbs or scishiw, wherenthey made the bold claim that sex is on a spectrumm and immediately went into examining chromosomal differences within the population. Theres a really large disconnect there as its counting natural variations of genetic differences as being functionally similar to extreme anomalies, and these extreme anomolies should be counted as a third, kr fourth, or proof of an infinite number of sexes within a population. It was really hard to follow since its highly inconsistent with a hard sexually dimorphic species such as ourselves. It just seemed to willfully ignore that we use average expressions within a population to define it as A or B, or whatever and anomolies are just anomolies. It felt to me like they were basically saying that definitions are bs and so long as there exists one outlier, then the while definition is wrong and needs to be discarded. This hard dichotomy is a forever out of reach goal for everything.
I disagree with Crocoduck in that theoretical physics is researched without the intent of applying that knowledge. Picture it like a tribe migrating to a new territory. One of the impulses is to get the lay of the land. Getting to know your surroundings is an important survival instinct. The more you know the better you can prepare for unforeseen situations. Even if you don’t intend to do anything about it in the immediate future. Of course, the less immediate the need to understand or explore something, the fewer the resources are invested in it. But whatever is in the fringes is always potentially dangerous and chaotic territory, and bringing this under control is always part of our instinct.
He denies "race" not because it's true or not. But because it's a moral question. There's a moral answer, not a scientific answer (or rather, he doesn't like the scientific answer because it's racist)
Except even the "scientific" answer is generally wrong too since the main reason most people in the past have looked into it is to fulfill their own bias, and in general, has been extremely poorly practiced.
Regarding the situation with Kristi Winters: she recently challenged me to a -dUrBaTe- debate on the topics that I have been discussing of late. I declined the invitation, since such topics much better lend themselves to casual conversation of the sort that this video exhibits, rather than the adversarial debate format where addressing Gish Gallops and strawmen, and limitations on the ability to fact check sources, make the honest presentation and discussion of ideas nearly impossible. On matters of independently verifiable fact, such as the manner in which the starlight problem devastates the young earth creationist thesis, it is possible to at least use the debate format for pedagogical aims, as I did in my confrontations with Kent Hovind; but on more subtle matters, such as those concerning the philosophy of science, unless all participants are diligent in their application of honest and charitable argumentation, the outcome can only ever amount to a pointless shitshow.
Such shitshows are the lifeblood of hacks like Kristi Winters, who I do not trust to be willing or able to engage in such discourse. This instinct was only confirmed by how she reacted to being denied the notoriety, attention, and adulation that she apparently foolishly believes herself to be entitled to: first, she spammed several of my videos with links to her videos, and attempted to provoke me into responding by calling me a coward. When this failed to garner my attention, she proceeded to distribute my email address- which had been shared with her in confidence- to her followers on social media, possibly so that they could spam my inbox with abuse. These are not the actions of anyone who deserves any more attention than is absolutely necessary for me to share my views on the philosophy of science, and so I will not humor any more provocations from Winters. After the next video releases, I will have nothing more to say about her, and will subsequently leave her to languish in the obscurity that she deserves. I will not feed the troll.
Wow, I can't believe she'd stoop that low. You should collate all this behavior and post it so there's a public record to point to.
So she turns out to be worse than I initially thought. I imagined she was only incorrect, not actually this petty, entitled, vitriolic and malevolent. To go after someone's doxxes because they refuse to "debate" you is on some another level.
Good on you for always being level headed and rational in your engagements KC.
You made the right move but I imagine it was a hard move to make. She would likely be ‘arguing’ in bad faith, while looking for sound bites for her videos in order to ‘dunk’ on you later.
very fair.
Does Winters think it's the current year? Debates are merely a colonialist social construct developed by white cis-gendered men who created the format to deny people their lived reality. Zi am shaking right now, the racism is an assault on my entire existence which Winters has attempted to invalidate.
26:04 "Eventually theory makes contact with reality".
That's a beautiful way to sum it up. 👏
I remember when the arguement around women's health being less emphasized was a purposeful ignorance of female anatomy... Yet she poses the opposite strategy for the same purpose.
>Hello, I am your teacher Jangles, and today we will learn that ignorance is strength
Shudder.
Yo. I really hope you look into the MMA (mixed-martial arts) vs TMA (traditional martial arts) debate. The whole "bullshido" movement is a grand case study in models having to meet operational criteria, with very clear figures of merit and immediate & personal negative consequences for failure.
The purpose of traditional martial arts is not to win a random street fight. Most traditional martial arts were designed to keep one alive on the battlefield, or in a duel. The operational criteria was that you came back alive. The reason traditional martial arts aren't useful in a street fight is it isn't what they're for.
@@andrewmayo9400 Yes. Plenty to look into, is my point.
Yes!! This would be awesome!! Good suggestion!
@Andrew Mayo
What is the difference between hand to hand combat in a bar, sidewalk or battlefield? Jiu jitsu, for instance, is used in mma, and was taught to use in battle as well. Traditional martial arts, like Tai chi for instance, offer little to no value in terms of protecting oneself, whether it be on a battlefield or in a bar brawl.
@@mphase7575 The purpose of traditional martial arts was battlefield practice. Jiu Jutsu was taught as part of a standard curriculum, not unlike martial arts like pankration, and was taught to allow a person who was disarmed to defend themselves against an opponent. The goal was to disable the opponent, and then disengage or retreive your weapon. Other schools of martial arts were developed for similar reasons. Iaido for instance was developed to allow one to change quickly from normal activity to combat ready, by implementing the draw cut into standard kenjutsu practice, this eventually became it's own practice.
You say that traditional martial arts aren't useful but then ignore the context in which they were developed. In practice, in a fight, any level of training is going to beat no training, regardless of if the particular technique is maximally efficient. You don't have to gouge someone's eyes out to defeat them, or break their legs with your sweep. If you're a budhist monk who spends 10 hours a day in prayer and meditation and abhors violence, then the whole objective of studying martial arts is to disable opponents without doing them any permenant harm, in case you are harrassed on the road. This is why many monks, particularly those who travelled frequently learned bojutsu or jiujutsu.
What does it hurt to know more? Why does knowledge need a goal? Who determines what is harmful? Who’s definition of morality are we using to judge the science ?
« Why does knowledge need a goal? »
Because resources are limited and knowledge is needed to act on them, whilst needing them to be expanded, which leads to a need to prioritize what knowledge will be researched, which leads to knowledge being assigned a goal.
« Who determines what is harmful? »
Reality, and the consequences on wellbeing an increase in knowledge has.
Who determines what's harmful? Those who are harmed, and witnesses and medical professionals who verified that the harm is real and a causal link has been demonstrated in the process from the causal agent to the harm it has caused.
@@zemorph42 « Those who are harmed »
Who is to say they were harmed ?
I think that’s the issue he was getting at in part.
My answer would be the same as I gave « reality », you can be harmed and not know it, or believe you were harmed and not have been at all.
So, to take your answer « medical professionals who verified that the harm is real and a causal link has been demonstrated ».
@@nathanjora7627 Read past that point. The answer is in the part that you ignored to attempt this "gotcha".
@@zemorph42 I read past that point, which you should know since I literally referred to it explicitly in my answer, to clarify that « those who are harmed » isn’t really what we’ll be using, but rather the ones that can verify that harm has been done to someone/the methods that can be used to verify that someone has been harmed.
Just blocked Kristy winters on Twitter because she won't leave me alone
Nothing of value was lost.
The luminiferous aether...wow i have not heard about that in a while but wasn't it the medium that propagated light throughout space
@@elisabethdunn8683 -- Wat?
