I find that this can happen even in RUclips comments. I share a thought and people pounce on it making presumptions about me instead of engaging in the actual discussion.
Andrea's Number Perhaps they were never interested in having an actual conversation. If they go on to you for stating your mind on the subject or expressing your opinion of it (provided it's a valuable expression and not the dim "I don't like it"), you better pack your thoughts and go where they'd be appreciated: you can't build a house in a swamp.
I always got shot down by professors at school when trying to make a point. "When you will study for bla bla years, and gain the right to be at this table i'm standing at, then you can say your thing". As if my perception abilities are limited by some social rank. Same when dealing criticism in other parts. "After you gain X subscribers/do X money from your art/etc, you can voice your opinion". Bullshit.
Because a highly educated person is more likely to have a correct view over his field of study than you. This video regards every day disputes and social juncture. It doesn't say that having an oppinion always means you are right.
Silver Nuke Of course it doesn't. I can't argue with you on that, since i am not aware of the circumstances. Yet it is probably a good idea for you to reconsider your ideas and take into account the probability, that you might be wrong.
+Silver Nuke It's possible that most people don't know what they're talking about so shutting out a majority is more helpful to the professor than it is to you. It's unfair but it makes sense because it helps with avoiding a lot of the stress when discussing certain subjects with the layman (which your prof. saw you as, because you were just another student). Maybe your points weren't perfect? Not every idea is a good one, right? If they were, the only advice I can think of is to focus on making fewer but more profound points. Less information to convey is more information to understand.
This video was very well made indeed. Nowadays because of "everybody has its own opinion" ideology, we stopped trying to justify with logic arguments what make us thing the way we think. Therefore we become more empty, in and outside an argument. Which is very sad.
If you take a taxi in Istanbul you better begin a nice chat with the taxi driver since you will be sharing at least one hour of your lives together because of the traffic jam. From my experience, if you are genuinely interested in the other person's opinions and really curious about his life, he'll sense this of course. You'll learn all sorts of things from him and may be he also will find you interesting. He won't ask you "who do you think that you are". So I think the way people feel about our arguments has a lot to do with the way we present them. If we seem like pedant or over confident, this leaves no room for the other person. Since nowadays everyone's entire identity is based around their status , people feel threatened and intimidated very easily. Many intellectuals are also to blame for this, since they use their knowledge as "power", rather than just as a tool to offer the other person another perspective which could be very helpful to him. But I agree with the point of this video too. The people who work for this channel are always really very kind . But despite this fact, there are still some people under TSOL videos saying " who do you think that you are" to them. So that must really be due to a fear of being told what to think. But I guess it is also due to an intellectual laziness: It is easier to say " nothing is certain and no conclusions can be made". Because if you are committed to a more virtuous life, you will not only have to focus properly and think hard and come to conclusions for yourself, but you'll also have to live by them!
gabriel d Hola Gabriel! Thank you for reading and for your kind question! Well, thanks to this channel I am a very loyal and very grateful student of The School of Life:-)
Lua Veli i have watched almost every video this channel has published and in which it is not very hard to find you in a comment box writing something very beautiful very interesting, May i know are you a professional writer and if yes than i would love to read your work.
I felt a cool wave of relief as I watched this. I've always believed this sort of thinking to be true but mostly found myself arguing with people that deny any unscientific argument. Thank you so very very much!
Hi There Roger Steven Pinker mentioned in one of his talks that the term "scientific" should maybe be understood in a broader sense sometimes to include arguments that may not be directly consist of empirical evidence alone, but also of careful & consistent application of logic and reason.
***** Sadly, people aren't born with such vision: that the world is not solely theirs or wrong, that someone could have an opinion different from their own and still be right. Do you have an idea over why is that so, or why many people aren't getting it even when they're old?
Not all opinions should be. If we turn a blind eye to whats wrong and just live according to your own values and perceptions without thinking about or listening to others well just live in a world were people do whatever they want and believe what they want without stability and without the knowledge or wisdom of others, who may have more just and moral opinions and views, etc. There are purposeful and just reasons to sway one to their views, especially if its for the benefit and good of all, or if its moral, just, or shoot, just "true".
This is one of my favorite videos on your channel so far (how to make a country richer is my favorite). I've tried to explain this concept to people several times and no one seems to get it. You explain it very eloquently here. Thanks!
Even Freidrich Neitzche states that humanity has turned science into a new religion in a sense trying to prosecute anyone who questions it, science should be a tool for humanity, not humanity be a tool for science.
Probably because you keep spouting your half-baked, uninformed geopolitical, ideological and ontological theoretical bullshit all the time. Get that on a t-shirt.
