His claim about studies not being replicated is actually totally true, I am in psych at Penn State and we learned about this and someone tried to replicate these studies and found 60% of them to be non replicatable.
Not a PhD myself but in university I found out slowly but surely that funding is at the center of everything. If you want to test something but get no funding then it won’t be tested. So if a “desired” result is wanted, then just fund only studies until it came back affirmative once and not fund any replications
Indeed, alot of our pre-concieved notions are based on fallable studies. It humors me, that we think we are better than the Catholic Church's imprisonment of Gallileo, while today labelling and ostracising "science-deniers" for questioning the consensus.
Medicine is even worse. I'm reading up on R&D patents produced by private corporations to make pharmaceutical drugs for a study. Numbers on irreproducability for some companies is upwards of 70%.
@MeChupaUnHuevon kinda, field of engineerings basic are replicating experiments for industrial uses. Although much of this still happens, due to the demand from Practicians, non replicable experiments aren't implemented
@@WiseOwl_1408 look pal, there’re great people with kids, there’re great people without kids, there’re scumbags with kids, there’re scumbags without kids, life isn’t so black and white
(Scientist/engineer here. PhD in Applied math.) Science has a lot of strong points and it's generally good but there's context people need to really understand and those who just yell "SCIENCE!" at things often don't. 1. Research takes money and money is given to those that can produce results or are working areas of interest. This means a high paper count, even if those papers aren't terribly high impact, gets you far. It also means science is subject to trends where tons of research gets done because something is a "hot area." It doesn't mean that what comes out of that is actually good or indicates a good world trend. There is also pressure to accept results and trending views to be on the good side of important people, the people who determine your funding. 2. Every measurement and result has an uncertainty associated with it. Good analysis talks about this. The press doesn't. They gloss right over the error and uncertainty analysis any good scientist does--because if you don't, no one is going to take your work seriously. That means wild results that have massive uncertainties can be hyped up by press that doesn't understand this fundamental part of science. 3. More science is inferred than you realize. Astronomy is a great example. I think people really believe that "they discovered a new planet" involves the researchers pointing a telescope at an area, looking in, and going "Yup, there it is!" Definitely not how that works. A lot of discoveries involve a chain of inferences and assumptions: if this model is right, then if we see this, then that means this thing has to be true, which means this other thing is happening and.... It doesn't make it wrong but it does place critical importance on the initial assumptions and hypotheses for the result to be correct.
That is not a good example of inference. The inferences made are made by scaling processes. They observe a phenomenon and then apply it at larger scales. Then they run the math a shit load of times, and also compare it to other known methods when possible. There are multiple methods for finding planets but which method can be used will depend on size, distance, how much shit is in the way, etc. The biggest inference they make really is infering it's still there today. Inferences alluded to in science aren't like the Inferences you or I make in daily life. For things considered established science inference usually means, yeah all the evidence points to this, and when we plug this in our models it checks out, and it falls in line with other established facts, and also it explains this other established fact without adding more questions to the actual subject at hand, and it doesn't rely on separate inferences, but we haven't or can't actually see it and be there so we're inferring this to be correct because it actually fits neatly within all the parameters and doesn't require some magical force or lead to a much much crazier and larger question/problem. The only times they allow for a larger gap to be made when filling a smaller one is if there really is no other explanation that doesn't also require magical thinking or create an even larger gap or i consistency.
The only explanation I can think of for you to believe this is that you're in engineering and saw a lot of physics particularly quantum and theoretical that made you believe this. However a portion of this video is about humans needing to imagine and bullshit a bit (while ironically condemning fictional writings). I would argue this is where we do this. Further the problem isn't that we can't ask what if, it's that when we dismiss what if scenarios it's oftsn because those presenting them don't have the knowledge to understand they're trying to to explore land that was discovered years or decades ago. If the established things that would need to be wrong were wrong much of our current tech, just wouldn't work. This would mean we're basically the orcs from 40k and it just works because we believe in it enough and if this were the case, then none of it would really matter would it?
A pity that watching this video us an disappointing (and almost infuriating 😖) waste of time. As a veteran Ph.D. (+ MS×2) in Engineering/Applied Physics, I find this video is pure opinionated garbage and ignorance. 👎 He does not know what is Real Hard STEM - the Western Way to Progress and Wealth! Some of his What If? videos are fun and interesting (although mostly with his opinions contaminated with the usual Anglo-American cultural prejudices and sometimes showing ignorance of the fine details on non-Anglo History.) It helps a little he is Right-oriented. politically. Wacko Woke 'What If's would be unwatchable 🤮. The author mixes in an indigestible salad the narrative, opinionated pseudo-Sciences - Social & Political Sciences, Freudian l Psychology, Philosophy & Humanities, the more political Economics and Sociology (plus the crappy misunderstandings of MSM Journalism and the malicious interpretation of both Extremes of Politics)- with the fact-based HARD Sciences & Technology. Hard STEM theories and models do not work if they are wrong. Hard STEM models are a coordinated collection of inferences and factual data (with measurable uncertainties and unavoidable unknowns). The are an approximation to Reality, always needing improvement and refinement. That is the reason - Thanks God/Nature/YMMV! - that REAL SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED or COMPLETE. Besides the guy does not have a clue on the highly non-linear, fractal, Catastrophic Mathematics underlying and describing STE theories and models. Unfortunately, most Humans can only manage a very limited, narrow Linearized view of the innumerable (and many unknown) variables needed for a full description of our complex Reality.
Dude's not wrong; the whole point of the Replication Crisis is that people took published papers as gospel, and don't spend a lot of time checking the published literature's conclusions. The guy looking for exoplanets doesn't usually feel the need to prove that a star appears dimmer when a planet crosses between the star and human telescopes, he just cites _the_ paper on the subject and moves on. But when you go to the social sciences and find out 'priming' doesn't work after you spent the last decade or two exploring the details and limits of priming... well, that's just flushed your entire life's work down the proverbial toilet.
I love telling people the story of how Galileo's house arrest was not the result of anti-scientific medieval backwardness, but rather politicized science that Galileo had the gall to dissent with (the Church being in fact the main sponsor of science at that point in time).
I find it appalling people think the Church the reason why science was held back. The Christian Church and other religions like Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc. were proponents and sponsors of advancing our scientific concepts and knowledge. The problem isn't religion but greedy and deplorable people abusing the system for their own gain.
It's similar to how people.think Robin Hood was a socialist. He wasn't a socialist, he was stealing money back from a heavy handed government. But everyone chooses the lens of their own choice. Even if it's a blurry one.
I’ll be honest, as a scientist I’m spending my time trying to figure out what the hell is happening with this one thing I think is neat. When I’m not working, I’m just out living life like anyone else. Scientists aren’t this storybook idea of impartial workers, we have interpersonal drama, we’re all idiots most of the time, we have fun, we are just people who’s job is to look at this one thing. Most of us do spend some amount of time trying to understand the wider field and how it can relate to other fields, and sometimes we can act on those cross-discipline ideas, but when you do that you’re no longer as secure in your job, which is to study this one thing. The scientific establishment is maintained by financial and political environment in academia so we follow it bc that’s how we get paid. I think it’s more apt to say we try and engineer our way through things. That’s because there is this tendency among engineers to mystify science as what you describe it as, and engineers interface with the real world outside of the one particular topic that a scientist does. Science is a tool and engineers think it’s a hammer. Mystifying things from the real world tends to be a poor course of action as things are never as perfect as they seem.
Science is definitely not subjective. Not even in the slightest of ways. Certain things can be wrong for sure but that's why we have to be critical and move measures
@@hopeintruth5119 The scientific method is objective, but the people who apply it are definitely subjective. Everyone has their biases that inform their thinking and interpretation of observations, experiments, and data as well as the hypotheses they make, questions they ask, and conclusions they draw. Scientists may be more trained than most to avoid that, but they are not immune from being human
@@hopeintruth5119 Peer review isn't subjective? Damn, it's been politically influenced for quite some time. If someone's thesis is immaculately researched, tested extensively and well written, but it goes against the status quo.. Might as well make a RUclips channel.
@@walkingcontradiction223 peer review can have subjectivity but tell me there are 50-60 different people who study this around the world will have the same subjective opinions that could skew things ?? Really?
@@jameswilkerson4412 80% of people could starve to death in the past, this number is below 20% today, not even counting diseases that can be treated today. We live easy because we expect to live being 50, 60, 70, 80 years old, barely impossible in the past
Antideppressants can cause serious adverse effects.. Every doctor I've ever seen has tried to prescribe me antidepressants. It doesn't seem to matter what I went in to see them about. Even though I have bad reactions to them. They always say "Well this is a new one and shouldn't effect you that way." But I've yet to try one that didn't make me waaaaay worse. That is a huge red flag for me. I flat refuse to take them anymore......not even to humor a new doctor.
"There were Dragons here." Everybody that reads that story has cried, and no one can tell me why. Then I read it, and it broke my heart. I now know why you cry.
That's the saddest SCP I know yet. Not because of the dragons' end but their cries for help, the feeling of being left behind I felt listening to it. It just a great metaphor for modern world-view, even though it's right up in your face 😅😅
I think the negativity bias - where it's so much easier to focus on negative things - emphasized by the news and social media algorithms gets us dwelling more on negative things than positive things. How often do we see wonderful and inspiring stories on the news - or facebook?
To add to your comment about our world being just as interesting as any fantasy novel, I completely agree. I write fantasy novels and stories, and when I need inspiration, I'll turn on a nature or history documentary, research different cultures for their mythologies and stories, look up images of incredible architecture, landscapes, or natural phenomena. There's so many incredible things out there waiting to be discovered, so many amazing stories waiting to be heard. Even a lot of common fantasy elements are just exaggerations, retellings, or reimaginings of things that used to or currently exist/happened. Dragons are just reimagined dinosaurs who hoard treasure or control the weather. In some cases, fantasy tropes arise from our emotional reaction to the world. Lovecraftian, cosmic horror came out of a fear of the unknown and is rooted in the vastness of space and darkened depths of the sea and how little we know about either. The monsters we create in these settings are reflections of what unimaginable beings could exist in such vastness and how small we are in a massive, incredible, and ultimately unfathomable world. Anyone who thinks our world isn't interesting lacks the imagine to dream about what lies undiscovered or simply hasn't looked at what's out there
i usually just use my personal feelings and struggles and apply that to certain things. plus certain fantasy worlds are quite beautiful if overly optimistic. the best fantasy world is one that has inspirations from the hearts of man and the struggles anyone can face even if its not directly stated. lord of the rings is the best at this, having spiritual struggle as well as political within its pages recently for my own random head fantasy its been pokemon, in a world where shadow legendaries break society take over the world after they stop infighting, and in the post revolution society different groups of shadows have different ideals on how the new human slaves species should be controlled. some being more hands off, and creating something closer to a religious organization with the leader having a mild pychic link to all its humans. mixing control with manipulating the human nature for reacting well to religion and organization. this proves to be the better military option for the shadows that employ this have many humans give their souls willingly to the dragon/creature, strengthening it, while the shadows who prefer direct pychic control cannot get this power. its based on how i see myself as christian, but know i have certain aspects about me no god would accept. anger issues and other unrelated weird things. so i try my best to be as good as a i can, aware that one must mix good and evil within one's worldview, able to dip ones toes into both for a time.
You do realize that you're actually NOT adding to his point, you're counter it. Hos point was that people make up fantasy stories because they're bored from not viewing reality as a place of wonder. He's calling you specifically, a writer of fantasy, a bored person who sees no wonder in the world. YOU'RE PROVING HIM WRONG.
@@joshuapowers4623 I belive he is talking about modern fantasy or stories especially ones that are bland and uninspired. For example there is genre of stories in Japan called isekai where some random person gets transported to another fantasy world. While a lot are better than others almost every isekai story feels the same with the same tropes and some feeling nothing more than power fantasies and it is telling that there are many out there who do not take risks and just make copies of the exact story and settings.
Its funny because we critisize science and the decontruction of meaning, myths, Intuition on the Basis of the rational. Just through the rational you end at Religion.
It's because of the topics he talks about. He purposely picks topics most people don't talk about but are extremely important and when people don't want to talk about a important topic it's either because they are ignorant or they don't want to deal with it because its so negative to them and or their world view. If you pay attention he is mainly negative of the state of modern times but he dose have a bit of optimism under the pessimism for the future. It's just that it's easier to predict a worse future in a time that seems to be getting worse.