@@foxp2483 it was never found but were you talking about the aether,,?
@@elisabethdunn8683 -- I think I was telling someone who was talking about the aether that they were an idiot ... but that wasn't me making a claim about anything fantastical like that.
Gotta say, it's been long, long time since I've watched actually good conversation on RUclips by two people with opposing views about something. Now having this gem in front of me, I see it clearer than ever. In a world I wish we lived, this would be the standard, the usual way of having conversations and comparing worldviews, but that, of course, is nothing but a pipe dream. Knowing humanity, never to be achieved.
A hypotheticaly effective conversion therapy isn't science in action. It would be psychological or neurological engineering. The question confused these two concepts. Morality has nothing to do with the scientific process and its conclusions, but it does with the engineering process.
Let us also not confuse the qualitative good with the moral good. Those are two different things.
Saying scientists (while performing experiments) were influenced by their culture is parallel to saying they lacked sufficient controls and methodologies to remove bias. Good science attempts to compensate for variables with things like double blind studies and the like. Race, unless part of the hypothesis, shouldn't be a variable. There may be observations that fall along racial lines (people of color having more incidence of sickle cell for example) may be valid but should be a separate experiment or cross validated by additional data.
yes, they did, there is no way to completely remove bias
@@porteal8986 no way to completely remove your brain too but the doctors sure did try.
@@CrittingOut That's so funny I almost changed my view on the subject, good thing I completely removed my personal bias first
There will be countless scientists performing the same experiments and arriving at the same results. How would that be possible unless they are all in on a conspiracy which is not just absurd, but in my opinion actually evil to claim. That sort of thinking is clearly counter-rational and in itself highlights the worst aspects of humanities thinking in contrast to the rationality of science and the rational thinking of some schools of philosophy.
@@xeganxerxes4319 that's not how science work first of all. Most scientists are trained in universities, because to be a good scientist you have to learn good methodology. So most scientists are trained into the culture that surrounds science, and anyone outside this culture is looked at with suspicion(and we all know, despite our better hopes, new paradigms take a generation to be accepted). This is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean we can pretend it is not the case
I'm no academic, I'm not even a student, but as someone who likes science as a hobby, all I want is science to be correct and free of politics and opinions as much as possible. If I want to read about human biology or astrophysics, I don't want the writers political opinion or social background to be the main focus, or even a secondary focus on the topic.
Listened to the first 20 minutes so far. It seems that no matter how many times KC points to the methodological problems, the other person simply can't hear it.
It's like, "the words we use surely color our interpretations." "Undoubtedly, but we're not arguing about this in an abstract, general case. We're trying to test specific claims that a specific choice of language produced a specific bias. And there's no falsifiability criterion being applied, so you can conclude whatever you want." "Okay, but the words we use surely color our interpretations."
No wonder there's a replication crisis. Doesn't anybody learn scientific methodology anymore?
Rigor is just a construct of whiteness. Therefore we must tear it down and replace it with anecdote. The more marginalized you are the more you know... Unless you disagree with me.
@@SlyNine being in time, hard work and mathematics are also whiteness. Because this makes sense.
@@alkestos also, liberal societies are fascist. People thinking for themselves... That's definitely white supremacy keeping blck people enslaved! People should think what they're told to think and be placed specifically in society to end fascism.
@@alkestos don't argue with me or it'll cause me harm and prove that you're fragile!
@@SlyNine yes and agreeing with federal government and billion dollar corporations is true anarcocommunism!
It took a long time for the motivation behind Jangles reasoning to show itself. Of course those who want to impose their social programme on science try to naturalise their ideas by claiming that science is already a biased.
Unfortunately social justice warriors can't know what innovations we'd miss out on due to proscribing 'bad' science.
I’m about 30 minutes in and I genuinely do not understand what this dude is complaining about. Scientists are people and people are imperfect. So it is only natural that scientists and their institutions might accidentally come to bad conclusions from time to time. But so what? The whole point of science is to identify those mistakes and CORRECT THEM! So pray tell, how exactly does this guy propose that we go about finding and fixing our mistakes?
it seems to me that he just felt compelled to disagree at every point, he always went right back into his stuff without a moment's pause
Oh boy, New crocoduck content. Well turns out it's "new". New to me, nontheless.
@Apistevist SS1964 if they build workable, testable, repeatable models with predictive value by interacting with the world, it sounds a lot like Science to me. I'm not totally convinced but it seems to be a pretty sound argument.
👀
@Apistevist SS1964 I will concede that dinosaurs didn't build rockets if you will concede that not all Science is rocket Science. Fair? Lol
@Apistevist SS1964 you should look into similarities between modern scientific modeling and neuroscience. I promise kc's argument makes much more sense.
I disagree with a lot of your conclusions KC, but I appreciate that you approach these questions with serious curiosity, and the rigor with which you seek answers and make interpretations.
You’re about the only of the new atheist movement I still hear out. You critically challenge ideas in a way I think other new atheists have mostly failed.
How much reading and study do you do? And how much of what you read and study do you retain? I'm always gobsmacked at how much information from various fields that you can rattle off and how you can tie it all together so easily. I'm pretty good at tying things together but my ability to retain information is ridiculously low, as is my amount of study.
There can be no Sociology of Science. There is only Sociology of Scientists.
Could you clarify what you mean by « sociology of science » ? Because you can study the sociology of how science is practiced, both in terms of methodology and in terms of fields of inquiry, how it’s perceived by its practitioners, the effects of science, etc, and I see nothing wrong with calling all of that « sociology of science » :|
@@nathanjora7627 Well I do. This could be a Tomayto/Tomahto thing. But I hold that how is practiced and perceived by its practitioners is a study of the practitioners and their social milieu, not of . There is no sociology of Rock Climbing. There is sociology of Rock Climbers, and the sociology of "Rock-Climbing" as an activity in a society. But an isolated tribesman in Papua New Guinea will rediscover the same principles of effective and safe (operational criteria) rock climbing that a Parisian youth would starting from scratch. So much so that they'd be able to compare notes and equate the different names they came up with for various identical forms and techniques. This happens with Martial Arts all the time. So it is with Science. There is no Canadian version of geometry. There will be no Judeo-Christian Quantum Physics. Though there may be some social pressures in deciding how much funding and interest Quantum Physics Research receives.
@@dileepvr Just to be clear : we agree that science will discover the same things everywhere as long as it’s actually science, on average with enough time and resources to properly gather data and investigate phenomena, no matter the culture the conclusions will be the same as long as they are actually doing science.
There will be differences in the speed of discoveries, primary fields of study, etc, but the actual content of the discoveries should be the same everywhere in the end (ie : given enough time and resources, obviously at first the conclusions could differ but they should eventually converge as more time is given for models to be tested against reality).
So there is definitely a bit of tom-A-to, tom-AY-to going here ^^
Because I don’t understand how studying how something is practiced not the same as studying the sociology of that thing :|
Like, for starters, it seems like to you saying « the sociology of science » is in itself an incoherent meaningless sentence. Is that right, or would you simply say that it’s an inadequate sentence because what people are actually describing isn’t the study of science but the study of scientists and their work ?
In other words : do you think that « the sociology of science » is a meaningless concept, or do you think that it’s an inappropriate concept ?
In the latter case, can you explain to me how you’d define « sociology of science » ?
@@nathanjora7627 Yes. We agree on the entire first paragraph.