Ross Lowther Have you ever stopped to wonder that maybe you are the one spouting that bull shit and not me? I believe people like you, who can't take opposing opinions without exploding into anger, is why no on likes to entertain ideas anymore. We have to tip tow around people like you, who thinks everyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong by default.
Roger Scruton has a documentary called 'Why Beauty Matters'. Please watch it! People don't believe in truth outside of facts. If it is not a fact, it is considered an opinion. Because I believe that there are other ways we can understand truth, this is very draining to me. I just want to talk about why certain things are good and share my love for something. But I constantly get, the "Who are you to say?" My heart breaks when people think that I'm trying to oppress them. Beauty persuades us. I'm not talking about superficial beauty, although it does too. What I'm saying is that when we perceive something to be beautiful, we believe it to be good. It is an argument of demonstration rather than dialect. It is the power of storytelling. This is why we understand the victory over the bad to be good, because it's beautiful. This is how we understand love to be wonderful, because understand it to be beautiful. Our human understanding is so wrapped in what what we perceive as beautiful, that the plane of our human understanding cannot leave its scope. When I try to have a conversation with people about this, it's usually dismissed as, "But how can we understand something so subjective? Who's to say?" But there are other ways of understanding our reality other than fact or opinion. You can be persuaded. We can _come to know_ and understand something. We can seek wisdom by slow virtue. This is why Scruton's documentary 'Why Beauty Matters' is so good! It barely touches the tip of the iceberg as to why beauty is so important. But in that documentary alone, it gives some sound arguments as to why. I feel like the more I learn, the more I become separated from society because this way of thinking is beyond foreign. But the more I learn, the more I learn about our humanity.
+SimplyMayaB Being neutral is not something that De Bottom (Narrator) mentioned nor implied, he simply said that we should discuss our opinions, ask questions and trying to find an agreement or what caused the disagreement to get a stronger opinion and not just shutdown the debate because things are relative, you will ALWAYS have an opinion, you just need to "clean it" with discussion :) Revolution I would say, begins because discussions failed, thus, we should try to improve the way we debate :)
Realists are concerned with the practical application of morals, while realists need to keep the realists in check by periodically reminding them that nothing is universal? I think they're perfect for each other, don't see where the problem is.
+nick volta I consider my self a moral relativists, because unless you've had a conversation with some fourth dimensional creature, who gave you the reason(s) for existence, it's the most logical stance to take. I also consider myself a selfserving individual. And in the modern world, then what's good for the 99%, is also usually good for me. If it's not safe to walk the streets for my classmates, it's not safe for me. Even globally, the same holds true. If people are unsafe in their homes, then they'll migrate and make you unsafe in yours. I can argue with anyone and everyone applying this principle I get that we all feel love and empathy, and from what we develop different levels of morality. But it doesn't belong in debate.
I get this alot when I make comments or suggestions for school rules or behavior plans or classroom strategies. People say 'Who are you to say that? You're just the music teacher!' or 'Who are you to say that? You don't have enough experience!' I used to be filled with such self-doubt, but now I reflect on the fact that those comments say more about them then they do about me!
We'd be in a lot better situation if rhetoric and debate were taught in schools. At least then we might be able to explain to people that calling someone names in response to something you don't like is a logical fallacy, not liberals/conservatives being wimps or some such.
My Dad would say; "the more you argue with someone the more you persuade them of their on argument." which, from what my understanding of this video is, the same thing (of sorts). Essentially the same vein of thought. I like you guys at The School of Life, keep up the good work :)
Dear TSOL, infinity cannot be explained by inferior human language because it has a finite number of words, but I hope I am comprehensive enough when I say, that the thought process of me and my friends is almost 100% the same as yours. Thank you for touching such cryptic concepts of life which the normal folk tend to ignore so easily. We wish we could converse with your think tank, sometime in future... keep up the good work....
the background music is so soothing and tranquil that i zoned out and had to watch the video about 3 or 4 times to understand it lol i love the animation in all of these btw
***** I think this video makes scientists out to be bunch of snobs by confusing science, which is systematic study, which as a rule, has to be replicated in order to be considered plausible, and opinion. I agree with what this has to say about opinion, but I don't like how this portrays science; frankly; science doesn't progress thanks to a bunch of lone geniuses who had a bunch of "Who are you to say that?" doubters, I think that's a misconception; it progresses thanks to systematic study. Those who get told "who are you to say that?" in science are often, NOT ALWAYS, charlatans and con artists. Then again, who am I to say that?
It is surely more challenging to present an argument when the data is murky, like disusing the subject of trust or love. But even subjects that can be answered by science doesn't have it that easy either. There is data and there is statistics involved. You have to understand concepts like sample size, error bar and such. It is just that most people are not trained in making any sort of good argument, scientific or otherwise.
Another good motion picture from the one and only on RUclips, The School of Life. Their power is our perception of their power, no one has any power that we don't give them. We give them all the power that they have. A statement that relates to what this video is about.