@@drekbleh7081 a lot of his videos tend to end on a more positive and provide advice and suggestions on these topics. He even says a lot of the time what he is saying isn't perfect and that he may be wrong. At least he is more honest than most people on the internet who claims to be right.
I feel like the biggest problem we have nowadays is less that we lionize science and more that we don't really want to ask the most important question to any scientific endeavor: What if I'm wrong? What if my basic assumptions are mistaken? Those two questions are existentially horrifying so people delete them from their "scientific" thought altogether. And I think the reason you and I get along is, we're both brave enough to ask them.
Skepticism towards ones own and previous observations have been a core concept within the scientific method since the 17th century. Science can only move forward when the standing assumptions are questioned.
@@mauritstorensma5854 exactly. And now we have people claiming that if you question The Science™, you're wrong and a neanderthal bigot on the wrong side of history.
I feel like most people in science do ask this all the time though. The whole reason we caught onto the replication crisis was after fraud was detected and scientists made a collective effort to question the conclusions of research that were considered foundational.
@@ataraxia7439 not “feel”, “does”. That’s what scientists do all day long, try to disprove their own or others theories to find the best one. In science, dogmatism is the anomaly. In religion, dogmatism is the norm. Traditionalists like to “both sides” this thing but there really is no question which is the superior methodology for arriving at the truth
It is often said that Pride is the deadliest of all the 7 sins. And I think the modern world and modern science truly proves that. The inability for a lot of scientists, politicians, engineers, doctors, etc. to ask the question about whether or not they are wrong, and could there be another approach, has resulted in absolute catastrophe. And I am talking about on the scale of millions of lives lost.
As much as I like Fantasy and Science fiction I tend to imagine how would a character from (insert fantasy book here) react to our world. This is why I like the His Dark Material series because you have this clash, this culture shock to lack of a better world. I like my DnD characters as much as I can but I can see my Human Fighter from Waterdeep being absolutely enchanted by just how I live my life.
thinking about the reaction of people from different eras or different fantasy worlds, in our world, has to be more entertaining than most fantasy fiction stories themselves.
Maths is great for its objectivity but that also makes me apathetic towards it. Since I know people who mathematically prove something have to go through the highest level of scrutiny I feel no need to care, I can trust the institution without much need to personally investigate
Human mind and conscience is just an emergent system, born or biology and physical laws, just one extremely complicated, we eventually will crack the code about how it actually works, and once that happens we will indeed have the algorithms that rules our minds on our hands.
@sbfcapnj algorithms don't need to be discrete math per se, I believe that the emergence of our conscience has some quantum characteristics, specially after some studies involving certain structures in our brains, microtubules, which suggest some quantum stuff going on in our brains. But the end of the day our brain is a physical object and as such its behaviour must be completely governed by the laws of physics like everything else in existence and thus we must be able to model and simulate it once we have understood it enough, even if we need quantum computers and algorithms to make it work or even a new kind of math still lurking beyond the boundaries of our knowledge. And no I don't believe in magical ocus pocus of souls and similar metaphysical crap, our brain is just a physical object, no matter how complicated it is, it is just an object and like any other object it will governed just by the laws of nature and nothing more.
Science has engendered the most formidable temptation ever to confront man: that he may mistake his renunciation as an act of real power and something to be proud of, and mistake a shadow of power for the real thing.
I view my world as a mystery novel. Always looking for the twists and turns in the story ahead of time. And once you start looking, twists and turns are everywhere, some you catch ahead of time and some literally seem to come out of nowhere.
@@hispalismapping155 I know the idea of something being a morally neutral concept is earth shattering to you but putting it as a leading question doesn’t make it clever.
@@dyer4677so to you, science has no negative effects whatsoever? I'm sorry but everything that exists in life has its own negative effects. science isn't a magical thing that has no flaws or negative effects
People using their own “happiness” as the standard of morality and meaning has been around for thousands of years. The Book of Judges 21:25 summarizes one of those times with “and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” And to those not familiar with the Judges, it basically tells several stories about how everything went to hell in a hand basket.
Judges was written during the time of the Bronze Age collapse so yeah lol not a surprise that our civilization is doing the same thing that they did during their collapse. Our civilization is going to meet the same fate.
I remember getting a used Bible at one point and that verse had been underlined several times. Indeed, it's the most brutal book outside of Lamentations.
@@jhinthevirtuoso4886 i mean, truth is truth yes but there are definitely things in this world that are subjective and gray areas exist. that being said i still 100% agree that the saying "the ends justify the means" is a huge rabbit hole that if you go too far down you'll enter hell
When I watch you're videos I'm like that stock meme of the guy choosing between 2 buttons to press, "Like video because I strongly agree with 65%" or "Dislike video because I strongly disagree with 35%"
they are told by their financiers what most of their actions are to be. When given a choice at all they resort to polling results to tell them which way the wind is blowing.
Was so excited when I saw the title of the video. So much here. One thing to comment on, which our good friend and host essentially already did here with one particular set of vocabulary, is that science is but one way of knowing and understanding the world better. It's one very useful, important tool that is incredibly narrow and imperfect when not aided by others. Frankly, it is foolish of our culture and society to make naturalistic science solely the end all be all of epistemology, hence, why we've seen justified some of the atrocities of the past century, removed from ethics, religion, aesthetics, and frankly, common sense. Second, the vast majority of people generally don't understand the skeptical, self defeating nature of science in that it's more useful in telling us what we don't know or what isn't right than it is actually giving us workable information to use. The best the scientific method can do for us at any given point is give us a slightly more accurate, less crude model of our known universe to work with than the one that came before it. That's incredibly powerful, useful for humanity, but it's also incredibly slow, always changing, and tells us more of what's false than what's true (speaking to the nature of testing a hypothesis). As well, people are incredibly ignorant to the history of science's development (also touched on in the video), that even when you build a society modeled perfectly in line and aimed perfectly down the barrel of the current scientific model perfectly (if such a thing were even possible), it and its horrors and shortcomings and mistakes would still be shown, plain as day for all, in all their weakness and inaccuracy, to the coming generations. That's more or less exactly what happened in World War II, what happened with the societal experiment of eugenics entertained in the US during the past century, and what happened under the various communist regimes around the world during the past century. I just love the premise of this video in that instead complaining about the "spot on the rug" of our society and recent history, it straight up pulls the rug up and looks at what's underneath the rug. In a society dominated by an insincere-at-best mantra of "trust the science", no one is talking about the actual limitations of science and its shortcomings in recent history.
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race but great for giving Whatifalthist a topic and the means to share his video.
"Disaster for the human race?" Does that mean that living disease-ridden and superstition-filled lives of subservience to aristocrats was the golden age of the human race? For a specific time to be able to be called bad, there have to be better times surrounding it.
@@michaelb9386 You see, living disease-ridden and superstition-filled lives of subservience to aristocrats that had MEANING AND PURPOSE is still preferable to the vapid comfort of the present day, where meaninglessness is enforced. Its got very little to do with material comfort and everything to do with finding meaning and purpose. The Industrial Revolution has robbed humanity of all the tried and tested ways people found fulfilment, meaning and purpose in life. You have soulless, depressed people as the norm, not the exception, all individuality crushed, all beauty rejected, all wonder torched and all joy made stale. So yes, it absolutely has been a disaster for mankind. Its an unpopular opinion for a reason - its why few want to admit to that terrible truth Ted Kaczynski laid out for all to see.
I have been saying this for decades, so much that I actually agree with the unibombers manifesto lol! It’s a shame that we have the world library in our pockets and could do so much to improve our work, yet it’s used to control peoples emotions and sell them things they didn’t even know they wanted till they fell victim to advertising… you go back less than 100 years ago and you will find that doctors couldn’t even advertise, but every time I walk by a television I see ten commercials for the newest pills they want to push.
@@skeleex And once AI takes everyone's jobs, then the big question remains: Space communism, or cyberpunk dystopia? Cyberpunk 2077 should be a warning bell, not an ideal to strive for
"Let the intelligent elite run things and you'll have a utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face, of course, because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centred as to be lacking in social responsibility." Probably one of my favorite quotes from Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers book.
@@tonytaskforce3465 Yeah a political system ruled by military veterans or people who did demeaning or dangerous government work for years is really authoritarian. Always hilarious with the amount of shitheads who constantly dunk on the government but then lick the boots of police and military
S'why I argue it's so important for people to understand the scientific method, its incredible power, its limitations. Scientific literacy should be the basis of our entire civilization so that we can appreciate our symbolic, spiritual and abstract nature that much more.
@@Charles-pf7zy But they were claimed to be scientific, it's not very relevant that they were disproven scientifically, before science existed as we understand it today plenty of ideas were disproven as well. Science was used to justify them despite them being based on weak evidence or no evidence at all. You could make the same argument about religious dogmas, you could say there were stupid religious dogmas in the past until a new religion came and replaced them with the correct, current religious dogmas. And you know they are correct because there is linear progress and new things are always more true and people wouldn't believe false dogmas. Right?
Thank you! Yes, most of the problems he mentions in the video are not caused by science but either by the misunderstanding of science, scientific findings by the laymen or by an economic system thats instead of the truth, seeks out profit, and it bends science to its purpose: instead of seeking the answer that is true, scientists will seek the answer that sells.
My favorite aspect of digesting your videos has been when and where I disagree with something you're saying. My examination of why we disagree ends up being very enlightening. Sometimes I end up agreeing with you and sometimes I end up disagreeing with you even more, but never once have I considered your position not worth examining.
The only thing my Molecular Biology degree ever did for me is convince me in the existence of some sort of higher power, because the amount of things that had to go right for life to even exist in the first place is infinitesimally small. How else can we explain how a bunch of nucleic acid chains floating around in the ocean gained the ability to self replicate? And then become self contained units? And eventually lead to us millions of years later?
That's cool for you, but it seems a bit backwards to me that you would learn about the insane amount of time life has existed, and your only conclusion is that there's intelligent design. Given a billion years of constant back and forth, almost anything can happen.
Science is a great tool - nothing more and nothing less. The inherent lack of values is a feature, not a bug and the choice of what to aim science at is one driven by human values. Sadly, while the iron rule is brought up a lot, a second rule is just as important (but rarely upheld): Everything can change in the light of new information. Everyone who can consistently create triangles in a euclidean space with a different sum-of-angles than 180 degrees will upend mathematics. As I Biologist, I welcome anyone who can demonstrate a third sex in the animal kingdom according to the biological definition of sex. The implications for evolution and selection would be amazing. I have my doubts in both cases, that such novel information will be presented in my life time.
Geometry isn't science; it's math. If you can have a triangle that doesn't sum to 180 degrees, you are explicitly not in a Euclidean space, because you can show that the rules of Euclidean space ensure triangles within have exactly 180 degrees; to get a different answer, you need a different set of rules, and such a set of rules are non-Euclidean. And non-Euclidean doesn't mean weird and Lovecraftian; it just means you're not building your geometry around infinite planes; you can build it around finite spheres, which has all kinds of uses, what with the shape of planets.
@@boobah5643 While it is true, that math isn't a science, the underlying principle is the same. Sum-of-angles in euclidian space is an axiom as far as I know. There is no proof of it. Should an axiom fall, it would shake mathematics to the core. But it won't fall, since the axiomatic assumptions are so simple and basic and confirmed by everyone who ever did geometry, that it's close to impossible that every human to ever math missed it.
This is a stellar video. It expresses eloquently the views that I have myself espoused, mainly the lack of creativity, broader perspective and practical wisdom in academia, without turning over into religiousity, ethereal spirituality and fake science. In this video you didn't push your own biases on viewers, generalise too much from uncomplete data or use bad sources to ground your arguments, which sometimes ruins otherwise perfectly formed arguments and interesting theories. The best choice _isn't_ to forgo science and turn over into ignorance and superstition. It is to integrate scientific knowledge with things like art, philosophy, strict morality, social awareness, curiosity and common sense
Honestly one of your best Videos yet. Normally there at least a couple moments i tend to disagree or which i take a bit uneasy, but this video, it was just great 👍
funny how common sense can just mean "whatever the fuck i currently think is true for any reason". dating is such a funny example to use when our intuition in dating is based off of mechanisms in our brains that have been developing since our ancestors first had neurons, ie mechanisms for ensuring the best mate selection for optimal genetic fitness. Just because we have brains optimized for this task does not mean that they are similarly optimized for intuitive judgements about, say, quantum mechanics or astrophysics. You are making the argument that the natural world won't violate our innate, biased expectations, when the history of scientific development is filled with us getting surprised by the results of well-constructed studies. Unrelated criticism, but you just said we only use fantasy worlds for pop culture while completely ignoring the massive success of science fiction, which usually focuses on space.