You have rightly deduced that I am being a stickler for terminology. I believe that confusion over terminology is one of the major reasons for all of these conflicts King Crocoduck is having to engage in. We literally saw this played out in this interview with Jangles. At the 1:07:50 mark, J brings up a hypothetical "model that could successfully convert homosexual people into heterosexual people" as an example of "good" science when judged by its adherence to the big 4 operational criteria, but "bad" science when evaluated on SocJus figures of merit. There is no real conflict here once you clear up what the terms mean. The former adjective is an analog estimation of mathematical congruence (a goodness-of-fit, if you will), whereas the later one is a moral judgement. The claims are not mutually exclusive.
Plenty of ink has been split over the decades declaring that biology is sexist, that physics is racist, or that gravity is ableist, or what have you. Such sophistry inevitably paints itself in a linguistic corner, and starts lobbing nonsensical and destructive policy proposals across the two-culture divide that the scientists on the other side are linguistically ill-equipped to disentangle. This asymmetry is also open to abuse (intentional or not). A lot of headaches could have been avoided, to take a specific example, if that Feminist Glaciology paper just cataloged (and boldly claimed to have cataloged) the negative impacts that past (and perhaps present) standard practices of field research in Glaciology has had on the local environment and indigenous cultures. That is something everyone would have gotten on board with. The linguistic morass which has taken root in academe has trapped even the authors of said article. They themselves often confuse field-research praxis with the cognitive content of glacier research, which is evident from their remedial "bad" science policy proposals.
We agree on your first paragraph, but many do not. And I am claiming that abuse of language is a major part of the reason why. Terms like "knowledge production" lend themselves to excessive social constructionism in domains where they are inapplicable, leading to absurd adjectives being inappropriately paired with inanimate nouns, resulting in confused and dangerous policy discussions. On top of this, there is a question of exploitation by vested interests with an activist bend. I won't go there if you'd rather not.
@@dileepvr « I won’t go there if you’d rather not »
Well, we can go there if you want, but before we do I’d like you to answer to the questions I ask in my last paragraphe please ^^
I can't help but think that all this focus with bias and the supposed influence of society on science is a way for non serious individuals to claim a seat at the table. They see that it's impossible to perfectly remove these aspects from scientific inquiry (and even in life more broadly) they'll always be able to hold onto that seat.
For a moment i had to double check that i was still on youtube. A productive, well mannered debate between people who have a disagreement. Thats a rarity.
I really enjoyed listening, and it helped me refine my own views quite a bit again.
The only point where i really have a hard disagreement with the host is the SJ argument in the end. Not only from the scientific value persepective, but even from his perspective of social betterment.
Since he deems a solid theory of sexuality conversion as a "bad science" i would like to inquire if he thinks the same way about research into gender transition, which seems to be a really popular fad in the more insane parts of the SJ movement at the moment. If it is good to provide a person who feels they have the wrong gender with a way to transition, why would it not in the same way also be good to provide a person who feels they have the wrong sexuality with a way to transition. Both have a significant potential for abuse - i would argue the gender transition even more - so the same standard should be applied.
I agree. Of course, there could be ethical objections to this kind of research, but given a method for (he said curing, which I think is too much of a loaded term) converting homosexuals, I don't see that as a bad thing.
One might also turn that around and ask whether it would be bad to find a way to turn straight people gay.
If we had both methods, people could freely choose to be whateber they wish. Of course, people might also be forced to undergo such therapies, but that in my mind is dosconnected from the scientific inquiry about them.
@@komolunanole8697 The method to turn straight people gay is probably in development. We all know that "They are turning the frogs gay" already ;)
The metaphors scientists use to describe stuff is good for mnemonic purposes
In my opinion, the last few minutes of this discussion perfectly demonstrated why science and ideology don't (or shouldn't) mix.
Jangles, my guy... your refusal to accept that there is a difference between a tool and the manner in which it is used was just childishly stubborn... is a knife good or bad? The correct answer is n/a, as the question is nonsensical. Do you use it to chop yourself some salad - good; plunge it into your neighbor's neck? Bad! The knife doesn't care either way.
Similarly, to take your hypothetical, if you use the discovery of GayAway to forcefully ungay a bunch of people, that's tyrannical. But what if, for whatever reason, John Doe doesn't want to be gay anymore? Fuck him, right? But nevermind John, he's got the wrong opinion anyways so we don't care about his rights and freedoms. What if, while reading the paper on the discovery of GayAway, some medical researcher on the other side of the globe figures out a method for cancer prevention? "Oh but surely that's never going to happen" well, how do you know? You don't, nobody does, that's kind of why we do research... duh! But you know what... nevermind that as well - we don't care about John Doe and other such apostates and we don't care about furthering humanity's knowledge! GayAway is evil, because we say so, and any research into it must be stopped at any cost... That's what computer scientists call security through obscurity and all it's good for is to slightly slow down and considerably annoy and potential wrong-doers.
Finally, the notion that any group or individual gets to decide if a research is good or bad and, based on that decision, obstruct the pursuit, discovery and dissemination of knowledge, is retch-inducingly disgusting! As far as I'm concerned, anyone who tries to restrict your access to knowledge - be it a book-burning nazi, a dress-clad old man citing a magic book or a bolshevik, telling you at gunpoint that, in spite of appearances, you are not starving - is a tyrant who wants to hurt you! You decide what you want to do about that.
I don't think "GayAway" is really the hypothetical hill you want to die on.
@@FarremShamist I don't know what to do with this assertment :)
Here's the thing though. Research for researches sake isn't always good. That in on itself is dogmatic in nature. There is wisdom in not pursuing a certain line of inquiry if if leads to social harm, or any kind of harm for that matter. This reminds of something Neil deGrasse Tyson said to Ben Shapiro in a relatively recent interview about transgender people. Your simplistic take of the GayAway hypothetical is just dumb. How we measure what's good or bad, and the social harm something can cause isn't as simplistic or absurd as you make it to be.
@@ArvindRajAgnosticAtheist "Research for researches sake isn't always good" That rings true in my mind, but I can't for the life of me figure out why; i.e. if pressed I'd have to admit that I can't support it in any way other than making a very broad argument about the dangers of absolute statements.
"Your simplistic take of the GayAway hypothetical is just dumb"
Could you expand on that point? For instance you could point out how some of the possible positives I suggested are so unlikely as to make them unworthy of consideration; Or maybe there is a simple way to demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that the negatives will outweigh the positives, and I stupidly failed to see it... or, maybe I maliciously omitted to mention it. You could give some historical examples, or even make up a hypothetical scenario.
In short - have you anything to say? I'm asking, because I got that you disagree and I can see that you very much enjoy the word "simplistic", but your replay may be honestly summed up as "Nah, you dumb". Now, if you wanna say that then say it - no skin off my nose; but don't go around pretending you have well reasoned arguments where none are to be found.
Cheers!
@@dimiturtabakov1108 I will need to more time to formulate a good response. I'm trying to think and see if I could skim through some research papers on transwomen in sports to see if I could come up with a good example.
Almost all of this discussion can be boiled down to a very important distinction: that of "science" and properly; "The scientific method."
"Net negative to society that this good science was done" did you ever imagine living in a world where this was a common point among the nonreligious?
The notion that we ought to consider the ramifications of the research we choose to do has nothing to do with religion. Good science (sound science) can have bad consequences (it can increase human suffering). Insert Ian Malcom quote here.
@@dannyeisenga with all due respect that sounds like justification for willful ignorance. Information is morally neutral, it is what we do with it that has moral dimensions.
I understand that potentially uncovering some information may potentially lead to that outcome, but that same argument can be made for harnessing fire. Someone may be burned, and someone may use it as a weapon, where will it end!?
That ian Malcom quote in context is warning about the dangers of acting on research without giving it due consideration. More information can only make us more moral, not less, as we can make more informed choices.