I think the historical reason you gave for the reason why people get impatient about value judgement isn't quite right. I think it's more because when people say they don't like something, they'll call it bad, which implies that anyone who disagrees has bad taste. This unintentional insult it what leads to arguments about these value judgments.
From a stoner philosopher trying to cope with, and understand life, objectively: This video got me thinking on Sam Harris TED Talk about moral relativism. I agree mostly with his ideas. He manages to be much more elaborate on the topic than me, but I will to NOT TO surpress my anxieties and neuroses about writing and communicating my ideas with others on big questions that the school of life frequently touch upon. Anyway here it goes. The idea of there not being anything objectively good, I find is an abdication of responsibility toward bettering the human race. We have so much bad within us that caused so much bad on this planet. But we are also gifted with the ability to plan ahead and use science to understand both or outer world but aslo our inner world. We can through these means understand what makes most humans to certain events and draw conclusions from them on what is bad and less bad to do in a citation, and thereby try to find a common denominator in which you can coexist with the rest of the human race. We admit that we dont know everything but through investigation, questioning and reason, we can find something that is "objectively" better. These somewhat fuzzy and confusing thoughts, that i get from watching "the school of life" channel, help me cope with my obssesive compulsion to understand my place in the world and getting an "objective" view of life.
"Disobedience is a demand for change" and "change is the essential process of all existence" That last bit was Spock in ep. let that be your last battlefield --- boo yah!
Wow... I needed this video. I've got a friend who happens to be a well read chap and he is really a mobile library but he does not seem to have an opinion of his own... He lacks critical thinking. Every time I put an assumption into question he yawns and dodges it. I felt that he feels humiliated by the fact that he can't think things through and comes with a "who are you to say that" when such and such have discussed it in such and such book .
Perhaps some questions have no definable or definite answers. Perhaps due to the incredible individuality of each and every human being there can never be a concrete answer to the greatest mysteries of life. I rather like that idea. It makes life more interesting and mysterious.
Science can help to answer the questions you mentioned. By gathering data over time and through analysis we can determine which inputs produce the most desired outputs. In fact, correct me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that this is already the case for every single question you suggested. Keep up the vids tho:) very thought provoking and enjoyable.
May Science can settle these questions. Our understanding and the science behind these topics just have to evolve into those realms. We can then finally start asking and testing these questions to then give answers.
My thoughts are still hanging on the "say anything with confidence and people will shun you as they recall the worse kings and party leaders". Is that the reason? As far as I know, confidence is what attracts others to you, even if you're shite in whatever field you're in. This is a common advice of a way to get the job: be confident, even if you know nothing about the bloody thing. Do you not think, too, that Hitler was only able to amass such an army of followers due to his visionary approach to the fine details of human soul? He seemed quite convinced in whatever he was doing was as right as it can be. It's not to say that I disagree with the main thought: that even if it's hard, painful or uncomfortable, you should address whatever issue you deem important or urgent. Yet, I believe that confidence is part of the way, not solely diplomacy: it is how you show how you believe in whatever you're saying; if your point is to convince others that it's a subject worth exploring or deciding upon, being confident about your ideas seems to me to be the best way.
While no angle should ever be left unstudied, this articulates an healthy way to think of subjective discussion. One of life's biggest headaches comes from people's general discomfort of giving credit to ideas that make a better case and more sense. It doesn't matter if I'm talking humanitarian aid, sex-ed or which sports team is more interesting to watch with friends, I can bet my last dollar there will be someone in almost every circle ready to snip the tongue out of our conversation with something like "Well, that's just your opinion. We all have one." I even have to remind myself regularly that someone being confident in a grey area doesn't mean they're stifling my opinion just because "truth's relative, man."
Right before I watched this video I was thinking something about science that could have made it seem like I meant something negative, so I cleared up my thoughts and I added something positive to my statements, to be polite.
I often find myself, as a politics student, arguing with my friends who study history about whether I'm even *allowed* to make value judgements; as historians they will always retort with arguments for relativism. But this is exactly the video I needed to send to them.
a relevant question is how you make people give a shit, or at least take into consideration by engaging their curiosity. I think this is the way progress is made, we should encourage it.
Very interesting video, I totally agree on how we all seem to fight around subjective or complex matters and discourage other's opinions with "you can't proof it". At the same time I find a bit contradictory the denial of the relevance of faith and religion in people's lifes. It is not a matter of being dogmatic but of asking oneself one of those questions with difficult answers: what is the meaning of life? Is this everything there is? Is there a god? I don't see why The School of Life seems to put that always under the category of dogmatic or dictatorships and refuse to acknowledge it's importance in our society...