I literally tweeted that science is more corrupt than the catholic church, now this video, i was exaggerating but peer review and company funding be like that
The thing that I always agree with you the most strongly on is how sad the way people see the world is now. (17:00). The pessimism I encounter everywhere is so frustrating. More people need to see life on Earth as the incredible experience that it is.
i see it both ways. on one hand, life is a crazy exhilarating spiritual experience that can be great fun, even in the worst situations. giving the one who torments you hell back is a feeling nothing can match. it can be wild, and even the most mundane life can be an adventure if you use the right perspective, or talk to the right people. however, life can also be a slog sometimes. somedays are just boring. somedays are just hard. sometimes the hard days last a few years after a major trauma and you spend the better part of a decade picking up the pieces of who you used to be and trying to regain your sanity, finally settling on a peace deal between two very differing personality sides within yourself, finding a strange synthesis within your religion. even if that synthesis in the end is a beautiful thing you can take with you forever, those hard times were hell. no perspective nor adventure nor peptalk can help.
Love the comparison of beautiful traditional art vs grotesque modern art. I often think this applies to many other aspects of modern western society as well. It was better before.
I think the most important thing modern art brings to the table is the freedom of it. Art has become a creative outlet, something to enjoy doing, rather than only something to enjoy seeing. Give it to the people, I say :)
Yeah but how can we expect people to create beautiful and inspiring art if the artist's today have either a really hard life financially or are too rich to care. Art is the reality that went through their eyes and emotions so its natural that in our modern world that the art is depressing if we ourselves find it that way
@@obiwanlover6314 van gogh was dirt poor, and everyone made fun of his paintings contemporarily. Nowadays, however, those same paintings are priceless. Paintings MONETARY value comes from convincing rich people that it is indeed worth that much. Their ARTISTIC value is subjective and comes from how “much” the artist put into the painting, it that makes sense I could be wrong, but this is what I observe to be true
The main beauty of modern art is noticing its contrast with genuine art. :D Now, I'm pleased with myself as I've denigrated the "life works" of many a beatnik. There were degrees of both irony and sincerity in each of the above sentences, which makes me even more pleased with myself. :D Think I'll try painting.
@@jas3.14 Well said. I get frustrated with criticisms based on the supposedly objective "lack of artistic value" in grotesque modern art, because that value judgment presupposes that art should only evoke a set range of feelings (e.g., wonder, beauty, awe). Now, I think that range of feelings is important to represent, but I don't think it's in good faith to claim that art should be restricted that way - because art is about evoking ANY feeling the artist chooses to capture. The measure of a work's success is not "how happy it made you feel," but "how well it evoked what it was designed to evoke." As such, any emotional judgment about the value of a work is purely subjective. For example, some people like horror films, but some people don't. That doesn't make horror films an invalid medium. The same is true for grotesque modern art.
I think a distinction should be made between saying “current scientific consensus isn’t infallible” and “we shouldn’t look towards science as a source of truth”. The best way to know for sure if science is wrong is more better science.
@@Gronolo_31g No, I don't really think so. It is of course good to be critical of ideas that revolve around things as important as differing methods of socio-economic organisation, but even if you are only moderately familiar with leftist thought, the assumptions it makes, the arguments and theories that it is built on, you quite quickly will realise that whatifalthist is not. All of his takes on anything remotely left appear to come straight from fox news and contain such egregious mischaracterisations, misinterpretations, and straight up infactualities, that that they can really only be explained by either malice or incompetence.
Scientists here. I would respectfully say that the problems you're pointing out (e.g., the crisis of reproducibility, strong correlation between funding a study and results that benefit that study, etc.) are with the scientist, not science per se. Your videos are awesome--keep making them.
Thats exactly what i realized when i was at university. I really prefer to investigate the bigger picture, the whole network and the meaning behind it. I also realized that "science" is not as factual and objective as everyone made it out to be. I found it be so subjective and kind of bullshit to be honest because its so easy to manipulate data. I felt like the whole idea came from a toddler trying to understand the world, kind of a naive way to relate to the world. Everyone around me in university seemed to be completely convinced of the whole constuct . It definitely made the world better in so many ways but it also isn't perfect, definetly not "objective".
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 so you’re telling me I have to prove that if you do the exact same thing twice you’ll have the same results, do you not realize how stupid you sound
@@level_breaded5364 WTF is this strawman? You can look at the universe and say that it behaves in an objective manner. That doesn't mean the people executing the science, collecting data, and publishing results are behaving in an objective manner. God, you're probably insufferable with how smart you think you are. You're literally arguing against something OP never said.
Your deep analysis is very much appreciated. In a world where everything is shock value, it's nice to hear opinions based on so much research. Great content.
The worst of academia is that it throws science and a philosophy in the same bag and pretends they are the same. Most of people think the scientific method is optional and things like economy doesn't need to hold to the same standards because it would be too difficult to test, but is a science nonetheless.
@@hopeintruth5119 It does not what? Where is the explosion of technology under the Hindus and Muslims? Why didn't the ancient Greeks create automobiles? Why does Scientific Revolution coincide with the Industrial Revolution shortly after? Because science didn't exist back then. Simple. I actually don't even think Arabs and Persians were all Muslims in the so called Islamic Golden Age either. Why did philosophies and science disappear under Islamic rule? How did Islam foster science when their own theology is opposed to it. Allah controls the world. The world turns because it is through His will. There is no laws to be found when Allah controls everything as he pleases. The Scientific Revolution is said to have started in 1543 and it started by a Catholic Nicolaus Copernicus. The Industrial Revolution started in 1840. In just 300 years you see a dramatic change in lifestyles never achieved in history. That is not random but through a certain way of viewing the world.
@@samuelmorales2344 Science may be as old as the human species, and some of the earliest archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old. The earliest written records in the history of science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3000 to 1200 BCE. Also people used the method before then to figure out how things work. They probably didn't call it science or know what they were doing was the scientific method.
Funny Thing: I am a student of history and cultural anthropology, and today, we spoke about Margarete Mead at university, but without even adressing the critizisms of her work, which I only learned existed threw your video. Therefore, thank you.
I lived in Samoa for a few years & am fluent in Samoan - yeah her book is total BS. They are very very Christian & have been for 2+ centuries now. They look down on sexual promiscuity but it does happen, but it’s not culturally accepted or encouraged. Family values are very very very strong there. If you get a girl pregnant, you’re expected to stay & figure it out, & start your life building your family.
Oh no we've definitely got it beat. Its dying and we're going to die with it. This extinction event might the last, in fact. We've done a thorough job.
23:08 I remembered reading about Bogomilism long time ago - a middle ages Christian sect that believed Earth was created by the Devil. Their ideas spread very fast and were hard to remove.
the earth being created by the devil honestly would explain a lot, that and god having one hell of a sense of humor, especially how tough living in the middle ages was and all the pain? no wonder that became a popular
Probably the most valuable thing about Rudyard, is that while these are conservative ideas, he's the only conservative you will find who will tell you about them, without sounding like a 60 year old drill sergeant who is reprimanding you for not having cleaned your boots properly. While not all of them do, a few of Jordan Peterson's videos sound like he is lecturing his 18 year old son for taking his car out at night and not coming home until 3 in the morning. In my experience, negative childhood reinforcement is almost always a very strong prerequisite of conservatism. The fact that Rudyard is able to discuss this philosophy, again, without it coming across as a reprimand of his audience, is both rare and extremely valuable.
I certainly got negative reinforcement, but it was always paired with massive positive reinforcement. How could you possibly think only one side of that equation being used results in a healthy mindset? You need negative, because the world applies it naturally and you need to learn to deal with the world.
"science is bad for society" describes all the awful fake and flawed "science" that we only know is flawed or biased because someone did good science and proved the truth of the matter.
Great video. I wish you would spend more time on the end part of this video. I think it gets to the reasons why we are in this mess. Does populism work? Or does the iron rule of oligarchy rule over all? From my experience and looking at other nations, other societies, it appears to me that it all comes down to "do the elites of the society actually like the people they rule over or not and do they have skin in the game or not". The essential precondition for a well run society is simple: the elites must like the people, and they must feel that they have skin in the game (ie feel that there will be consequences).
I'm nearing the end of my Biology degree and we're finally talking about how( at least in the realm of microbiologists and evolution) that for basically every scientific paper written there's about 15 other papers discussing why that paper is wrong or why the people who think it's wrong are wrong. It's fun seeing scientists get into huge fights over literally the tiniest of things.
I get you. Everyday this world amazes me. Nature, history - all of it! Science informs this amazement, enriches it. It is a component but not the very essence of it all.
I’m pretty sure a majority of Christians currently and throughout history have interpreted the Bible, New Testament and the story of Jesus in a very literal way. Christians literally believe he was the son of god, that he died and was resurrected and that he will come back to bring hell fire and damnation to sinners. The only time I have seen someone interpreting the Bible, New Testament, or Jesus in a symbolic way is if they are (sometimes closeted) atheist/agnostic. If Christianity did take a more symbolic view of its text and stories then it probably wouldn’t be in such a precipitous decline. It’s incredibly difficult to tell a congregation that the world was created in 7 days, that evolution isn’t real, or that gay marriage will destroy society, when your adherents are presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary outside of church, and expect them to still take you seriously. The cognitive dissonance eventually becomes too great and people decide that they are atheists/agnostic or just adopt some type of alternative spirituality that isn’t riddled with incongruencies.
Stunned. 76, this is the first time I've heard my postulations expressrd by someone other thañ myself and roundly jeered at for decades. 2 am, alone sitting on my lanai, I feel a sense of vindication and thank you.
I am someone who has, largely, built their life on science. I've always studied it, I'm an engineer now, and technology/chemistry are things I like in my free time. This video is awesome. Here I see a man who actually thinks. Now, I try to build everything I know off of empirical evidence, but I have learned that not everything can be learned this way. We're human and we can't know everything, sometimes we need to go with what "seems best", or even just make a choice. There are literally so many things in this video that I like and that impress me, I cannot write it all down. But here are a few things: 1. Scientific ideas are indeed completely misapplied in our society. The common people always try to process scientifically, but exactly as Whatifalthist points out, they can't do this because they don't understand what science is on a fundamental level. 2. Many "scientific" studies cannot be replicated. Now, some fields are better than others. But psychology/med seems... dangerously bad. Chem and physics is generally pretty good. And he didn't even mention p hacking... 3. Life is not meaningless (from an objective standpoint). Indeed, in order to determine this via science you need a very exact and physically measurable way to determine if something is meaningful. My friends, meaning comes from within. We create it. What do you find meaningful? 4. Science has given us a great arrogance. I would also say this: Science should not make us arrogant. Much of what he described is not a logical response to science, but an emotional one (how ironic!). We *feel* like we are better and more powerful because we are confident in our answers. We *feel* like the world is more boring because we understand so much. The reality is, we feel confident in our answers because we do not estimate our errors (more on that next paragraph), and we feel things are boring because we choose to look at them that way. Science offers us the ability to make incredible wonders - and personally I find it fascinating and exciting to think of what I can create with the scientific knowledge and thoughts I have. Indeed, I create some of these things, as I am an engineer. For estimating errors, it may be interesting to consider how a drone thinks. Drones do not just know their position and have a full confidence in it - they are always estimating and guessing their position, triple-checking it, and seeing how wrong it is. There is math used so they know how wrong they are. It is a lesson to us humans - that we should consider the likelihood and magnitude of how off our information may be. All measurements have an error, it is never exact. If in the end, you really have no idea what the truth is, and you must make a choice, then there is one thing you can be certain of: you will learn a lot very soon :) I'm not a religious person. I have no faith. I have tried very hard to answer my existential questions, and not jump to illogical conclusions. It can be difficult. My point there is - I have no motive to reinforce religious ideas, or any political views. I just am so fed up with how nonsensical and illogical our world today is - and that's why I love this video so much. Thank you Whatifalthist for bringing your thoughts to the people. You are a smart, knowledgeable man, and a good thinker.