@@DocOmally101 I don't disagree with that in principle, but one of the informed choices we can make is whether something we're interested in researching is likely to have positive or negative consequences. Research into 'cures' for homosexuality, for example, could hypothetically have some unforeseen positive outcomes, but would certainly have disastrous negative outcomes as well. Concluding that we should not research this then becomes perfectly rational rather than political or emotional.
Knowledge is _theoretically_ separate from how that knowledge is put into action, but in practice knowledge doesn't exist in some ideal vacuum. It exists in the real world where there are immoral people. I don't think Oppenheimer can defend his contribution to the destruction of Hiroshima by saying he merely helped to invent the bomb, he didn't decide to drop it, and I would say the world would be better of if we never had the knowledge to make atomic weapons.
The real ones saw this on 27th January 2020
I guess I'm just a social construct then... 😟
@@alkestos disgusting. I must speak, as it is my ability to speak for I am a human being communicating on the world wide web, that I, as a human being existing on the earth, which is the only known carrier for life known to us in this universe, am unable to or cannot find it in the grasps of my power as a human being to give life to, express, or show the workings of my emotions, those which i can express as it is in my ability to as a human being, namely in this case the emotion of anger, frustration or hate, one which incites aggressiveness in the homo sapiens, and that emotion of anger, that I as a human being posses, cannot be expressed for this edited image that is shared on the world wide web of the world which includes an interconnected web of technologies such as iPads and computers and so i can conclude that this picture or frame of reality, which is called a meme and has been created to give me joy, has failed in its so called task and has instead incited in me, the common man, an expression of anger that cannot be expressed or grasped using the limits or extents of my mind that evolution has granted me throughout the years of human existence and after all these years humans have arrived to the current state yet even in this evolved state i am unable to express the anger emotion, and so not only has this image failed its purpose but also has the whole years of human evolution.
@@Rakhujio I hear you loud and clear. Or read. As a human being. On this series of tubes called web of inter. On this pale blue dot, to us humans known as earth. Which infact is flat. Hah, checkmate science. I bet you didn't expect that! Wait... What was this comment thread about again?
I am totally a fake one, and I have learned to except that.
I fundamentally disagree. It is not mutually exclusive to be real and to not have heard of this conversation until glorious Master King Crocoduck brought it to my attention.
I am so glad you exist, KC.
King Crocoduck,
What are some good books you recommend related to epistemology and the scientific enterprise? I am double majoring in both civil engineering and particle physics. Would love to hear some of your recommendations so I got sumthin to read over in the summer :)
Try "Evidence and Inquiry" by Haack
@@KingCrocoduck Thank you so much, you're my inspiration 👍
So, at around 22:35 in the video, you made a point trying to distance the history of people attempting to use science to justify racism from science itself.
I agree that the science, when properly engaged with, will eventually lead us to a better conclusion than the horrifically flawed conclusion that is racism. What I don't agree with is that their methodology wasn't science. It most *objectively* was. They did it badly, but it *was* the methods of science. VSauce put out a video discussing the practice of reason relatively recently, and whilst I think that video has flaws, his description of the evolutionary mechanism of and the evolutionarily ingrained practices of reason are on point.
Even in a layman understanding of the scientific method (Question -> Hypothesis -> Test -> Conclusions -> Repeat) you can see how what they were doing was science. They had a question about the hierarchy of "race." Race may not be real, but in asking the questions would that fact be found. They made a hypothesis about that supposed hierarchical structure. They were wrong because race isn't real, but they didn't know that yet. They performed tests and discovered, through poor sample sizes and poor measurements, some "average" of differences in cranial structures. They mistook correlation for causation in certain instances, but they were engaging in the process. We don't often attempt to reason the "purpose" of datasets. We attempt to find datasets that support reasons.
That's *how* hypothesis works. You assume a conclusion and attempt to find a dataset that supports that conclusion. Its possible your assumed conclusion is wrong, and when your dataset points to an exclusive conclusion that is incongruent with your hypothesis honest people will conclude they were *wrong.* You express this, in a conversational way, in this video. You lead with an argument about your conclusion. Your "opponent" (he was amicable and kind, so this is a very loose usage of the term) in this debate was unconvinced. So you add more arguments. You add more reasons to the reason you already stated. You reason more as your idea is challenged or not accepted. This is why science cannot be done in isolation as effectively as it is done communally. As our conclusions are challenged or not accepted, we, as people, are prone to double down and create more things to stick onto what we believe to protect those conclusions; especially if we view those conclusions as axiomatic or capable of effecting our social status.
I am ultimately in a third camp. I think the methods of science are probably objective, but I do not think its results come without any form of subjectivity. Just as we perceive an objective world, our perception is subjective. There is a bridge between them, made of series of subjective interpretations being discussed in discourse of these observations of the objective. You talk about the 3-cylinder defense in your last video and in the description of this one. Science is naturalist. Institutions are social constructs. Discourse though, is a weird grey area that bridges the two. The language and interpretations are subjective, but what they are discussing isn't. You're not arguing the improper use of science when you critique the racialism of the past. You're critiquing the discourse as not being reflective of the science. It *was* science... poorly described and poorly communicated and poorly organised, upheld by an institution looking for the version of the discourse that upheld its assumed conclusion.
Your well-reasoned comment cannot be adequately addressed at this time. I hope that you will watch the third part of the Nuking Social Constructionism series, where I intend to address this argument in detail.
Whats the null hypothesis? Until you demonstrate the null hypothesis can be ignored you are not being scientific. The racialism of the past is both exaggerated in the present and was assumed true without reason in the past. The racialism of the past was not science, it was a reflection of the people engaging with pseudoscience. There have been innocuous examples of bias in science, even in physics. I do not remember the exact constant being measured, but its value changed over the last 100 years because the person who discovered it made an error and everyone who measured it after assumed they made an error unless they made a similar error in measurement. This caused a gradual drift in the published value. The bias of the humans involved in science has a multitude of effects, this no more means that racialism was scientific than the physical laws of reality gradually changed because of a famous mans cock up. Screw ups happen.
@@AvNotasian Just an example: Sir Richard Owen.
@@KingCrocoduck Thank you for replying. I understand that you can't take the time to address it when you're busy doing things on the other side of the screen. I've enjoyed the first two parts, and this little side trek and will gladly be watching the third part when its out. I'm not a science person, ultimately. I'm a philosophy and ethics person, so I will admit to being just a tad out of my element, as well.
@@AvNotasian Well, the null hypothesis in regards to racialist pseudoscience would have been "race doesn't exist."
My point was more that to engage in science, you have to attempt to prove positive claims. You can't prove negative ones, and collecting data purposelessly doesn't serve to further understanding. They were attempting to prove positive claims. They failed, because race doesn't exist and is entirely a social construct, and that's evidenced by genetics. Just because they failed to prove positive claims that were based on false assumptions about the world doesn't mean they weren't engaging in the practice of attempting to prove positive claims that adhere to Crocoduck's big 4. Failure to prove a hypothesis in science is not an absence of the methodology. Its an absence of the truth of the assumed conclusions.
There's no way to tell with any confidence "what's in the poet's heart" from a single poem. You would have to read the poet's entire body of work to even make a somewhat informed guess, and it would still be just a guess. "heart" here is figurative, not literal.
But if I don't take it literally how am I going to use it as an excuse to cut out a poet's heart?
I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees here. The goal is right there.
All of the easy problems are solved, so only hard problems remain. This makes knowledge production more difficult, requiring more time and resources to produce advancements. Add the pressure of 'publish or parish' to that and you have a pressure cooker. This creates a fertile ground for ideas which can lower the qualitative bar.