“It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible.” -Aristotle
The best thing I've learnt so far is even subjective statement can be pass under test of "contradictions" if anything contradicts with that statement then say goodbye to it.
I can't believe that this narrator can with a straight face praise democracy immediately after acknowledging that rulers fail to use reasoning in their positions. What part about democracy is reasoned? It's nothing more than appeal to popularity. It's literally rule by masses. Many of the videos in this series are quite impartial, but the phrase "democratic discourse" only goes to show the inherent bias here.
+The School of Life fair enough. I think most of my beef comes with strict adherence to democracy, which doesn't really carry moral superiority to other forms of rule. I do appreciate your openness with respect to a bit of a dissenting opinion. Most would not afford that opportunity.
+The School of Life "emotional intelligence" implies you prefer a pathos to a logos argument. While it can be effective it creates the MOB MIND SET as well, where people turn reason off to appeal to the popularity of the mob. In practice that tends very much to be devoid of "wisdom and kindness". While we must not ignore emotion, we must also not let it over ride reason.
+James Adams In the world of statistics, there is a mathematical theorem called the central limit theorem. One of its consequences is that if your voters have a random chance of picking the correct option in a yes/no vote and they are just slightly more accurate than coins, the outcome of a vote with many voters will be more likely to be correct than any single voter. Of course, this assumes that your voters are smarter than coins and that their votes are independent. If they are dumber than coins, you get the opposite. If the votes are not independent (say, everyone votes for what that one guy told them to) you also lose the benefit. But voting is certainly one of these cases where you can make a solid logical argument from science that it is superior to the alternatives.
Are you saying that humans are incapable? I'm not sure of your point. Anyways, the more people who earnestly try, the better off we are. We shouldn't assume it's too idealistic or preposterous, and so not even try to be decent
I think you're so jaded by malevolent human behavior that you confuse it with human nature which is a very different thing. Humans are not naturally aberrant, indecent, or violent and it should be understood that the old Christian "humans are naturally evil" argument is very outdated.
I am free to speak of (and act upon) the ideas born of my mind any where, any time, but there is likely to be somebody who disagrees. A fact and opinion make some your friends, others indifferent, and others your enemies. This is both the boon and the bane of what it means to be human. This is only one's philosophical outlook though.
There is one justifiable answer to the question of "Who are you to say that?!" which should demand a certain level of attention from others: "I'm a person with good arguments". Other than that, who we are obviously never matters. Reasons matter. Whether they are reasons in the form of scientific evidence or reasons that are derived from/constructed on the basis of logical extrapolation.
That's actually a very sound apology for the existence of social science, magnificently done, congratulations! Though I would argue that the reason we trust 'pure science' is more due to ideology (science can be trusted) than its inherent truth - at the frontline of physics, math or chemistry there's some really weird stuff going on, we just don't hear about it because its abstracted into formal and symbolic languages. Not to mention the sheer number of 'facts' which stem from situational, badly performed and methodologically weak researches.
I would say those questions are not outside the realm of science. Neuroscience can shed light on what we find to be pleasing to the eye (nice cities, attractive buildings), as well as what generally enhance our sense of well being in connection to others (relationships), and how cognition and childhood learning develops (education). What businesses should focus on depends highly on values (standard of living, better technology, medicine, poverty, the environment, etc). There is always room for dissent and opinion, of course, but at the same time we need to acknowledge that a well reasoned argument can be made about almost anything, and that science gives us a chance to shed some objectivity onto the subject.
It reminds me of how the issue of value was adressed by robert m. pirsig in "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance", you narrator, would probably enjoy aknowledging the metaphysics of quality. That is, if you don't know it already.
It also shows that a lot of people still require a certain form of absolute authority for them to accept any notion about anything. It's really sad and though it stems from different times, it also has a lot to do with todays anti-intellectualism and not being able to think up anything on your own.
I also find that many people only seem to be relativists when you disagree with them. They can go on at length about why, for example, their favourite musician is so wonderful, but the moment you point out that musicians flaws, then they'll give you the whole "art is subjective" speech. However, you never get this when you also think their favourite musician is (objectively) great. I find this also happens when I tell people that something they like has been panned by critics. Who are critics, who have spent far more time studying the medium, to say whether a work of art is good or bad or not? Again, when their opinion agree with that of critics, they consider it to be a confirmation of their good taste. My conclusion is that most people would rather throw out any possibility of objective discourse surrounding art than admit they might have bad taste.
AlG214 Just to make it clear, I don't think that I'm some objective barometer of taste and anyone that disagrees with me is stupid and wrong. I admit that I like a lot of art that isn't great, dislike a lot of art that is and there are great swathes of art that I totally ignorant of. This is why I respect and listen to critics.
if people say things like that to me in certain situations, mainly on topics to do with perhaps with social issues such as crime, often they ask what my qualifications are in an attempt to debase my solutions. I point out that the so called experts are clueless to solve the problems, so it is obvious they have no idea what they are doing, and that their apparent education and experience is meaningless as it has not solved the problem. So it is apparent that all that education is irrelevant.