I don't think science has given us great arrogance. Most of the time it humbles us. Compared to many other things like religion who out us at the center and give some or other a superiority or victim complex. From an objective standpoint. Whether something has meaning or not is subjective. Science doesn't even make a claim of something is meaningful or not unless we are talking towards a goal we want
@@hopeintruth5119 You're taking that into account of scientist however we are talking in relation to the common woman or man on the street which often see science akin to tribalistic sports so long as we have the best gadget and most money we must be smart thatis the general thinking many in intelligencia meet when it comes to science in general
@@jackhhun2698 what? The regular people misconstrued science a lot. From biology to medicine, from physics to psychology. Ton sof regular me and women misconstrued science a lot. You know the amount of people that say " survival of the fittest" and take it as whoever is strongest lives the longest or gets the food. When In reality it means the animals who are most well equipped for the environment and pressure they are in survives. You know how many of these " alpha" men misconstrued wolf pack structures. You know how many sports work out people misconstrued health facts about vitamins, fat, and protein. You know how many people who are anti- vax don't even understand how vaccines work. Don't let me get into the fact on how many conservatives use extremely old outdated data to try to conform to their own outdated beliefs.
DUUUUUUUUUDE!!! THATS AN AMAZING IDEA!!! WhatIfAltHist would be like, and then i hiled the Appalachian trail, which was the hardest but most rewarding thing i have done in my life, where i found god and learned that i wanted to be ben shapiro when i grow up.... KnowingBetter would be like: lets get back to your point about how modern america will fall into a massive civil war which republicans will win due to democrats decadance and how that is supported by examples like the Taiping rebellion, the agricultural revolution and the Hittite sack of Babylon in the bronze age....
I’m working on a film called Distance, it’s a four to five year journey where me and some friends will find a modern way of creating an American myth. The present is now and it is truly interesting.
I believe so firmly that this is the "positive discourse", that some people I know that identify as "left" and some "right" really MUST understand in order for us to move forward as a species. This gentleman is making one of the best attempts I have seen at bringing that to a reality. MASSIVE kudos in my book.
Modern technology can be misused very easily by unethical people. First they go after the most vulnerable people. And then everyone else. But back in the Middle Ages there was a cultural assumption that if someone did that, they would face punishment in the end. And be rewarded, if they didn't. So, it gave people more motivation to make the best decisions possible.
But DID they? It was a political announcement. It mentioned nukes for the pentagon. China was the main character in the conference China and Germany and UK both had more energy out then input discoveries recently What if it's another deadend
At first I thought you were completely wrong and there is no significant negative effects. Now I see why you made this video. You have shown me that all I need is to stop viewing this world as depressing place worth only to progress in science and it won't be so. Not everything has to be perfect and strict like the Iron rule, sometimes all you need is to be happy.
"But now we are designing social policies around something that a bunch of literature majors kinda made up" So, who's gonna tell him that "west" have been making policies around something that a bunch of shepards kinda made up for millennia?
To your point about antidepressants, I literally just spoke with a psychiatrist who straight up told me that she only sees some patients benefit from SSRI medication, and even then she chalks it up primarily to the placebo effect lol
"How science negatively impacted the world" "In contrast to humanities science has the Iron rule that you only follow the evidence." "Now here is a bunch of examples how humanities cocked up the world because they didn't even bother with that rule. But I will attribute that to a lack of "common aense" instead."
"Hurr look how big space is, we so insignificant" My son, you're literally the only known species that can marvel at the cosmos. You're extremely significant.
@@sovietunion7643 if not the the God Emperor shall come and lead our species on a glorious crusade to cease the xenos from the cosmos as it id the destiny of man to rule over all.
Regarding experiments that seem to decide between two theories: even their decisiveness must be revisited sometimes. For example, in 1802 Young's famous 2-slit experiment seemed to decide absolutely in favour of Huygens' wave theory of light against Newton's particle theory. Over the rest of the 19th century, more and more evidence stacked up in favour of the wave theory. However, in 1905, Einstein found that the photoelectric effect needed an explanation akin to a particle theory. This was the beginning of the wave-particle duality of quantum theory.
I'm a physics major and I can tell you right now that the 'greatest theoretical prediction of any theory' is built on fudging data and using infinite series to arrive at any value they want via adjusting coefficients. It is the magnetic moment of an electron; every time the 'theory' predicted a value, a better experiment showed the value was way off from prediction; then they 'adjusted their calculation' and brought the value inline with experiment. This continued like 10 times in a row. It is so blatant and I'm pretty sure every fellow graduate student knows this, we just don't say anything lest it bring the entire edifice down
I completely agree with everything you said expect one thing - the conclusion. The more I learn about our history and how to world really works, Its hard to escape the conclusion that everyone lived in their own mass hysteria and shared fantasy - in other words they were all crazy. All their relives, ideologue, reasoning and thought were just made up and make no sense. And the sad part is that this is what allowed us to get here - people can't exists "healthy" unless they believe in imaginary ideas which give their life fake meaning. I started learning about history trying to find answers, all I find is sick people doing sick shit to each other.
History is quite bad at identifying why good things happen, but is very good at identifying why things go badly, which often makes things seem much worse than they really are. If you want something impersonal, you could try Paul Kennedy's "rise and fall of the great powers".
This problem only cropped up recently, when we became aware of our own existence. Maybe just the last 75,000 years. Since that happened, no one is happy. If we are all "sick," then no one is sick. It's who we are. Meaning has always only existed in our own heads, but that does not make it fake, or dispensable.
I'm reminded of Terry Praychett's _Reaper Man, Hogfather,_ and _Thief of Time._ All three are about meaning, and have as their antagonists the Auditors of Reality, entities that would be personifications of the laws of physics, if only one could isolate a dram of personification.
alternate history where the US annexed canada - 1st consequence: whatifalthist sticks to making alternate history vids instead of trying to change the world so that the US will annex canada
16:08 I find this part of the video to be quite strange. "We are the only historical era I know of that views the world as a boring place." What is this statement based on? I feel like it's quite the opposite. People are overstimulated, and boredom is an important part of the human experience. It's part of what drives people to create new things. You then say, "You can see this in our pop culture in which whenever we have adventure/interesting stories, we put them in fantasy worlds." But then you go on to say at 17:29 "I view the world I live and walk through as if it was a fantasy novel." 17:43 "There's really no logical reason to not the view the world that way." Have you really deeply questioned what interests you and why you're interested in what you're interested in? Interest as a phenomenon is far more irrational than you might think. It's what drives people to choose certain careers. It's what drives people to pick up different hobbies.
You're not describing the affects of science. You're describing the affects of the industrial revolution and modern capitalism. Science has existed since ancient Greece.
His claim about studies not being replicated is actually totally true, I am in psych at Penn State and we learned about this and someone tried to replicate these studies and found 60% of them to be non replicatable.
nah i agree. its fuckin insane. mostly caused by profit incentives not being in the right place imo
Not a PhD myself but in university I found out slowly but surely that funding is at the center of everything. If you want to test something but get no funding then it won’t be tested. So if a “desired” result is wanted, then just fund only studies until it came back affirmative once and not fund any replications
Indeed, alot of our pre-concieved notions are based on fallable studies. It humors me, that we think we are better than the Catholic Church's imprisonment of Gallileo, while today labelling and ostracising "science-deniers" for questioning the consensus.
Medicine is even worse. I'm reading up on R&D patents produced by private corporations to make pharmaceutical drugs for a study. Numbers on irreproducability for some companies is upwards of 70%.
@MeChupaUnHuevon kinda, field of engineerings basic are replicating experiments for industrial uses. Although much of this still happens, due to the demand from Practicians, non replicable experiments aren't implemented
One day, I’m gonna tell my grandkids, this used to be an *actual* alternate history channel…
You won't have any
@@WiseOwl_1408 republicans are the easiest people to trigger AKA you
@@WiseOwl_1408 damn, didnt have to kill the man like that
Is it more proto-Nazi talking points?
@@WiseOwl_1408 look pal, there’re great people with kids, there’re great people without kids, there’re scumbags with kids, there’re scumbags without kids, life isn’t so black and white
(Scientist/engineer here. PhD in Applied math.) Science has a lot of strong points and it's generally good but there's context people need to really understand and those who just yell "SCIENCE!" at things often don't.
1. Research takes money and money is given to those that can produce results or are working areas of interest. This means a high paper count, even if those papers aren't terribly high impact, gets you far. It also means science is subject to trends where tons of research gets done because something is a "hot area." It doesn't mean that what comes out of that is actually good or indicates a good world trend. There is also pressure to accept results and trending views to be on the good side of important people, the people who determine your funding.
2. Every measurement and result has an uncertainty associated with it. Good analysis talks about this. The press doesn't. They gloss right over the error and uncertainty analysis any good scientist does--because if you don't, no one is going to take your work seriously. That means wild results that have massive uncertainties can be hyped up by press that doesn't understand this fundamental part of science.
3. More science is inferred than you realize. Astronomy is a great example. I think people really believe that "they discovered a new planet" involves the researchers pointing a telescope at an area, looking in, and going "Yup, there it is!" Definitely not how that works. A lot of discoveries involve a chain of inferences and assumptions: if this model is right, then if we see this, then that means this thing has to be true, which means this other thing is happening and.... It doesn't make it wrong but it does place critical importance on the initial assumptions and hypotheses for the result to be correct.
That is not a good example of inference. The inferences made are made by scaling processes. They observe a phenomenon and then apply it at larger scales. Then they run the math a shit load of times, and also compare it to other known methods when possible. There are multiple methods for finding planets but which method can be used will depend on size, distance, how much shit is in the way, etc. The biggest inference they make really is infering it's still there today. Inferences alluded to in science aren't like the Inferences you or I make in daily life. For things considered established science inference usually means, yeah all the evidence points to this, and when we plug this in our models it checks out, and it falls in line with other established facts, and also it explains this other established fact without adding more questions to the actual subject at hand, and it doesn't rely on separate inferences, but we haven't or can't actually see it and be there so we're inferring this to be correct because it actually fits neatly within all the parameters and doesn't require some magical force or lead to a much much crazier and larger question/problem. The only times they allow for a larger gap to be made when filling a smaller one is if there really is no other explanation that doesn't also require magical thinking or create an even larger gap or i consistency.
The only explanation I can think of for you to believe this is that you're in engineering and saw a lot of physics particularly quantum and theoretical that made you believe this. However a portion of this video is about humans needing to imagine and bullshit a bit (while ironically condemning fictional writings). I would argue this is where we do this. Further the problem isn't that we can't ask what if, it's that when we dismiss what if scenarios it's oftsn because those presenting them don't have the knowledge to understand they're trying to to explore land that was discovered years or decades ago. If the established things that would need to be wrong were wrong much of our current tech, just wouldn't work. This would mean we're basically the orcs from 40k and it just works because we believe in it enough and if this were the case, then none of it would really matter would it?
A pity that watching this video us an disappointing (and almost infuriating 😖) waste of time.
As a veteran Ph.D. (+ MS×2) in Engineering/Applied Physics, I find this video is pure opinionated garbage and ignorance. 👎
He does not know what is Real Hard STEM - the Western Way to Progress and Wealth!
Some of his What If? videos are fun and interesting (although mostly with his opinions contaminated with the usual Anglo-American cultural prejudices and sometimes showing ignorance of the fine details on non-Anglo History.)
It helps a little he is Right-oriented. politically. Wacko Woke 'What If's would be unwatchable 🤮.
The author mixes in an indigestible salad the narrative, opinionated pseudo-Sciences - Social & Political Sciences, Freudian l Psychology, Philosophy & Humanities, the more political Economics and Sociology (plus the crappy misunderstandings of MSM Journalism and the malicious interpretation of both Extremes of Politics)- with the fact-based HARD Sciences & Technology.
Hard STEM theories and models do not work if they are wrong.
Hard STEM models are a coordinated collection of inferences and factual data (with measurable uncertainties and unavoidable unknowns). The are an approximation to Reality, always needing improvement and refinement.
That is the reason - Thanks God/Nature/YMMV! - that REAL SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED or COMPLETE.
Besides the guy does not have a clue on the highly non-linear, fractal, Catastrophic Mathematics underlying and describing STE theories and models.
Unfortunately, most Humans can only manage a very limited, narrow Linearized view of the innumerable (and many unknown) variables needed for a full description of our complex Reality.