I'm glad I just found you on Benjamin Boyce's channel. I'm in philosophy of physics and I share your point of view. It has been very frustrating to me to see the idea that science is socially constructed take hold in the way it has. The way of thinking seems to always come down to "science is done by people, and therefore all knowledge is socially constructed, hence everything we know is relative to a point of view and all points of view are equal so screw science" .....something like that. The problem that I'm pointing at is that social constructivists demand of science that it has no human influence whatsoever in order for it to be able to claim that scientific knowledge is mostly objective. They have a kind of all or nothing thinking: science is either perfectly without human influence or it is all socially constructed and therefore all claims are equally true. And you can see it in the way you are not allowed to say here that something is bad science...because "who decides what is bad science, it was good science at the time".....etc. In other words, you can't have standards because all standards are instilled by humans, and when they are instilled by humans they are arbitrary and equally valid ...etc. the all or nothing stance.
I'm looking forward to checking out your other content.
When science first started looking in animals and plants, one of the first things done was to create categories based on similarities and differences. These categories were necessarily based on pre-existing understandings about animals and plants. For example a Westerner might look at this analogy: rabbit is to rat as turkey is to [a] horse, [b] chicken, [c] pig [d] cow and chose chicken because both Turkey and chicken are birds. A non-westerner might choose horses because they are work animals while the others are food animals.
Race is a cultural construct that appearred long before the 19th century. By the time science was applied to people, race it was a category like ethnicity, language spoken, nationality etc. And so it was an object of study.
OTOH, a hypothetical 15th Chinese scientist would probably not have a category of race based on skin color as they had few direct dealings with African people. They would more likely focus on language and culture. So phrenology might not be a thing for them.
Crockoduck? There's a name I haven't heard in a long time.
yeah like a whole week
@@KingCrocoduck RUclips hasn't been sending notifications to me, so more like a year.
I agree. I didn't even know the channel was active and this is a channel I actually hit the bell for. I guess RUclips needs a bell for the bell 😒
You are indeed a good host who let your guest exercise his and explore his own takes while challenging Crocoduck in good faith. Nice job you two.
Woo! How exciting
Sorry this comment is coming in so late, but I really wanted to speak to the final end point here. I would like to argue that social justice concerns halting a hypothetical avenue of scientific research which would allow us to find a means to change sexual orientation would be a bad thing. I'm gay; ergo, I appreciate the concerns social justice minded individuals would have about the potential harm such research could cause, especially if it was forcibly applied to people against their will. However, if there was indeed research and development that could lead to such an understanding of human sexuality, I would argue that it would be important to pursue it. Such knowledge would completely alter our current understanding of human psychology and sexuality. It could potentially offer insights into the workings of the human mind that would have a profound ripple effect. We have no way of knowing that such a development would necessarily lead to increases in anti-homosexual bias or even that it would lead to the eradication of homosexuality. Those are presuppositions based on fear of people in the current zeitgeist who already suffer from such biases. There's really no way of knowing what the social knock-on effects of such a radical reimagining of our conceits about a fundamental core of human psychology would be. Avoiding such a line of research, *especially* if it were promising, is the exact type of well-intentioned harm social justice brings into the realm of scientific discourse. I felt the need to comment in spite of this being two weeks old at this point because this is exact case where "not your shield" is specifically relevant to me. I don't want a profoundly useful expansion of our understanding of consciousness and the human mind to be willfully abandoned because it *may* embolden people with prejudice against me. This perfectly encapsulates to me how social justice in academia is cancerous even at its most benign.
I'll admit that I'm not a scientist in the traditional sense, but wouldn't the study of "black hole cosmology", which I acknowledge may be out of my scope of knowledge, be useful for future attempts of space travel? In that one of the goals of humans, as it stands right now, is to go out into and explore the universe and other galaxies and knowing the most that we can about black holes, something that up until recently we could only detect the effects of, would help us avoid some potential pitfalls of future space travel. Like, it doesn't have a great use as our technology stands right now, but part of science is collecting knowledge that we can potentially use later to some end and while the application may be just an abstract right now, that doesn't mean there isn't the goal of use of it later.
Again, I might not understand what you mean by "black hole cosmology" and that may be a flaw in my interpretation. I'm kind of a moron, after all. Please correct me if I am wrong.
27:02 If Mr. Glasses actually believes that, I’d love to introduce him to Sir Richard Owen. 😏
I found the arguent against the reaseach into homesexuality very week considering SJWs want us to believe gender and sexuality is fluid and can change. If this is true why would the research into conservation therapy be controversial at all, you are 100% correct Crocoduck
Conversion therapy is unethical, as the reason anyone would attend it is either through force, or being put through propaganda that tells them that what they are is wrong. The only reason someone would research into it is to reinforce an anti-lgbt agenda. It is the wrong method, and even if it worked (which it doesn't), it does not fix the actual problems of a society.
Gender and sexuality are somewhat fluid, but they aren't easily changed from the outside. Your expression and sexuality can change over your life, that is what is meant. You say SJWs, but you use that term to just laugh at a group. You find it preposterous for some reason, I used to too until I actually started listening to the arguments that are cherry-picked and swatted aside.
@@FarremShamist
Utter gibberish 🤮
Sad that such productive and intellectually honest discussions don't get that many views because people want to see blood.
meh, as long as I get to watch them...
Social justice is subjective. That single fact about it is reason enough for you to keep it to yourself and anyone who accepts it without being forced into it. People should still have a choice in applying whatever knowledge exists to their lives or not. The problem with social justice is that it's too often invasive and speaks for people that don't want anything to do with whatever it advocates for.
Give an example
I mean, advocating for the rights and equity of people who have generally been oppressed in the past isn't really a bad thing.
@@FarremShamist As a general rule sure but it depends on the details and especially who does it and how/why.
@@howtheworldworks3 I mean, I do agree with what's said here, those are important details but I feel like activists today are ignored because of fatigue, "We already had a civil rights movement!" sort of stuff for a lot of what's more acceptable today.
It's been translated to a lot of people that these movements happened way in the past and that none of the things affecting them are still there... Which is demonstrably false, there is still a lot of legislation, culture, and infrastructure targeting minorities within the US.
To give a personal example: I'm disabled, I can't drive. However, due to the car-dependent infrastructure of the US, I have no freedom to feasibly go anywhere without aid. This wasn't deliberately targeted, but is an extraordinarily damaging choice made by car manufacturers to endorse in the early 20th century. The only reason the US (and some nations thereafter) view this as normal is because it's been in place for long enough.
I believe this man was out of his league great work KC
Excellent, excellent, excellent conversation. Great content, Crocoduck!
Everything can be used in multiple ways. For instance, anything that can turn homosexuals straight can probably also work in reverse. Or nuclear power vs nuclear weapons. The progression of science is a step towards prosperity and self-destruction simultaneously. Tje scientists can discover whatever they want but it doesn't mean it cant be used as a weapon. They may get stuck in a cycle where they have to invent solutions to the weapons they just invented.
I think I found the disagreement and can summarize it, you can correct me if I'm wrong.
They both agree that pursuing research into curing homosexuality should not be funded based on our social values
BUT KC and I would say that once that knowledge exists it should stand on its own merit as being a good science (if it is) whereas Jangles would say that we should STILL apply our social values and supress the knowledge and to put it crudely burn the heretical text and outlaw it.
So for Jangles I have this to say: If we never developed nuclear weapons for the reason that they're good at killing a lot of people, we'd never have nuclear power which is THE ONLY technology that can realistically save us from the greenhouse catastrophy. Think about that.