The ability to recognize optimal sets of solutions rather than narrowly focusing on linear, one size fits all based on a particular result of a particular measurement, is a hallmark of intelligence.
2:44 * _What should children learn at school?_ Know thyself, Character building, Relationships, How to think critically, How to apply the scientific method, and other fundamental things. * _What's a good relationship?_ A genuinely friendly one. * _How should we build nice cities?_ Collectively (with input from the collective using the cloud). * _What's an attractive building?_ Query the collective of a given region/locale to find out (i.e., present designs and let the collective choose). * _What should businesses concentrate on?_ Depends on what phase the business is at, how large the business is, the type of product/service it provides etc, But overall, focus on building the best product of service possible. * _How should bosses behave towards workers?_ Good (as opposed to _Bad_ or _Ugly_).. i.e., In a way that promotes both the business and the betterment/well being of the employee.
The School of Life, you should check, if you haven't already, Sam Harris' work on how science can answer moral questions. I do agree that right now plenty of questions are out of the realm of science as you say, but it's just a matter of time.
I think science can answer a lot(if not all) of those questions. For example should kids learn an extra language in school because being bilingual makes them cognitive stronger throughout their lives.
I hope you are wrong that people, in general, are willing to accept the findings of a scientific experiment as fact. I am trying my hardest to get students to engage in critical thinking, and a part of critical thinking is to examine the findings of an experiment to determine how reliable they are. Even a layperson can look at many pertinent aspects of the study to decide whether to believe the findings (too numerous to mention here). Moreover, I think it is also important to dispel the idea that science is incontrovertible fact. I know the philosophy of science is a complicated topic, and I'm no expert, but I've always found useful Karl Popper's definition of what makes something a scientific hypothesis: it has to be capable of being falsified. In theory it can never be proven right once and for all because there is always another experiment waiting around the corner to disprove it. I think Popper can help lay people understand the tentative nature of science, so they understand why one week a study presents findings that show a particular food item is good for us, and a few months later another study presents findings that show the reverse. And then there is the scientific paradigm. Thomas Kuhn has a very convincing theory of the way science really works, which has more to do with metaphor or analogy and little to do with fact. My studies over the years have led me to the conclusion that there is very little, if anything, we can say about the world with any certainty, and that includes from a scientific viewpoint. I'm not saying we should remain in limbo because of this; I'm just saying it's misguided to treat scientific knowledge as fact, and I'm grateful to philosophy for teaching me to be critical and questioning of the assumptions of every academic (and non-academic) discipline.
Its an issue of people not recognizing that 'subjective' topics are actually more subtly scientific and logical given some very fundamental intrinsic values. In fact, science wouldn't even have any extrinsic value without those intrinsic values. (and this would apply to everything else with extrinsic value) And the extrinsic values of science (applications) are often a big reason a lot of people value it rather than science's intrinsic value (curiosity).
The notion that religions, kings, and professionals of the past has created this state of affairs is rather difficult to defend, especially since most people readily embraced the orthodoxy of the day. It is not that rejection of non-scientific authorities in the past has made people afraid to debate ideas, it is the popular idealization of science that has done this. With positivism accepted as the new orthodoxy (replacing prior non-scientific orthodoxies), talk of "good" debates over essentially unanswerable questions will be met with derision. In effect, positivist people DO have an opinion on these non-positive issues, they believe that any other opinion on such a matter is meaningless and has no truth value. This opinion may sound arrogant, but they can ably defend there position.
i would venture to say "who are you to say that?" is a form of ad hominem response - deflecting the validity of the stance, and rather than attack the position, it's an attack on the person's authority/social status.
This reminds me of some points made my Charles Taylor in "The Ethics of Authenticity". Has anybody read it? I think it's a really important book and was ahead in its time in some ways, shame its so tough to read!
it is really hard sometimes, cause everything has to be prefaced with "this is just my opinion" or has to be phrased so delicately without offending anyone. not saying i don't approve of saying things in the nicest most considerate way possible, you see i'm so afraid of even writing this i can barely finish making my attempt at a point. we'll never get anywhere if people can't say anything :(
who are you to say that? is an ad hominum (insult based fallicy i forget the spelling of) which is irrelivant, i think its usually emotionally charged like in this video rather than logically... great video
Is scientific judgement free of subjectivity? Paul Feyerabend has made great progress to highlight the subjectivity of Science, viz. he dethroned science and positivism.