Dude's not wrong; the whole point of the Replication Crisis is that people took published papers as gospel, and don't spend a lot of time checking the published literature's conclusions. The guy looking for exoplanets doesn't usually feel the need to prove that a star appears dimmer when a planet crosses between the star and human telescopes, he just cites _the_ paper on the subject and moves on.
But when you go to the social sciences and find out 'priming' doesn't work after you spent the last decade or two exploring the details and limits of priming... well, that's just flushed your entire life's work down the proverbial toilet.
I love telling people the story of how Galileo's house arrest was not the result of anti-scientific medieval backwardness, but rather politicized science that Galileo had the gall to dissent with (the Church being in fact the main sponsor of science at that point in time).
I find it appalling people think the Church the reason why science was held back. The Christian Church and other religions like Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc. were proponents and sponsors of advancing our scientific concepts and knowledge. The problem isn't religion but greedy and deplorable people abusing the system for their own gain.
Bro thank you
Define the space between the atoms. Describe the space between the atoms. I'M LOST FOR WORDS, God?
It's similar to how people.think Robin Hood was a socialist. He wasn't a socialist, he was stealing money back from a heavy handed government. But everyone chooses the lens of their own choice. Even if it's a blurry one.
It's a bit of an oopsies
I’ll be honest, as a scientist I’m spending my time trying to figure out what the hell is happening with this one thing I think is neat. When I’m not working, I’m just out living life like anyone else. Scientists aren’t this storybook idea of impartial workers, we have interpersonal drama, we’re all idiots most of the time, we have fun, we are just people who’s job is to look at this one thing.
Most of us do spend some amount of time trying to understand the wider field and how it can relate to other fields, and sometimes we can act on those cross-discipline ideas, but when you do that you’re no longer as secure in your job, which is to study this one thing. The scientific establishment is maintained by financial and political environment in academia so we follow it bc that’s how we get paid.
I think it’s more apt to say we try and engineer our way through things. That’s because there is this tendency among engineers to mystify science as what you describe it as, and engineers interface with the real world outside of the one particular topic that a scientist does. Science is a tool and engineers think it’s a hammer. Mystifying things from the real world tends to be a poor course of action as things are never as perfect as they seem.
Science is definitely not subjective. Not even in the slightest of ways. Certain things can be wrong for sure but that's why we have to be critical and move measures
@@hopeintruth5119 The scientific method is objective, but the people who apply it are definitely subjective. Everyone has their biases that inform their thinking and interpretation of observations, experiments, and data as well as the hypotheses they make, questions they ask, and conclusions they draw. Scientists may be more trained than most to avoid that, but they are not immune from being human
@@LostPilgrim sure but that's why we have peer review and debate and discussion. We update our knowledge and understanding every day.
@@hopeintruth5119 Peer review isn't subjective? Damn, it's been politically influenced for quite some time. If someone's thesis is immaculately researched, tested extensively and well written, but it goes against the status quo.. Might as well make a RUclips channel.
@@walkingcontradiction223 peer review can have subjectivity but tell me there are 50-60 different people who study this around the world will have the same subjective opinions that could skew things ?? Really?
The irony of life being so easy it got hard for people to cope with.
It’s only “easy” if your expenses don’t grow faster than your income
@@jameswilkerson4412 80% of people could starve to death in the past, this number is below 20% today, not even counting diseases that can be treated today. We live easy because we expect to live being 50, 60, 70, 80 years old, barely impossible in the past
@@sergiowinter5383 you’re comparing different levels of Maslow’s Pyramid, so apples and oranges
@@jameswilkerson4412 It's easy because we have a Maslow Pyramid, in the past was all about survival to the majority of the population
People used to live 150
Antideppressants can cause serious adverse effects.. Every doctor I've ever seen has tried to prescribe me antidepressants. It doesn't seem to matter what I went in to see them about. Even though I have bad reactions to them. They always say "Well this is a new one and shouldn't effect you that way." But I've yet to try one that didn't make me waaaaay worse. That is a huge red flag for me. I flat refuse to take them anymore......not even to humor a new doctor.
Like you have any kind of alternative solution.
@@ANDREALEONE95 i mean meditation and mindfullness. intense therapy and psychoactive substances are pretty good
@@gregoryfridman5680 meditation and mindfullness aren't sufficient. It's like curing cancer with aspirine
Get better doctor's then...
@@postalmann7866 so you are saying that you are hiding you problem.
In some parts this reminded me of SCP-1762, where an entire realm of existence is destroyed by humans no longer being able to dream and fantasize.
"There were Dragons here." Everybody that reads that story has cried, and no one can tell me why. Then I read it, and it broke my heart.
I now know why you cry.
I never thought I’d see a fellow scp fan watching this channel and I’m pleasantly surprised
Isn’t that just the Neverending Stooory🎶?
That's the saddest SCP I know yet. Not because of the dragons' end but their cries for help, the feeling of being left behind I felt listening to it. It just a great metaphor for modern world-view, even though it's right up in your face 😅😅
@@jdblay66777We exist! There are dozens of us!
I think the negativity bias - where it's so much easier to focus on negative things - emphasized by the news and social media algorithms gets us dwelling more on negative things than positive things. How often do we see wonderful and inspiring stories on the news - or facebook?
Yup because of hypothesis claiming many people fall undermined.
To add to your comment about our world being just as interesting as any fantasy novel, I completely agree. I write fantasy novels and stories, and when I need inspiration, I'll turn on a nature or history documentary, research different cultures for their mythologies and stories, look up images of incredible architecture, landscapes, or natural phenomena. There's so many incredible things out there waiting to be discovered, so many amazing stories waiting to be heard. Even a lot of common fantasy elements are just exaggerations, retellings, or reimaginings of things that used to or currently exist/happened. Dragons are just reimagined dinosaurs who hoard treasure or control the weather. In some cases, fantasy tropes arise from our emotional reaction to the world. Lovecraftian, cosmic horror came out of a fear of the unknown and is rooted in the vastness of space and darkened depths of the sea and how little we know about either. The monsters we create in these settings are reflections of what unimaginable beings could exist in such vastness and how small we are in a massive, incredible, and ultimately unfathomable world. Anyone who thinks our world isn't interesting lacks the imagine to dream about what lies undiscovered or simply hasn't looked at what's out there
i usually just use my personal feelings and struggles and apply that to certain things. plus certain fantasy worlds are quite beautiful if overly optimistic. the best fantasy world is one that has inspirations from the hearts of man and the struggles anyone can face even if its not directly stated. lord of the rings is the best at this, having spiritual struggle as well as political within its pages
recently for my own random head fantasy its been pokemon, in a world where shadow legendaries break society take over the world after they stop infighting, and in the post revolution society different groups of shadows have different ideals on how the new human slaves species should be controlled. some being more hands off, and creating something closer to a religious organization with the leader having a mild pychic link to all its humans. mixing control with manipulating the human nature for reacting well to religion and organization. this proves to be the better military option for the shadows that employ this have many humans give their souls willingly to the dragon/creature, strengthening it, while the shadows who prefer direct pychic control cannot get this power.
its based on how i see myself as christian, but know i have certain aspects about me no god would accept. anger issues and other unrelated weird things. so i try my best to be as good as a i can, aware that one must mix good and evil within one's worldview, able to dip ones toes into both for a time.
Couldn’t agree more. Life is a magical and beautiful adventure.
You do realize that you're actually NOT adding to his point, you're counter it. Hos point was that people make up fantasy stories because they're bored from not viewing reality as a place of wonder. He's calling you specifically, a writer of fantasy, a bored person who sees no wonder in the world. YOU'RE PROVING HIM WRONG.
@@joshuapowers4623 I belive he is talking about modern fantasy or stories especially ones that are bland and uninspired. For example there is genre of stories in Japan called isekai where some random person gets transported to another fantasy world. While a lot are better than others almost every isekai story feels the same with the same tropes and some feeling nothing more than power fantasies and it is telling that there are many out there who do not take risks and just make copies of the exact story and settings.
Yes there are beautiful places on earth but most of it is quite shitty and boring nowadays. It doesn't come close to fantasy worlds.
ah yes the skeptical sceptic of sceptisism. love your vids
Scep-ception
Its funny because we critisize science and the decontruction of meaning, myths, Intuition on the Basis of the rational. Just through the rational you end at Religion.
Even thought, mastering the dreamstate on a mass scale sounds better than having only religion for finding meanings and muses.
I'm sceptic about scepticism and deconstruct deconstructionism
@@4zdr456 You hit the nail right on the head. Well said.
Ah yes, I remember when the concept of fictional writing was invented in 2010.
I'm so jealous of this young generation that gets to read novels. I graduated right before that.
I was there; it was magnificent historical moment.
Science fiction and pure fantasy are rather recent genres of fiction though. The closest you get from older literature are stories about the Gods.
The bible is the biggest fantasy book thats more than 2000 years old, so I dunno what he's talking about.
"Hey whatifalthis could it be possible to be a bit more positive?"
whatifalthis:
So now when it comes to *“Science”* you want him to be positive?
@@just-some-muslim It just feels like his only moves are
-Pessimism about the future
-Pessimism about the past
It's because of the topics he talks about. He purposely picks topics most people don't talk about but are extremely important and when people don't want to talk about a important topic it's either because they are ignorant or they don't want to deal with it because its so negative to them and or their world view.
If you pay attention he is mainly negative of the state of modern times but he dose have a bit of optimism under the pessimism for the future. It's just that it's easier to predict a worse future in a time that seems to be getting worse.
@@drekbleh7081 a lot of his videos tend to end on a more positive and provide advice and suggestions on these topics. He even says a lot of the time what he is saying isn't perfect and that he may be wrong. At least he is more honest than most people on the internet who claims to be right.
i didn't come here to be happy i came here to have an existential breakdown at 2am
I feel like the biggest problem we have nowadays is less that we lionize science and more that we don't really want to ask the most important question to any scientific endeavor:
What if I'm wrong?
What if my basic assumptions are mistaken?
Those two questions are existentially horrifying so people delete them from their "scientific" thought altogether. And I think the reason you and I get along is, we're both brave enough to ask them.
Skepticism towards ones own and previous observations have been a core concept within the scientific method since the 17th century. Science can only move forward when the standing assumptions are questioned.
@@mauritstorensma5854 exactly. And now we have people claiming that if you question The Science™, you're wrong and a neanderthal bigot on the wrong side of history.
I feel like most people in science do ask this all the time though. The whole reason we caught onto the replication crisis was after fraud was detected and scientists made a collective effort to question the conclusions of research that were considered foundational.
@@ataraxia7439 not “feel”, “does”. That’s what scientists do all day long, try to disprove their own or others theories to find the best one.
In science, dogmatism is the anomaly. In religion, dogmatism is the norm. Traditionalists like to “both sides” this thing but there really is no question which is the superior methodology for arriving at the truth
It is often said that Pride is the deadliest of all the 7 sins. And I think the modern world and modern science truly proves that. The inability for a lot of scientists, politicians, engineers, doctors, etc. to ask the question about whether or not they are wrong, and could there be another approach, has resulted in absolute catastrophe. And I am talking about on the scale of millions of lives lost.
As much as I like Fantasy and Science fiction I tend to imagine how would a character from (insert fantasy book here) react to our world. This is why I like the His Dark Material series because you have this clash, this culture shock to lack of a better world.
I like my DnD characters as much as I can but I can see my Human Fighter from Waterdeep being absolutely enchanted by just how I live my life.
thinking about the reaction of people from different eras or different fantasy worlds, in our world, has to be more entertaining than most fantasy fiction stories themselves.
Oh, boy. I can already see Vaush losing his shit over this.
Considering he argued that the period table is a social construct… nah he would probably still lose his shit
Period or periodic?
@@sheltonyukevich7722 probably the second one
Vaush debate 2??
Vaush is a moron so the fact that he destroyed this kid so fucking easily just goes to show how absolutely brain dead WIAH is
That's why I prefer mathematics. But it also has its own foundation flaws
Namely, being boring as fucking hell
FAGGOT
Maths is great for its objectivity but that also makes me apathetic towards it. Since I know people who mathematically prove something have to go through the highest level of scrutiny I feel no need to care, I can trust the institution without much need to personally investigate
Math was always my favorite subject in my courses because it doesn’t care about the real world, but it can be applied to the real world all the same
Maths may a become religion in the future
"The modern world looks for Newton's laws of motion to apply to human nature"
That really sums it up. Great one liner.