Nah we'd still be able to get nuclear power, we just wouldn't have put so much effort into death machines. Just because war applies some form of pressure for certain items does not mean that you can't get similar outcomes in peacetime, or even without any competition at all.
About the question using science to discover a "cure for homosexuality", ill make an analogy:
If someone makes a blade, the the criteria I'd use to evaluate if it is a good blade would be things like cutting capacity, edge retention, resistance to the environment, and maybe others.
A blade that excels in all of those would be a good blade.
If that person made the blade with the intention to go onto a murdering spree, id say that's a bad reason to make a blade, and would probably try to stop that person from even making it, but if the blade is made, it would be a good blade made for a bad purpose.
It's so damn interesting to me. There's so many angles... It's hard to filter them to be honest. Just when I felt like I was done considering the implications (with sci-fi-esque scenarios) another variable pops up.
The philosophy stuff really fries my brain I swear. Work through a whiteboard sized equation? Sure. Consider science, philosophy, and ethics all at once? Excedrin please. I'm glad I stuck to mathematics.
Generally, someone going out to find a cure for homosexuality will more than likely have ulterior motives in the first place, since the first question in that case would actually be; "Why?"
In general, it is good to have a "why not" scientist attitude, but those sorts of experiment bases are inherently unethical for a multitude of reasons.
@@FarremShamist, yes.
Vsauce recently uploaded a video you may want to check out. Most of it was beyond me and I have no idea how to determine if it is valid or sound. It is about reason.
ruclips.net/video/_ArVh3Cj9rw/видео.html
There's a link.
Seems like Jangles really missed the point of the replication crisis
29:45 consensus is dumb
Very interesting debate. I wasn't a fan of Jangles when I saw him on Modern-Day Debate, but here he is very much a gentleman.
One thing, somewhere around 31:00 the discussion was about whether or not there are objective truths that exist outside of humanity and it seems (from my understanding) that both KC and Jangles agreed that there are none.
But what about the laws of physics? What about the regularities and ratios that are universal? Surely you can argue that expressing them in a formula is a human endeavor, but the fact that the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is π surely is an objective truth whose existence is not changed by the emergence or disappearance of humanity?
I heard the drunk joke as "The light's better here."
As far as I can tell, the fundamental disagreement with ScienceLad is this age-old question: Is nuclear bomb research in itself bad science?
King Crocoduck world be on the position that nuclear bomb research has enough predictive accuracy as well as his other criteria, therefore it clears the bar for good science.
ScienceLad would be on the position that nuclear bomb research is bad science because its application is morally wrong.
I suspect that a lot of the confusion about science would be resolved if people more diligently separated their is’s and ought’s. Knowledge of how to be cruel is still knowledge. Its truth can be described in causal terms without any additional normative terms: pouring hydrochloric acid into a person’s eyes will cause great pain. Its truth does not make it any less evil, nor does its evil make it any less true.
24:59 Anybody else catch that the "wrong conclusion" he alluded to here was that races exist?
Apologies if I misunderstand the point of your post, but are you saying that's _not_ a wrong conclusion?
@@dannyeisenga I am quoting him, but yes, that is not a wrong conclusion. Races are indeed a thing. We are genetically different enough that it is medically significant, for example higher risks of certain diseases and such, ad it stands to reason that other traits may well be affected. Although naturally the variation between individuals tends to outweigh the variation between groups, so its not like you ought apply this reasoning on an individual level, but acknowledging trends within groups is reasonable.
Its also worth noting not all the differences are genetic, some are cultural. The races developed largely out of geographic isolation cutting off genetic interactions with other groups, and this also cut off cultural interactions with other groups as well, so unless you are dealing with someone who grew up in a foreign culture far away from the geographic location their ethnicity developed in, then they are likely to share a similar culture to each other as well.
@@chrisr3120 If I remember right, what he said specifically was that the old model of the 'five races' was wrong, so I'll go ahead on the assumption that that model specifically is what you think is correct. Genetic clusters certainly exist and correspond to geographical regions, but there is no diagnostic genetic characteristic for any of those proposed five races. There is not a single allele that is found only in Europeans and in all of them, so Europeans cannot be considered a race by the zoological definition. It does go without saying that ancestry plays an important role in susceptibility to certain diseases, but race and ancestry are two different things. I like the explanation here[1]: _"Unlike “race,” the concept of “ancestry” does not focus on the static categorization of humans into groups, but rather on the process by which a person’s history unfolded."_
[1]: sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
@@dannyeisenga He revisits it again at closer to 24:25 where he alludes more to the idea of races in general.
However, even if this is what he meant however many races there are depends on what characteristics you choose to define them by. Because while groups were isolated, they were more isolated from groups that were further away than their neighbors, so they share more in common with other groups from the same general area historically.
If you choose a very broad set of criteria, you get very large but few groups being defined, a narrower set of criteria that not picks a bit more will define more, but smaller groups.
When it comes to biological things, how we define such things in a model can be a bit more arbitrary than with more mechanical things.
Now, as for what they believed about what this model meant, well to outright say ot was wrong, maybe not the most accurate, unrefined might fit better.
It's a very broad model covering a wide range of topics with very broad implications, so there are always bound to be areas for improvement, but certainly there are elements of truth present even if the model as a whole is unrefined.
@@chrisr3120 Well yes, you can identify genetic clusters in geographical regions, but to call these clusters 'races' is inaccurate as they do not meet the criteria of a biological race.
_"The available studies show that there is geographic structure in human genome diversity, and that it is possible to infer with reasonable accuracy the continent of origin from an individual’s multilocus genotype. However, clear-cut genetic boundaries between human groups, which would be necessary to recognise these groups as relatively isolated mating units which zoologists would call races, have not been identified so far. On the contrary, allele frequencies and synthetic descriptors of genetic variation appear distributed in gradients over much of the planet, which points to gene flow, rather than to isolation, as the main evolutionary force shaping human genome diversity"_
Barbujani, Guido. (2005). Human Races: Classifying People vs Understanding Diversity. Current Genomics - CURR GENOMICS. 6. 10.2174/1389202054395973.
Social justice and science are diametrically opposed.
How so?
@@NoName-fc3xe science when done correctly doesn't care about what you think is just, equitable or fair.
@@samael1981 I agree. But does it oppose social justice somehow?
@@samael1981 so this completely applies to war as well.
No matter how that war is done as long as it's done "correctly", no matter what one thinks is equitable or fair.
No matter war crimes committed along the way.
@@williamoldaker5348 I'll take non sequiturs for 500, Alex.
So, I think I have a (relatively) small problem with your big four, in that I think that to one degree or another it is incomplete. And again, as someone who is not a formal scientist, it may be that I just do not have the tools or mental capacity as it stands right now to understand the full scope of it. I hope that, if you do read this, that you are patient with my potential ignorance.
I think that a fundamental part of science is the conveyance of knowledge to one degree or another. So, were I to define science, I would probably lean very heavily on your Big Four, but I would add a small fifth to it. One that is intrinsically social, at least as I understand the terms. The ability to explain what we mean to others. In your previous video in this series(? I'm not sure if you consider this upload to be canonical with your Naturalist Nuke series or not), you used a story in order to convey your point about encountering a snake on the trail and using the big four to identify the source of potential danger and then using this information to create a model that one uses to move away from the danger. I agree with your analogy in that form, but I would like to expand upon it a little to make a point. So, we encounter a snake that is on the left side of the trail. We successfully avoid it and get back to our group and I explain that there is a snake in the area and another of my tribe asks more details about it. My ability to explain to him with greater detail than "There be a snake in these woods", the conveyance of this concept can help others avoid potentially fatal pitfalls, is . . . perhaps not as important as the ability to create a model in and of itself, but still pretty important to the application of scientific knowledge.