Sometimes it's good to be "elitist and snobbish", it means that you admit that you think your opinion is better than someone else's - everyone is a snob in their own way, so I wouldn't be too fussed about being judged one.
In short, I believe you're entitled to what you can defend/justify with a sound argument, logic, and reason.
Sofia Dorrell People are entitled to feel or think however they want. No one has to defend themselves to you or anyone else.
Lol
Um no. EVIDENCE. We need to add evidence to that list. Humans are fundamentally illogical and not capable of rational anything.
I find that this can happen even in RUclips comments. I share a thought and people pounce on it making presumptions about me instead of engaging in the actual discussion.
Andrea's Number Perhaps they were never interested in having an actual conversation. If they go on to you for stating your mind on the subject or expressing your opinion of it (provided it's a valuable expression and not the dim "I don't like it"), you better pack your thoughts and go where they'd be appreciated: you can't build a house in a swamp.
+Andrea Mai Creative which im sure you never do
miaowmiaowchowface Maybe, maybe not. But you just did
+Andrea Mai I know, sometimes I feel like it's better simply not to have an opinion.
+Max Gamer ... That too is an opinion.
I always got shot down by professors at school when trying to make a point. "When you will study for bla bla years, and gain the right to be at this table i'm standing at, then you can say your thing". As if my perception abilities are limited by some social rank.
Same when dealing criticism in other parts. "After you gain X subscribers/do X money from your art/etc, you can voice your opinion". Bullshit.
Because a highly educated person is more likely to have a correct view over his field of study than you.
This video regards every day disputes and social juncture. It doesn't say that having an oppinion always means you are right.
Любо Манолов
Yes, but specialized people are also prone to certain cognitive biases. More likely doesn't make me wrong either.
Silver Nuke Of course it doesn't. I can't argue with you on that, since i am not aware of the circumstances.
Yet it is probably a good idea for you to reconsider your ideas and take into account the probability, that you might be wrong.
Любо Манолов
Sure but to me it just seemed like they abused authority
+Silver Nuke It's possible that most people don't know what they're talking about so shutting out a majority is more helpful to the professor than it is to you. It's unfair but it makes sense because it helps with avoiding a lot of the stress when discussing certain subjects with the layman (which your prof. saw you as, because you were just another student).
Maybe your points weren't perfect? Not every idea is a good one, right? If they were, the only advice I can think of is to focus on making fewer but more profound points. Less information to convey is more information to understand.
This video was very well made indeed. Nowadays because of "everybody has its own opinion" ideology, we stopped trying to justify with logic arguments what make us thing the way we think. Therefore we become more empty, in and outside an argument. Which is very sad.
Thats just your opinion
This is why I hate when people call me pretentious for simply holding an opinion and arguing it, whilst respecting the other party's beliefs.
If you take a taxi in Istanbul you better begin a nice chat with the taxi driver since you will be sharing at least one hour of your lives together because of the traffic jam. From my experience, if you are genuinely interested in the other person's opinions and really curious about his life, he'll sense this of course.
You'll learn all sorts of things from him and may be he also will find you interesting. He won't ask you "who do you think that you are". So I think the way people feel about our arguments has a lot to do with the way we present them. If we seem like pedant or over confident, this leaves no room for the other person. Since nowadays everyone's entire identity is based around their status , people feel threatened and intimidated very easily. Many intellectuals are also to blame for this, since they use their knowledge as "power", rather than just as a tool to offer the other person another perspective which could be very helpful to him.
But I agree with the point of this video too. The people who work for this channel are always really very kind . But despite this fact, there are still some people under TSOL videos saying " who do you think that you are" to them. So that must really be due to a fear of being told what to think. But I guess it is also due to an intellectual laziness: It is easier to say " nothing is certain and no conclusions can be made". Because if you are committed to a more virtuous life, you will not only have to focus properly and think hard and come to conclusions for yourself, but you'll also have to live by them!
Tunç B. Doğan Hakikaten öyle! Belki anlasiyoruz, belki anlasamiyoruz ama hic olmazsa her konuda konusabiliyoruz:-)
***** if you don't mind my asking, are you a member of the school of life? I have the feeling that you are
gabriel d Hola Gabriel! Thank you for reading and for your kind question! Well, thanks to this channel I am a very loyal and very grateful student of
The School of Life:-)
Lua Veli i have watched almost every video this channel has published and in which it is not very hard to find you in a comment box writing something very beautiful very interesting, May i know are you a professional writer and if yes than i would love to read your work.
After watching the videos in this chanel I always search for your comments. I find complementary wisdom in your writings.
I felt a cool wave of relief as I watched this. I've always believed this sort of thinking to be true but mostly found myself arguing with people that deny any unscientific argument. Thank you so very very much!