No, science is based on objective observation lmao, people love finding counter examples in logical reasoning all the time
@@Pundapog this is about the broader effects of science on society, not science itself, you are literally the problem.
@@Pundapog tell me you didn’t understand the video without telling me you didn’t understand the video 😂
Human mind and conscience is just an emergent system, born or biology and physical laws, just one extremely complicated, we eventually will crack the code about how it actually works, and once that happens we will indeed have the algorithms that rules our minds on our hands.
@sbfcapnj algorithms don't need to be discrete math per se, I believe that the emergence of our conscience has some quantum characteristics, specially after some studies involving certain structures in our brains, microtubules, which suggest some quantum stuff going on in our brains.
But the end of the day our brain is a physical object and as such its behaviour must be completely governed by the laws of physics like everything else in existence and thus we must be able to model and simulate it once we have understood it enough, even if we need quantum computers and algorithms to make it work or even a new kind of math still lurking beyond the boundaries of our knowledge.
And no I don't believe in magical ocus pocus of souls and similar metaphysical crap, our brain is just a physical object, no matter how complicated it is, it is just an object and like any other object it will governed just by the laws of nature and nothing more.
Science has engendered the most formidable temptation ever to confront man: that he may mistake his renunciation as an act of real power and something to be proud of, and mistake a shadow of power for the real thing.
Renunciation of what?
Beautifully said
Can you explain like I’m five? What are people renouncing ?
I view my world as a mystery novel. Always looking for the twists and turns in the story ahead of time. And once you start looking, twists and turns are everywhere, some you catch ahead of time and some literally seem to come out of nowhere.
This man entered his "I'm 14 and this is deep" phase and never realized he was supposed to grow out of it
Has science been immutably positive and have had no negative effects on society?
@@hispalismapping155 I know the idea of something being a morally neutral concept is earth shattering to you but putting it as a leading question doesn’t make it clever.
@@dyer4677so to you, science has no negative effects whatsoever? I'm sorry but everything that exists in life has its own negative effects. science isn't a magical thing that has no flaws or negative effects
@@apple_m2_delight bababooey
@@dyer4677that's a professional response, am I right? lol
People using their own “happiness” as the standard of morality and meaning has been around for thousands of years. The Book of Judges 21:25 summarizes one of those times with “and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” And to those not familiar with the Judges, it basically tells several stories about how everything went to hell in a hand basket.
relativist thinking is easily the most dangerous idea in the world. you remove a society's moral standards and everything else soon follows.
Judges was written during the time of the Bronze Age collapse so yeah lol not a surprise that our civilization is doing the same thing that they did during their collapse. Our civilization is going to meet the same fate.
I remember getting a used Bible at one point and that verse had been underlined several times. Indeed, it's the most brutal book outside of Lamentations.
I have many colegues who believe in their own "truth".
It's quite annoying as truth is truth no matter if you choose to believe in it or not.
@@jhinthevirtuoso4886 i mean, truth is truth yes but there are definitely things in this world that are subjective and gray areas exist. that being said i still 100% agree that the saying "the ends justify the means" is a huge rabbit hole that if you go too far down you'll enter hell
No lie, I listened to this while doing my chemistry homework b/c the video dropped right as I was starting
Oh no I had to go back and listen a second time to catch everything
When I watch you're videos I'm like that stock meme of the guy choosing between 2 buttons to press, "Like video because I strongly agree with 65%" or "Dislike video because I strongly disagree with 35%"
I feel exactly the same
I don’t know if you’ve made a video like this, but a video about the side effects of nations thinking too rationally would be interesting.
they are told by their financiers what most of their actions are to be. When given a choice at all they resort to polling results to tell them which way the wind is blowing.
China’s single-child policy is a perfect example of a nation being too rational
Was so excited when I saw the title of the video. So much here. One thing to comment on, which our good friend and host essentially already did here with one particular set of vocabulary, is that science is but one way of knowing and understanding the world better. It's one very useful, important tool that is incredibly narrow and imperfect when not aided by others. Frankly, it is foolish of our culture and society to make naturalistic science solely the end all be all of epistemology, hence, why we've seen justified some of the atrocities of the past century, removed from ethics, religion, aesthetics, and frankly, common sense. Second, the vast majority of people generally don't understand the skeptical, self defeating nature of science in that it's more useful in telling us what we don't know or what isn't right than it is actually giving us workable information to use. The best the scientific method can do for us at any given point is give us a slightly more accurate, less crude model of our known universe to work with than the one that came before it. That's incredibly powerful, useful for humanity, but it's also incredibly slow, always changing, and tells us more of what's false than what's true (speaking to the nature of testing a hypothesis). As well, people are incredibly ignorant to the history of science's development (also touched on in the video), that even when you build a society modeled perfectly in line and aimed perfectly down the barrel of the current scientific model perfectly (if such a thing were even possible), it and its horrors and shortcomings and mistakes would still be shown, plain as day for all, in all their weakness and inaccuracy, to the coming generations. That's more or less exactly what happened in World War II, what happened with the societal experiment of eugenics entertained in the US during the past century, and what happened under the various communist regimes around the world during the past century. I just love the premise of this video in that instead complaining about the "spot on the rug" of our society and recent history, it straight up pulls the rug up and looks at what's underneath the rug. In a society dominated by an insincere-at-best mantra of "trust the science", no one is talking about the actual limitations of science and its shortcomings in recent history.
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race but great for giving Whatifalthist a topic and the means to share his video.
Spittin
nice reference
"Disaster for the human race?" Does that mean that living disease-ridden and superstition-filled lives of subservience to aristocrats was the golden age of the human race? For a specific time to be able to be called bad, there have to be better times surrounding it.
@@michaelb9386 You see, living disease-ridden and superstition-filled lives of subservience to aristocrats that had MEANING AND PURPOSE is still preferable to the vapid comfort of the present day, where meaninglessness is enforced.
Its got very little to do with material comfort and everything to do with finding meaning and purpose. The Industrial Revolution has robbed humanity of all the tried and tested ways people found fulfilment, meaning and purpose in life. You have soulless, depressed people as the norm, not the exception, all individuality crushed, all beauty rejected, all wonder torched and all joy made stale.
So yes, it absolutely has been a disaster for mankind. Its an unpopular opinion for a reason - its why few want to admit to that terrible truth Ted Kaczynski laid out for all to see.
@@michaelb9386 yes
I have been saying this for decades, so much that I actually agree with the unibombers manifesto lol! It’s a shame that we have the world library in our pockets and could do so much to improve our work, yet it’s used to control peoples emotions and sell them things they didn’t even know they wanted till they fell victim to advertising… you go back less than 100 years ago and you will find that doctors couldn’t even advertise, but every time I walk by a television I see ten commercials for the newest pills they want to push.
If only there was an economic and political system responsible for such maximization of profits at the cost of humanity.... weird
Uncle Ted was right. Also lol at the college Marxist thinking “postmodernist science worship” is a unique failing of capitalism
@@skeleex
And once AI takes everyone's jobs, then the big question remains: Space communism, or cyberpunk dystopia? Cyberpunk 2077 should be a warning bell, not an ideal to strive for
All roads lead back to philosophy.
Ted Kaczynski was right!
"Let the intelligent elite run things and you'll have a utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face, of course, because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centred as to be lacking in social responsibility."
Probably one of my favorite quotes from Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers book.
Robert Heinlein wrote liberal war veteran fanfic, not serious political texts
@@danisrusski6297 "muh librulz"
Lmao, anything else?
@@apple_m2_delight Yes, there's no guarantee that the intelligent elite would act in anybody else's interest.
Heinlein was so close to fascism as made no difference. I stopped reading him decades ago once I realized how repulsive he was.
@@tonytaskforce3465 Yeah a political system ruled by military veterans or people who did demeaning or dangerous government work for years is really authoritarian. Always hilarious with the amount of shitheads who constantly dunk on the government but then lick the boots of police and military
The world is not boring, it has meaning and it is still a brutal place
Once an institution (in this case, Science) gains credibility, it attracts people who want to manipulate it for their own purposes.
Wow. As soon as I saw the title I knew you would nail this. A decade or so of all kids understanding this might heal our society's world view. Wow.
S'why I argue it's so important for people to understand the scientific method, its incredible power, its limitations. Scientific literacy should be the basis of our entire civilization so that we can appreciate our symbolic, spiritual and abstract nature that much more.
Yea lol. Is this guy really trying to discredit science by giving examples of wrong ideas that were disproven scientifically?
@@Charles-pf7zy whoosh
@@Charles-pf7zy rationality isn't the same
@@Charles-pf7zy But they were claimed to be scientific, it's not very relevant that they were disproven scientifically, before science existed as we understand it today plenty of ideas were disproven as well. Science was used to justify them despite them being based on weak evidence or no evidence at all. You could make the same argument about religious dogmas, you could say there were stupid religious dogmas in the past until a new religion came and replaced them with the correct, current religious dogmas. And you know they are correct because there is linear progress and new things are always more true and people wouldn't believe false dogmas. Right?
Thank you! Yes, most of the problems he mentions in the video are not caused by science but either by the misunderstanding of science, scientific findings by the laymen or by an economic system thats instead of the truth, seeks out profit, and it bends science to its purpose: instead of seeking the answer that is true, scientists will seek the answer that sells.
"Professional Public intellectual" @ 20:16
There's always a few good laughs to bed had
I have to agree.
ruclips.net/video/5QeVIMj3gio/видео.html
My favorite aspect of digesting your videos has been when and where I disagree with something you're saying. My examination of why we disagree ends up being very enlightening. Sometimes I end up agreeing with you and sometimes I end up disagreeing with you even more, but never once have I considered your position not worth examining.
The only thing my Molecular Biology degree ever did for me is convince me in the existence of some sort of higher power, because the amount of things that had to go right for life to even exist in the first place is infinitesimally small. How else can we explain how a bunch of nucleic acid chains floating around in the ocean gained the ability to self replicate? And then become self contained units? And eventually lead to us millions of years later?
That's cool for you, but it seems a bit backwards to me that you would learn about the insane amount of time life has existed, and your only conclusion is that there's intelligent design. Given a billion years of constant back and forth, almost anything can happen.
No amount of time turns an impossible event into a possible one.
Science is a great tool - nothing more and nothing less. The inherent lack of values is a feature, not a bug and the choice of what to aim science at is one driven by human values. Sadly, while the iron rule is brought up a lot, a second rule is just as important (but rarely upheld): Everything can change in the light of new information.
Everyone who can consistently create triangles in a euclidean space with a different sum-of-angles than 180 degrees will upend mathematics. As I Biologist, I welcome anyone who can demonstrate a third sex in the animal kingdom according to the biological definition of sex. The implications for evolution and selection would be amazing.
I have my doubts in both cases, that such novel information will be presented in my life time.
Geometry isn't science; it's math. If you can have a triangle that doesn't sum to 180 degrees, you are explicitly not in a Euclidean space, because you can show that the rules of Euclidean space ensure triangles within have exactly 180 degrees; to get a different answer, you need a different set of rules, and such a set of rules are non-Euclidean.
And non-Euclidean doesn't mean weird and Lovecraftian; it just means you're not building your geometry around infinite planes; you can build it around finite spheres, which has all kinds of uses, what with the shape of planets.
@@boobah5643 While it is true, that math isn't a science, the underlying principle is the same. Sum-of-angles in euclidian space is an axiom as far as I know. There is no proof of it. Should an axiom fall, it would shake mathematics to the core.
But it won't fall, since the axiomatic assumptions are so simple and basic and confirmed by everyone who ever did geometry, that it's close to impossible that every human to ever math missed it.
This is a stellar video. It expresses eloquently the views that I have myself espoused, mainly the lack of creativity, broader perspective and practical wisdom in academia, without turning over into religiousity, ethereal spirituality and fake science. In this video you didn't push your own biases on viewers, generalise too much from uncomplete data or use bad sources to ground your arguments, which sometimes ruins otherwise perfectly formed arguments and interesting theories.
The best choice _isn't_ to forgo science and turn over into ignorance and superstition. It is to integrate scientific knowledge with things like art, philosophy, strict morality, social awareness, curiosity and common sense
Honestly one of your best Videos yet.