To bring this back to our current use of science, I will use an admittedly anecdotal experience that hopefully at least gives you some idea of what I'm talking about. I live most days in pain. I have chronic migraines that affect my ability to function in society. I had gone to the doctor several times to try and seek help for this, but when I first started this, I did not have the language available to me to convey the problem. In that when I would explain the problem, they would just assume it was a minor nuisance and not something that was actively causing me to deteriorate, as far as my ability to function in society is concerned. It was my lack of language (in combination with the fact that doctors are very busy people and arguably cannot spend enough time with each patient to necessarily get a full scope of the problem) that led to the problem not getting solved. As I had more doctor's visits, I learned how to better convey the problem to them, which one might argue is developing a better model, and they started to try alternative means of helping me. Unfortunately, those still have not worked, but they are taking my concerns more seriously.
To continue in the medical line of thinking, there are a few studies that show that doctors and other medical professionals tend to make assumptions about people of color and people assigned female at birth that cause their relative diagnostic abilities to be lackluster. There has historically been less AFAB in medical studies due to concerns that their menstrual cycles might alter the results, which might be true, but is still probably something we should be looking into, given that they are half of the population. AFAB people experiencing heart attacks or symptoms are seven times more likely to be sent home instead of being treated. And while you might argue that these people are simply not doing good science, and while I might agree with that, it does show that there is at least a small flaw in this line of thinking about the Big Four.
Because the social aspect of science is our ability to collect and convey data and that is a social aspect of science that I feel that is lacking. Some hypothetical scientist might come up with the best model of explaining [subject] but if they do not have the ability to explain it, then their model is worth less than if their model had the ability to explain it coherently and convey it in a way that helps other people understand it. So, while I agree with you that the core of science is pre-social and pre-historical, I think, and I may be misinterpreting what you're saying, which is not my intention at all, that modern science requires the social aspect of explanations and without that aspect of it, science is far less useful of a tool.
In addition, biases in even the most rational of thinkers can become a big problem. There is the case where seemingly a large portion of the medical community believes that black people have less sensitive skin than other "races". This is a bias that pervades a lot of scientifically literate people. And it shows how bias can affect science.
Yeah even the last example could be turned into a thing most would consider good. Namely people attracted to their own gender in people who can't give meaningful consent. I understand that we don't use the term "sexuality" in this manner but when it comes to that part of human psychology, if we could manipulate that part of it, it seems unlikely that it wouldn't be fruitful in tackling actually harmful sexual perversions.
The thing about conversion therapy. much like the now youtube banned race realism, is that even if the scientific theories backing them were rigorous, it seems to me that tackling the unnecessary and needlessly costly disenfranchisement of the groups based on such theories is what social justice advocates should lobby against; not the banning of such fields of study entirely. Especially because, if they are wrong, their inefficacy in making predictions will make them entirely dependent on funding by bigots.
You need present tense for your quick brown fox. If it jumped over the lazy dog in the past, you’re missing an s.
:D I often unconsciously open my mouth, as if slack jawed when I’m listening intently. It helps. Some people say they have a third eye. I maintain that the mouth is the third ear.
I think that our best empirical theories are a subset of "reality" since "science" cannot encompass the full range of experience. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, science does not engage in WHY but HOW or WHAT; our understanding is approximate at best.
That's assuming that there is a WHY.
@@Lobsterwithinternet exactly
4 views, 10 likes. People really *love* this stuff :) Well at least I know I do, just pressed the little thumbs-up thingie. That, or the king is botting :) I doubt he would though, he doesn't really need that.
I think the difference is that people click the like button before they’ve watched enough of the vid to count as a view. Wild guess.
@@MichaelGreen831 You're very probably right.
@@ArthurWolf its a little different. For long videos you have to watch some portion before it counts as a view. You could watch less than that and hit like, causing likes to be greater than views.
Algorithm eventually recalibrates though and fixes that.
The difference between the definitions of good or bad science is *critical,* if for no other reason than to prevent the strengthening of the social construct argument. If science is only good or bad based on appraisal of potentially 'harmful' (another flexible term used as a cudgel) outcomes, rather than hard criteria, there is no framework to hold science as more useful or valuable than the shaman's claim to be able to call down lightning.
That is a nightmare scenario for not just our culture, but for humanity overall.
Step up Krok. Burn them with knowledge. Release more videos
You've probably already had this question, but do you think that humans have a kind of science module in our brains the way that we have a speech module?
Problem with social justice science is that they have a heavy creationist bias, which is their motivation for denying knowledge through elaborate obfuscation and word games. They can't get around the basic problem that their beliefs go against the foundations of evolution and logic, after all diversity is inequality defined, but they'll spend their time talking about how colors are a social construct, its just wavelengths, which on some level is true, but its all done to obscure differences that do matter. Social justice is incompatible with science because at its core its a faith, a faith in some arbitrary idea of "equality".
I have a feeling that RUclips is yeeting my comments. I have a good question for the opponent in the debate which would criticize his promotion of utilizing Social Justice, or morals, to mold what should be known.
Oh hey, neat.
29:20 Nobody determines that, whether or not the model is predictive and accurate determines that. That is a property of the model itself. People do not determine it, they can only verify it.
For example, you state phrenology was good science at the time, but no... it wasn't. Just like Lysenkoism was also not good science of the time. Neither model was predictive of anything. They were not pushed based on their efficacy, they were not science at all, they were politics masquerading as science. Politics is also a natural process we have been practicing since before we were first able to speak, and it often comes into direct competition with science. This is largely because while science persuades entirely via efficacy, political will often persuade via censorship of the opposition. If people were able to test a model and find that it was wrong, that it did not predict anything, but were disallowed from reporting those findings, then it wasn't good science for the time, the good science was being suppressed politically, as was the case with lysenkoism, and know it to have been the case in that instance.
Btw, gg on mirage yesterday - I love the fact that you play 1.6
What
@@KingCrocoduck Don't worry, I don't care about outing you. Finish the QM series though!
@@KingCrocoduck Btw, I was around during the Disturbia days. I remember I had sk3 on my friends list before he became an admin. Fun times.
@@carlosandres1212 my man, I actually haven't got a clue what you mean
@@KingCrocoduck My mistake then ;)
*IT'S ALIVE*
Crocoduck, i love you, watched you for a long time and you've helped me expand my horizons when i was a christian testing my ideas out there, seeing peoples arguements and applying them to my life. So let me maybe try to return the favor, check out this channel Professor Sunday, i think he has done a stream recently that would help you learn and grow.
He and I are chatting
So bad science = negative consequentialism?
Nice!
Jangles ScienceLad contradicted himself at 26:25. I agree that until something better comes along, the science that we have now is the best science that we currently have, and this is the best knowledge that we have right now. But this doesn't mean that the science back in the 16th, 17th, 18th century was good science. The science we have now is better science than all those race theories, simple because we know more. It was good science back then, but now we can call it bad science. Just because we have to accept the science that we have now as the best knowledge doesn't mean that the current science is good for all times. Maybe in the 24th century people will study our science and see how bad it was. Why does he thinks that good science is "good" for all time?