Hi There Roger Steven Pinker mentioned in one of his talks that the term "scientific" should maybe be understood in a broader sense sometimes to include arguments that may not be directly consist of empirical evidence alone, but also of careful & consistent application of logic and reason.
But some people forget that it's just their opinion. That's why it annoys people.
***** Sadly, people aren't born with such vision: that the world is not solely theirs or wrong, that someone could have an opinion different from their own and still be right. Do you have an idea over why is that so, or why many people aren't getting it even when they're old?
Not all opinions should be. If we turn a blind eye to whats wrong and just live according to your own values and perceptions without thinking about or listening to others well just live in a world were people do whatever they want and believe what they want without stability and without the knowledge or wisdom of others, who may have more just and moral opinions and views, etc. There are purposeful and just reasons to sway one to their views, especially if its for the benefit and good of all, or if its moral, just, or shoot, just "true".
This is one of my favorite videos on your channel so far (how to make a country richer is my favorite). I've tried to explain this concept to people several times and no one seems to get it. You explain it very eloquently here. Thanks!
I feel like this message is seriously important for promoting philosophy, and to protect it from the dreaded Newton's flaming laser sword.
Even Freidrich Neitzche states that humanity has turned science into a new religion in a sense trying to prosecute anyone who questions it, science should be a tool for humanity, not humanity be a tool for science.
If someone answers to me by "Who are you to say that?".
I cease communication with that person.
Problem solved.
And they don't pester you afterwards? Do you tell them why?
What ever happened to people entertaining ideas for discussion? whether they be pointless or not.
Gamefollower:
I think i will have your quote put on a T-shirt. It is perfect. Thank you!!
Probably because you keep spouting your half-baked, uninformed geopolitical, ideological and ontological theoretical bullshit all the time. Get that on a t-shirt.
Ross Lowther Have you ever stopped to wonder that maybe you are the one spouting that bull shit and not me? I believe people like you, who can't take opposing opinions without exploding into anger, is why no on likes to entertain ideas anymore. We have to tip tow around people like you, who thinks everyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong by default.
i do it all the time it's called trolling
Well they do say there is no stupid questions, however, there can be stupid people..
Roger Scruton has a documentary called 'Why Beauty Matters'. Please watch it! People don't believe in truth outside of facts. If it is not a fact, it is considered an opinion. Because I believe that there are other ways we can understand truth, this is very draining to me. I just want to talk about why certain things are good and share my love for something. But I constantly get, the "Who are you to say?" My heart breaks when people think that I'm trying to oppress them.
Beauty persuades us. I'm not talking about superficial beauty, although it does too. What I'm saying is that when we perceive something to be beautiful, we believe it to be good. It is an argument of demonstration rather than dialect. It is the power of storytelling. This is why we understand the victory over the bad to be good, because it's beautiful. This is how we understand love to be wonderful, because understand it to be beautiful.
Our human understanding is so wrapped in what what we perceive as beautiful, that the plane of our human understanding cannot leave its scope. When I try to have a conversation with people about this, it's usually dismissed as, "But how can we understand something so subjective? Who's to say?" But there are other ways of understanding our reality other than fact or opinion. You can be persuaded. We can _come to know_ and understand something. We can seek wisdom by slow virtue.
This is why Scruton's documentary 'Why Beauty Matters' is so good! It barely touches the tip of the iceberg as to why beauty is so important. But in that documentary alone, it gives some sound arguments as to why.
I feel like the more I learn, the more I become separated from society because this way of thinking is beyond foreign. But the more I learn, the more I learn about our humanity.
Let's just say revolutions in society weren't achieved by people of importance choosing to side with nothing in the name of neutrality.
SimplyMayaBeauty Oh gosh FINALLY someone said it!
Milla G. :D
***** Well, in short, meaningful changes in society tend to happen when people choose an opinion to fight for.
+SimplyMayaBeauty do u really understood what's he saying?
+SimplyMayaB Being neutral is not something that De Bottom (Narrator) mentioned nor implied, he simply said that we should discuss our opinions, ask questions and trying to find an agreement or what caused the disagreement to get a stronger opinion and not just shutdown the debate because things are relative, you will ALWAYS have an opinion, you just need to "clean it" with discussion :) Revolution I would say, begins because discussions failed, thus, we should try to improve the way we debate :)
This reminded me of the fact that moral relativists never argue with anyone - except moral realists.
Who are *you* to say that?
lol jk. You're right, it's hilarious.
+nick volta what was the difference between them?
+Silver Nuke look them up! I'll explain if you don't get it. :)
Realists are concerned with the practical application of morals, while realists need to keep the realists in check by periodically reminding them that nothing is universal? I think they're perfect for each other, don't see where the problem is.
+nick volta
I consider my self a moral relativists, because unless you've had a conversation with some fourth dimensional creature, who gave you the reason(s) for existence, it's the most logical stance to take.