Normally there at least a couple moments i tend to disagree or which i take a bit uneasy,
but this video, it was just great 👍
I feel bad for all the people who aren't intelligent enough to realize how brain dead this guy is
Yeah, I tend to disagree with a lot of his stuff but there are moments when he says some really insightful stuff
funny how common sense can just mean "whatever the fuck i currently think is true for any reason". dating is such a funny example to use when our intuition in dating is based off of mechanisms in our brains that have been developing since our ancestors first had neurons, ie mechanisms for ensuring the best mate selection for optimal genetic fitness. Just because we have brains optimized for this task does not mean that they are similarly optimized for intuitive judgements about, say, quantum mechanics or astrophysics. You are making the argument that the natural world won't violate our innate, biased expectations, when the history of scientific development is filled with us getting surprised by the results of well-constructed studies.
Unrelated criticism, but you just said we only use fantasy worlds for pop culture while completely ignoring the massive success of science fiction, which usually focuses on space.
WhatIfAltHist in a nutshell right there
I was literally just pondering science and its effectiveness as an idealism/philosophy all last week. It's like you read my mind.
it's more of an epistemological protocol.
I literally tweeted that science is more corrupt than the catholic church, now this video, i was exaggerating but peer review and company funding be like that
Love your content brother❤
Same
Hellyeah I might not agree with everything he says but overall one of the only right wing channels worth watching imo
The thing that I always agree with you the most strongly on is how sad the way people see the world is now. (17:00). The pessimism I encounter everywhere is so frustrating. More people need to see life on Earth as the incredible experience that it is.
i see it both ways. on one hand, life is a crazy exhilarating spiritual experience that can be great fun, even in the worst situations. giving the one who torments you hell back is a feeling nothing can match. it can be wild, and even the most mundane life can be an adventure if you use the right perspective, or talk to the right people.
however, life can also be a slog sometimes. somedays are just boring. somedays are just hard. sometimes the hard days last a few years after a major trauma and you spend the better part of a decade picking up the pieces of who you used to be and trying to regain your sanity, finally settling on a peace deal between two very differing personality sides within yourself, finding a strange synthesis within your religion. even if that synthesis in the end is a beautiful thing you can take with you forever, those hard times were hell. no perspective nor adventure nor peptalk can help.
People sre frustrated due to lack of financial stability. Think of 2008.
Love the comparison of beautiful traditional art vs grotesque modern art. I often think this applies to many other aspects of modern western society as well. It was better before.
I think the most important thing modern art brings to the table is the freedom of it. Art has become a creative outlet, something to enjoy doing, rather than only something to enjoy seeing.
Give it to the people, I say :)
Yeah but how can we expect people to create beautiful and inspiring art if the artist's today have either a really hard life financially or are too rich to care. Art is the reality that went through their eyes and emotions so its natural that in our modern world that the art is depressing if we ourselves find it that way
@@obiwanlover6314 van gogh was dirt poor, and everyone made fun of his paintings contemporarily. Nowadays, however, those same paintings are priceless. Paintings MONETARY value comes from convincing rich people that it is indeed worth that much. Their ARTISTIC value is subjective and comes from how “much” the artist put into the painting, it that makes sense
I could be wrong, but this is what I observe to be true
The main beauty of modern art is noticing its contrast with genuine art.
:D
Now, I'm pleased with myself as I've denigrated the "life works" of many a beatnik.
There were degrees of both irony and sincerity in each of the above sentences, which makes me even more pleased with myself.
:D
Think I'll try painting.
@@jas3.14 Well said. I get frustrated with criticisms based on the supposedly objective "lack of artistic value" in grotesque modern art, because that value judgment presupposes that art should only evoke a set range of feelings (e.g., wonder, beauty, awe). Now, I think that range of feelings is important to represent, but I don't think it's in good faith to claim that art should be restricted that way - because art is about evoking ANY feeling the artist chooses to capture. The measure of a work's success is not "how happy it made you feel," but "how well it evoked what it was designed to evoke." As such, any emotional judgment about the value of a work is purely subjective. For example, some people like horror films, but some people don't. That doesn't make horror films an invalid medium. The same is true for grotesque modern art.
You should do next "The Negative effects of Religion on Society"
I think a distinction should be made between saying “current scientific consensus isn’t infallible” and “we shouldn’t look towards science as a source of truth”. The best way to know for sure if science is wrong is more better science.
I love that he address such taboo subjects and examines alternative viewpoints that are unknown to the general public
I feel bad for all the people who aren't intelligent enough to realize how brain dead this guy is
Normal people: "Jordan Peterson is the dumb person's smart person"
Whatifalthistory: hold my crack pipe
So who is your smart person? smart person
Dude go back to Vaush so he can do the thinking for you.
I would love a vid on the rise and fall of the USSR from you. It would be super awesome.
He's too biased against leftist ideology to make a good video on that topic
@@visionsofthescreen7123 that's exactly why I think he could make a good video on it.
@@visionsofthescreen7123 "biased"? I think the term realistic would be better
@@visionsofthescreen7123go away communist
@@Gronolo_31g No, I don't really think so. It is of course good to be critical of ideas that revolve around things as important as differing methods of socio-economic organisation, but even if you are only moderately familiar with leftist thought, the assumptions it makes, the arguments and theories that it is built on, you quite quickly will realise that whatifalthist is not. All of his takes on anything remotely left appear to come straight from fox news and contain such egregious mischaracterisations, misinterpretations, and straight up infactualities, that that they can really only be explained by either malice or incompetence.
Scientists here. I would respectfully say that the problems you're pointing out (e.g., the crisis of reproducibility, strong correlation between funding a study and results that benefit that study, etc.) are with the scientist, not science per se. Your videos are awesome--keep making them.
Thats exactly what i realized when i was at university. I really prefer to investigate the bigger picture, the whole network and the meaning behind it. I also realized that "science" is not as factual and objective as everyone made it out to be. I found it be so subjective and kind of bullshit to be honest because its so easy to manipulate data. I felt like the whole idea came from a toddler trying to understand the world, kind of a naive way to relate to the world. Everyone around me in university seemed to be completely convinced of the whole constuct . It definitely made the world better in so many ways but it also isn't perfect, definetly not "objective".
oh Yeah? I’d be interested in hearing how you suppose the universe isn’t objective, pretty big claim to just not back up
@@level_breaded5364 It'd be a pretty big claim to say the universe is objective.
@@xx_amongus_xx6987 so you’re telling me I have to prove that if you do the exact same thing twice you’ll have the same results, do you not realize how stupid you sound
@@level_breaded5364 WTF is this strawman? You can look at the universe and say that it behaves in an objective manner. That doesn't mean the people executing the science, collecting data, and publishing results are behaving in an objective manner. God, you're probably insufferable with how smart you think you are. You're literally arguing against something OP never said.
Immagine then says that a Rib Woman made from a dirt man cursed all humankind when eating an Apple given by a talking Snake with legs
You could’ve published this any day. Had to pick the day when we figured out nuclear fusion. What timing
Your deep analysis is very much appreciated. In a world where everything is shock value, it's nice to hear opinions based on so much research. Great content.
The worst of academia is that it throws science and a philosophy in the same bag and pretends they are the same. Most of people think the scientific method is optional and things like economy doesn't need to hold to the same standards because it would be too difficult to test, but is a science nonetheless.
They are different in a way. However philosophy is literally the foundation of science.
@@2311outcast the testing of magnitudes comes from Christian theology.
@@samuelmorales2344 it does not. The Muslims and Hindus had done the same.
@@hopeintruth5119 It does not what? Where is the explosion of technology under the Hindus and Muslims? Why didn't the ancient Greeks create automobiles? Why does Scientific Revolution coincide with the Industrial Revolution shortly after? Because science didn't exist back then. Simple. I actually don't even think Arabs and Persians were all Muslims in the so called Islamic Golden Age either. Why did philosophies and science disappear under Islamic rule? How did Islam foster science when their own theology is opposed to it. Allah controls the world. The world turns because it is through His will. There is no laws to be found when Allah controls everything as he pleases. The Scientific Revolution is said to have started in 1543 and it started by a Catholic Nicolaus Copernicus. The Industrial Revolution started in 1840. In just 300 years you see a dramatic change in lifestyles never achieved in history. That is not random but through a certain way of viewing the world.
@@samuelmorales2344 Science may be as old as the human species, and some of the earliest archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old. The earliest written records in the history of science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3000 to 1200 BCE. Also people used the method before then to figure out how things work. They probably didn't call it science or know what they were doing was the scientific method.
Funny Thing: I am a student of history and cultural anthropology, and today, we spoke about Margarete Mead at university, but without even adressing the critizisms of her work, which I only learned existed threw your video. Therefore, thank you.
I lived in Samoa for a few years & am fluent in Samoan - yeah her book is total BS. They are very very Christian & have been for 2+ centuries now. They look down on sexual promiscuity but it does happen, but it’s not culturally accepted or encouraged. Family values are very very very strong there. If you get a girl pregnant, you’re expected to stay & figure it out, & start your life building your family.
People say we’ve conquered nature, but honestly nature always wins
pride goes before the fall.
That's why we civilization dose everything to control nature even since agriculture was invented.
Oh no we've definitely got it beat. Its dying and we're going to die with it. This extinction event might the last, in fact. We've done a thorough job.
23:08 I remembered reading about Bogomilism long time ago - a middle ages Christian sect that believed Earth was created by the Devil. Their ideas spread very fast and were hard to remove.
the earth being created by the devil honestly would explain a lot, that and god having one hell of a sense of humor, especially how tough living in the middle ages was and all the pain? no wonder that became a popular
I dont always agree with all of your theoris, but its so refreshing and fun to hear your ideas and to analyse them ! please keep up your work!
Probably the most valuable thing about Rudyard, is that while these are conservative ideas, he's the only conservative you will find who will tell you about them, without sounding like a 60 year old drill sergeant who is reprimanding you for not having cleaned your boots properly. While not all of them do, a few of Jordan Peterson's videos sound like he is lecturing his 18 year old son for taking his car out at night and not coming home until 3 in the morning.
In my experience, negative childhood reinforcement is almost always a very strong prerequisite of conservatism. The fact that Rudyard is able to discuss this philosophy, again, without it coming across as a reprimand of his audience, is both rare and extremely valuable.
I certainly got negative reinforcement, but it was always paired with massive positive reinforcement. How could you possibly think only one side of that equation being used results in a healthy mindset? You need negative, because the world applies it naturally and you need to learn to deal with the world.
It's because science has brought us so much nobody dares to speak out against it
4:00 Chile is Communist?!?!? damn, didn't knew i lived in a communist country, imma check if my student debt is gone.
“Science is bad for society now let me tell you why Christianity is the answer to societies problems”
Whatifthist never gets old lmaoo
Just contradicts himself over and over. It's like he's arguing with the voices inside his own head
@@xRickAstleyx lol
His take is old and derivative, though. He's not the first to have this bad take, and he won't be the last.
"science is bad for society"
describes all the awful fake and flawed "science" that we only know is flawed or biased because someone did good science and proved the truth of the matter.
“And the reason it’s so bad is that I can’t understand the math.”
This is a very timely episode. I appreciate how you find topics of relevance whenever you produce. Thank you, brother. Christ be with you and us.
Great video. I wish you would spend more time on the end part of this video. I think it gets to the reasons why we are in this mess. Does populism work? Or does the iron rule of oligarchy rule over all? From my experience and looking at other nations, other societies, it appears to me that it all comes down to "do the elites of the society actually like the people they rule over or not and do they have skin in the game or not". The essential precondition for a well run society is simple: the elites must like the people, and they must feel that they have skin in the game (ie feel that there will be consequences).
Yes, the end was very captivating and left me wanting more.
Read the populist delusion for your answer about populism.
I'm nearing the end of my Biology degree and we're finally talking about how( at least in the realm of microbiologists and evolution) that for basically every scientific paper written there's about 15 other papers discussing why that paper is wrong or why the people who think it's wrong are wrong. It's fun seeing scientists get into huge fights over literally the tiniest of things.
I get you. Everyday this world amazes me. Nature, history - all of it! Science informs this amazement, enriches it. It is a component but not the very essence of it all.
Bro said antidepressant have no use after reading one book.
I wonder why on Earth I subscribed yo this channel in the first place. Enough is enough.
This might be the most interesting, thought provoking channel I came across on the platform. And I've been actively using RUclips for almost 20 years
Lmfao
It's a sarcasm or what
RUclips is only 17 year old
this is not a good reflection on ur ability to think critically and creatively
@@jayantkumar2314 “almost 20 years”
Bro I agree!