Greeetings from Germany
I'm so sorry KC but your pronunciation of that word (around 52:15 ) was so bad i didn't understand it. Could you write it down so i can read it? (I don'T know why but it's bothering me that i don't get the word ). It almost sounds like you say "Wissenschaft" but that would make no sense since "Wissenschaft" means Scienc in german.
tschischenschaft lol
Consensus is very important in science. That's the whole point of per review. Science is hard and people make mistakes. Having other scientists check your work is a form of quality control. And yes, sometimes the consensus is wrong, but it is the consensus that gets put into the textbooks. An excellent example is global warming.Svante Arrhenius proposed the idea of greenhouse warming in 1896. Four years later, Knut Ångström published results from laboratory experiments which showed that CO2 wouldn’t be a very significant greenhouse gas after all. At the levels the gas was present in the atmosphere the absorption bands were already saturated (and so insensitive to increased level of CO2). This work led most scientists to conclude that Arrhenius’s idea that changing CO2 level could affect global temperatures was wrong and most meteorologists to conclude that the greenhouse effect does not happen. Most extbooks did not mention greenhouse effect. An exception was a 1950 textbook that describing greenhouse effect as an interesting idea that turned out to be false.
New measurements in the 1930's and after WW II demonstrated that under the conditions in the upper atmosphere, the bands were not saturated--differential absorption with different levels of CO2 did occur. Further work fleshed out these observations until the 1967 publication of Mannabe and Wetherald's landmark paper.Since then greenhouse warming has been in the textbooks.
You are wrong.
In science, consensus is nearly always wrong and corrected by individuals against great odds.
Even a cursory examination of the history of science would demonstrate this undeniable phenomenon.
I don't think science is an extension of the sort of model building your brain does to make sense of sensory input. This latter is product of biological evolution and is present in other animals.
Science is unique to H, sapiens. It is a cultural construct, sort of a technology/tool. It is a fairly new development, about as old as capitalism, which is another cultural construct like religion or the state. These constructs develop through cultural evolution, they appeared in embryonic form and spread through the relevant population, preventing them from being lost. Most new ideas either don't spread or make an initial splash and then disappear like fads. Some ideas have legs, they further evolve and become important institutions in our societies. Science is one of them.
The issue you are discussing is one of these new ideas that will either fade out like fad (King Crocoduck's view) or add something of utility which will persist (Justin's view)/
I feel like you missed an issue here. If subjectivity is bad in science, and you believe science is being conducted WITH bad subjectivity, why is the Social Justice approach to WILFULLY engage in deliberate subjectivity and bias, rather than reinforcing objectivity?
A discussion between Croc and Jordan Peterson would be worth a listen
Awesome video
Isn't it funny having to concede that Ryan "ConfederalSocialist" Faulk was right all along?
Would really like more push after explanations, since ScienceLad seemed like he wasn't listening to half the things you said, and the things he did listen to, he either needed simplification, or he just decides to ask tangential stuff that has no baring on the topic of the time.
You should have asked him "who decided computers work?" if the science is social and people decide what is and isn't true, then why not just decide we can flap our arms and fly?
I think Neil degrasse Tyson answered the riddle at the end the best when talking with Ben Shapiro. I'm fine with science finding out a cure for queerness. What that really means is whether is nature vs nurture. The problem home boy has is "well if that answer is nurture it could harm queen folk in society." Which could be true. Which is why Neil had the remark of wondering the purpose for asking the question. If it's a politician asking that question then it can be much more of an issue. The results of the findings are neutral. Its the question of what do you do with it. So the goal is to keep with the questions and the answers wherever they lie in the realm of science. Its when someone seeks to make policy based on it that we need to be worried. Freedom in society is still what I value most so even if queerness were 100 percent nurture that wouldn't give a politician a right to enact policy that could harm their legal protections. I agree with the worry but I dont think that makes the science itself harmful on that example. I fundamentally disagree that the goal of science is human happiness
Reupload??
I’m not a fan of this guy’s views on physiology. He definitely sounds like someone who has read a few blogs about fitness instead of someone who investigated the science.
Daddies back
Well done
I don't see how you can have the position that "science ought to do more good than harm" for it to qualify as "proper science". It hinges WAY too much on subjective values. I can easily bring up the pill and birth rates. Is that bad science now? Let's just stick to whether or not you can research ethically, hm?
I think you over emphasize the strong program versus far more moderate takes on the limitations of science due to cultural bias. the moderate position doesnt deny existing research and our body of knowledge based on cultural bias but does call into question
1. The bias in what questions are considered worth investigating
2. Bias in peer review if the reviewer knows the identity of the author
3. Willingness to overlook rigour due to cultural confirmation bias.
Like the scientific method itself isn't desconstructed here just the distortions on the scientists and the purity of their application of the scientific method depending on bias. We don't have to resolve these issues by injecting in "other biases" and its worth acknowleding or at least just let the people interested in the question put their wares in the free marketplace of ideas.
ru also "the hoax hotel"?
I don't buy the idea that we know more about the female reproductive system then male because we find that most important. The reason we know more about it is simple market forces.
Look at the pill for example. It is a common contraceptive that women are free to use or not use. It work by fooling the body so it can make a stabilized and predictive menstrual cycle. We put so much money into research to make better productives because there is a demand for a better product. More knowledge is a direct necessity for a better product.
We can not make a pill for men because the male reproductive system simply do not work like that. It doesn't work to make a pill which means there is no product to sell. If there is no product to sell there is no point pumping money into research when it is not going to become a reward for it outside of the honor. But the honor does not put food on the table.
So if we look at simple market forces, we know why we know more about the female preproductive system then the male preproductive system.
Thus was absolutely wonferful to listen to. I have a i guess more rhetorical question rather than an addition or criticism of anyones point. I feel the other guy did make a strong argument for a mkte populist view of how scientists can have value laden theories whose attitudes make it into their work and thus become accepted science. However the exampkes listed were for the most part prior to refining the scientific method to specifically remove biases from the lab. Now im going to be that guy that brings up gender and sex being fluid, or that sex itself is also on a spectrum. The reason i bring this up is because the ppl conducting the research seem to have an entirely different and limited method to define both sex and gender that dont seem to be in common discussion or application.
Recemtly i watched a 2yo video on yt from either pbs or scishiw, wherenthey made the bold claim that sex is on a spectrumm and immediately went into examining chromosomal differences within the population. Theres a really large disconnect there as its counting natural variations of genetic differences as being functionally similar to extreme anomalies, and these extreme anomolies should be counted as a third, kr fourth, or proof of an infinite number of sexes within a population. It was really hard to follow since its highly inconsistent with a hard sexually dimorphic species such as ourselves. It just seemed to willfully ignore that we use average expressions within a population to define it as A or B, or whatever and anomolies are just anomolies. It felt to me like they were basically saying that definitions are bs and so long as there exists one outlier, then the while definition is wrong and needs to be discarded. This hard dichotomy is a forever out of reach goal for everything.
First like and comment!
0:57 You missed the letter S
I disagree with Crocoduck in that theoretical physics is researched without the intent of applying that knowledge. Picture it like a tribe migrating to a new territory. One of the impulses is to get the lay of the land. Getting to know your surroundings is an important survival instinct. The more you know the better you can prepare for unforeseen situations. Even if you don’t intend to do anything about it in the immediate future. Of course, the less immediate the need to understand or explore something, the fewer the resources are invested in it. But whatever is in the fringes is always potentially dangerous and chaotic territory, and bringing this under control is always part of our instinct.
I find it strange that humans it's stuck on sayings so much
Imagine using the term "social justice warrior" unironically in 2020 lol
Social justice extremism exists.
He denies "race" not because it's true or not. But because it's a moral question. There's a moral answer, not a scientific answer (or rather, he doesn't like the scientific answer because it's racist)
Except even the "scientific" answer is generally wrong too since the main reason most people in the past have looked into it is to fulfill their own bias, and in general, has been extremely poorly practiced.
is sexuality immutable?
or is it immutable when it comes to the alphabet ppl?