I’m pretty sure a majority of Christians currently and throughout history have interpreted the Bible, New Testament and the story of Jesus in a very literal way. Christians literally believe he was the son of god, that he died and was resurrected and that he will come back to bring hell fire and damnation to sinners. The only time I have seen someone interpreting the Bible, New Testament, or Jesus in a symbolic way is if they are (sometimes closeted) atheist/agnostic. If Christianity did take a more symbolic view of its text and stories then it probably wouldn’t be in such a precipitous decline. It’s incredibly difficult to tell a congregation that the world was created in 7 days, that evolution isn’t real, or that gay marriage will destroy society, when your adherents are presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary outside of church, and expect them to still take you seriously. The cognitive dissonance eventually becomes too great and people decide that they are atheists/agnostic or just adopt some type of alternative spirituality that isn’t riddled with incongruencies.
Stunned. 76, this is the first time I've heard my postulations expressrd by someone other thañ myself and roundly jeered at for decades. 2 am, alone sitting on my lanai, I feel a sense of vindication and thank you.
I am someone who has, largely, built their life on science. I've always studied it, I'm an engineer now, and technology/chemistry are things I like in my free time. This video is awesome. Here I see a man who actually thinks. Now, I try to build everything I know off of empirical evidence, but I have learned that not everything can be learned this way. We're human and we can't know everything, sometimes we need to go with what "seems best", or even just make a choice. There are literally so many things in this video that I like and that impress me, I cannot write it all down. But here are a few things:
1. Scientific ideas are indeed completely misapplied in our society. The common people always try to process scientifically, but exactly as Whatifalthist points out, they can't do this because they don't understand what science is on a fundamental level.
2. Many "scientific" studies cannot be replicated. Now, some fields are better than others. But psychology/med seems... dangerously bad. Chem and physics is generally pretty good. And he didn't even mention p hacking...
3. Life is not meaningless (from an objective standpoint). Indeed, in order to determine this via science you need a very exact and physically measurable way to determine if something is meaningful. My friends, meaning comes from within. We create it. What do you find meaningful?
4. Science has given us a great arrogance.
I would also say this: Science should not make us arrogant. Much of what he described is not a logical response to science, but an emotional one (how ironic!). We *feel* like we are better and more powerful because we are confident in our answers. We *feel* like the world is more boring because we understand so much. The reality is, we feel confident in our answers because we do not estimate our errors (more on that next paragraph), and we feel things are boring because we choose to look at them that way. Science offers us the ability to make incredible wonders - and personally I find it fascinating and exciting to think of what I can create with the scientific knowledge and thoughts I have. Indeed, I create some of these things, as I am an engineer.
For estimating errors, it may be interesting to consider how a drone thinks. Drones do not just know their position and have a full confidence in it - they are always estimating and guessing their position, triple-checking it, and seeing how wrong it is. There is math used so they know how wrong they are. It is a lesson to us humans - that we should consider the likelihood and magnitude of how off our information may be. All measurements have an error, it is never exact.
If in the end, you really have no idea what the truth is, and you must make a choice, then there is one thing you can be certain of: you will learn a lot very soon :)
I'm not a religious person. I have no faith. I have tried very hard to answer my existential questions, and not jump to illogical conclusions. It can be difficult. My point there is - I have no motive to reinforce religious ideas, or any political views. I just am so fed up with how nonsensical and illogical our world today is - and that's why I love this video so much.
Thank you Whatifalthist for bringing your thoughts to the people. You are a smart, knowledgeable man, and a good thinker.
Great comment. Thank you for sharing.
I don't think science has given us great arrogance. Most of the time it humbles us. Compared to many other things like religion who out us at the center and give some or other a superiority or victim complex. From an objective standpoint. Whether something has meaning or not is subjective. Science doesn't even make a claim of something is meaningful or not unless we are talking towards a goal we want
@@hopeintruth5119 You're taking that into account of scientist however we are talking in relation to the common woman or man on the street which often see science akin to tribalistic sports so long as we have the best gadget and most money we must be smart thatis the general thinking many in intelligencia meet when it comes to science in general
@@jackhhun2698 what? The regular people misconstrued science a lot. From biology to medicine, from physics to psychology. Ton sof regular me and women misconstrued science a lot. You know the amount of people that say " survival of the fittest" and take it as whoever is strongest lives the longest or gets the food. When In reality it means the animals who are most well equipped for the environment and pressure they are in survives.
You know how many of these " alpha" men misconstrued wolf pack structures.
You know how many sports work out people misconstrued health facts about vitamins, fat, and protein.
You know how many people who are anti- vax don't even understand how vaccines work.
Don't let me get into the fact on how many conservatives use extremely old outdated data to try to conform to their own outdated beliefs.
Computer Engineer here, I feel the exact same ways.
you should make an entire video just listing the books you recommend, I would actually watch that.
He’s one of the few youtubers you can have faith in
If you check the majority of authors he cites are hacks, plagiarists, and conmen.
@@desdenova1 Who isn't?
This was probably one of your best videos yet.
I would love to see a argument between you and Knowing Better.
I fully second this. I think it would be very interesting and constructive to hear what they each have to say.
Ha! That would be good! The definitive clash between ideology derived from research, and research shaped by ideology.
DUUUUUUUUUDE!!! THATS AN AMAZING IDEA!!! WhatIfAltHist would be like, and then i hiled the Appalachian trail, which was the hardest but most rewarding thing i have done in my life, where i found god and learned that i wanted to be ben shapiro when i grow up.... KnowingBetter would be like: lets get back to your point about how modern america will fall into a massive civil war which republicans will win due to democrats decadance and how that is supported by examples like the Taiping rebellion, the agricultural revolution and the Hittite sack of Babylon in the bronze age....
@@TheBackslash1 Now if only you could tell which is which
I’m working on a film called Distance, it’s a four to five year journey where me and some friends will find a modern way of creating an American myth. The present is now and it is truly interesting.
I believe so firmly that this is the "positive discourse", that some people I know that identify as "left" and some "right" really MUST understand in order for us to move forward as a species. This gentleman is making one of the best attempts I have seen at bringing that to a reality. MASSIVE kudos in my book.
Modern technology can be misused very easily by unethical people.
First they go after the most vulnerable people. And then everyone else.
But back in the Middle Ages there was a cultural assumption that if someone did that, they would face punishment in the end. And be rewarded, if they didn't.
So, it gave people more motivation to make the best decisions possible.
Ironic this dropped RIGHT on the same day when the USA had a breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion
The UK had one last month it literally happens about once a month they get slightly closer to it each time
But DID they?
It was a political announcement. It mentioned nukes for the pentagon. China was the main character in the conference
China and Germany and UK both had more energy out then input discoveries recently
What if it's another deadend
At first I thought you were completely wrong and there is no significant negative effects. Now I see why you made this video. You have shown me that all I need is to stop viewing this world as depressing place worth only to progress in science and it won't be so. Not everything has to be perfect and strict like the Iron rule, sometimes all you need is to be happy.
The world we live in today is sterilized, now wonder we are all so depressed and detached
Hey bro, congrats on your relationship with Lord Miles!
Our love knows no bounds
"But now we are designing social policies around something that a bunch of literature majors kinda made up"
So, who's gonna tell him that "west" have been making policies around something that a bunch of shepards kinda made up for millennia?
To your point about antidepressants, I literally just spoke with a psychiatrist who straight up told me that she only sees some patients benefit from SSRI medication, and even then she chalks it up primarily to the placebo effect lol
"How science negatively impacted the world"
"In contrast to humanities science has the Iron rule that you only follow the evidence."
"Now here is a bunch of examples how humanities cocked up the world because they didn't even bother with that rule. But I will attribute that to a lack of "common aense" instead."
"Hurr look how big space is, we so insignificant"
My son, you're literally the only known species that can marvel at the cosmos. You're extremely significant.
lets hope to god we are the only species that can. i don't want warhammer 40k IRL lol
@@sovietunion7643 if not the the God Emperor shall come and lead our species on a glorious crusade to cease the xenos from the cosmos as it id the destiny of man to rule over all.
The video contradicted itself over and over 😂 pretty trippy high listening to this after an edible tho 😆
Regarding experiments that seem to decide between two theories: even their decisiveness must be revisited sometimes. For example, in 1802 Young's famous 2-slit experiment seemed to decide absolutely in favour of Huygens' wave theory of light against Newton's particle theory. Over the rest of the 19th century, more and more evidence stacked up in favour of the wave theory. However, in 1905, Einstein found that the photoelectric effect needed an explanation akin to a particle theory. This was the beginning of the wave-particle duality of quantum theory.
"SCIENCE CANNOT EXPLAIN SOCIAL THINGS"
"THERES NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR GENDER"
holy shit you can't make this shit up LOL
Ehh
I'm a physics major and I can tell you right now that the 'greatest theoretical prediction of any theory' is built on fudging data and using infinite series to arrive at any value they want via adjusting coefficients. It is the magnetic moment of an electron; every time the 'theory' predicted a value, a better experiment showed the value was way off from prediction; then they 'adjusted their calculation' and brought the value inline with experiment. This continued like 10 times in a row. It is so blatant and I'm pretty sure every fellow graduate student knows this, we just don't say anything lest it bring the entire edifice down
I completely agree with everything you said expect one thing - the conclusion. The more I learn about our history and how to world really works, Its hard to escape the conclusion that everyone lived in their own mass hysteria and shared fantasy - in other words they were all crazy. All their relives, ideologue, reasoning and thought were just made up and make no sense. And the sad part is that this is what allowed us to get here - people can't exists "healthy" unless they believe in imaginary ideas which give their life fake meaning. I started learning about history trying to find answers, all I find is sick people doing sick shit to each other.
History is quite bad at identifying why good things happen, but is very good at identifying why things go badly, which often makes things seem much worse than they really are. If you want something impersonal, you could try Paul Kennedy's "rise and fall of the great powers".
This problem only cropped up recently, when we became aware of our own existence. Maybe just the last 75,000 years.
Since that happened, no one is happy.
If we are all "sick," then no one is sick. It's who we are.
Meaning has always only existed in our own heads, but that does not make it fake, or dispensable.
This is true, but I'm one of those people
I'm reminded of Terry Praychett's _Reaper Man, Hogfather,_ and _Thief of Time._ All three are about meaning, and have as their antagonists the Auditors of Reality, entities that would be personifications of the laws of physics, if only one could isolate a dram of personification.
alternate history where the US annexed canada - 1st consequence: whatifalthist sticks to making alternate history vids instead of trying to change the world so that the US will annex canada
16:08 I find this part of the video to be quite strange. "We are the only historical era I know of that views the world as a boring place." What is this statement based on? I feel like it's quite the opposite. People are overstimulated, and boredom is an important part of the human experience. It's part of what drives people to create new things.
You then say, "You can see this in our pop culture in which whenever we have adventure/interesting stories, we put them in fantasy worlds." But then you go on to say at 17:29 "I view the world I live and walk through as if it was a fantasy novel."
17:43 "There's really no logical reason to not the view the world that way." Have you really deeply questioned what interests you and why you're interested in what you're interested in? Interest as a phenomenon is far more irrational than you might think. It's what drives people to choose certain careers. It's what drives people to pick up different hobbies.
Whenever whatifalthist says "the reality is" / "the truth is", that's when you know he's BSing.
This sort of reminds me of classical postmodernism, which is an interesting philosophy you might want to make a video on!
I like listening to you because you provide me with new tools for my toolset on how to analyze and understand the world.
This guy is not wrong but also really detached
"Trust the science."
Said by idots that can't do 2+2 and pretend to be in right alway. Any refernece to novax is not causual.
I prefer to trust god
@@colinthiel1283 you prefer deadly chaos.
God cannot save us. Order cannot save us. We cannot even save ourselves. Will you weep? Or will you fight?
Trust gays
Great vid! Look forward to next one
You're not describing the affects of science. You're describing the affects of the industrial revolution and modern capitalism. Science has existed since ancient Greece.
He's talking about modern science.
@@horsepowermultimediaas molded by modern capitalism, yes. That's what they said
@@XavIsOnline Modern capitalism is definitely one of many factors, especially with big corporations funding several studies.
If only we could have communism, because surely the government would do a better job being objective and funding good science.