I also consider myself a selfserving individual. And in the modern world, then what's good for the 99%, is also usually good for me. If it's not safe to walk the streets for my classmates, it's not safe for me.
Even globally, the same holds true. If people are unsafe in their homes, then they'll migrate and make you unsafe in yours.
I can argue with anyone and everyone applying this principle
I get that we all feel love and empathy, and from what we develop different levels of morality. But it doesn't belong in debate.
"Who are you to say that."
"I am me to say it."
-Fact
I get this alot when I make comments or suggestions for school rules or behavior plans or classroom strategies. People say 'Who are you to say that? You're just the music teacher!' or 'Who are you to say that? You don't have enough experience!'
I used to be filled with such self-doubt, but now I reflect on the fact that those comments say more about them then they do about me!
But even science is facing this issue too
The animation was particularly great on this episode!
AGREEEEE
Great now I have ABBA's Super Trooper stuck in my head.
We'd be in a lot better situation if rhetoric and debate were taught in schools. At least then we might be able to explain to people that calling someone names in response to something you don't like is a logical fallacy, not liberals/conservatives being wimps or some such.
My Dad would say; "the more you argue with someone the more you persuade them of their on argument." which, from what my understanding of this video is, the same thing (of sorts). Essentially the same vein of thought. I like you guys at The School of Life, keep up the good work :)
The point u were trying to make is called "Debate" in simple words.
One of the most awesome films of this channel. Please, let's talk more about opinion, truth, speech, perception, knowledge...
Dear TSOL, infinity cannot be explained by inferior human language because it has a finite number of words, but I hope I am comprehensive enough when I say, that the thought process of me and my friends is almost 100% the same as yours. Thank you for touching such cryptic concepts of life which the normal folk tend to ignore so easily. We wish we could converse with your think tank, sometime in future... keep up the good work....
the background music is so soothing and tranquil that i zoned out and had to watch the video about 3 or 4 times to understand it lol i love the animation in all of these btw
Negotiate!
***** I think this video makes scientists out to be bunch of snobs by confusing science, which is systematic study, which as a rule, has to be replicated in order to be considered plausible, and opinion. I agree with what this has to say about opinion, but I don't like how this portrays science; frankly; science doesn't progress thanks to a bunch of lone geniuses who had a bunch of "Who are you to say that?" doubters, I think that's a misconception; it progresses thanks to systematic study. Those who get told "who are you to say that?" in science are often, NOT ALWAYS, charlatans and con artists.
Then again, who am I to say that?
***** Thank you for making an amazing channel and informative videos. GREAT WORK!!!
It is surely more challenging to present an argument when the data is murky, like disusing the subject of trust or love. But even subjects that can be answered by science doesn't have it that easy either. There is data and there is statistics involved. You have to understand concepts like sample size, error bar and such. It is just that most people are not trained in making any sort of good argument, scientific or otherwise.
From an angle, I see this video addresses the channels haters in the classiest way.
Another good motion picture from the one and only on RUclips, The School of Life.
Their power is our perception of their power, no one has any power that we don't give them. We give them all the power that they have.
A statement that relates to what this video is about.
In other words "Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man."
This is the best channel on RUclips.
I think the historical reason you gave for the reason why people get impatient about value judgement isn't quite right. I think it's more because when people say they don't like something, they'll call it bad, which implies that anyone who disagrees has bad taste. This unintentional insult it what leads to arguments about these value judgments.
This helped me to better understand my classes in Logic in gymnasium
From a stoner philosopher trying to cope with, and understand life, objectively:
This video got me thinking on Sam Harris TED Talk about moral relativism. I agree mostly with his ideas. He manages to be much more elaborate on the topic than me, but I will to NOT TO surpress my anxieties and neuroses about writing and communicating my ideas with others on big questions that the school of life frequently touch upon. Anyway here it goes.
The idea of there not being anything objectively good, I find is an abdication of responsibility toward bettering the human race. We have so much bad within us that caused so much bad on this planet. But we are also gifted with the ability to plan ahead and use science to understand both or outer world but aslo our inner world. We can through these means understand what makes most humans to certain events and draw conclusions from them on what is bad and less bad to do in a citation, and thereby try to find a common denominator in which you can coexist with the rest of the human race. We admit that we dont know everything but through investigation, questioning and reason, we can find something that is "objectively" better.
These somewhat fuzzy and confusing thoughts, that i get from watching "the school of life" channel, help me cope with my obssesive compulsion to understand my place in the world and getting an "objective" view of life.
I'm loving the new soundtracks. Excellent channel :)
I needed to hear this! Thank you.
I must admit that these videos stimulate my intelligence, and it feels exciting!
"Disobedience is a demand for change" and "change is the essential process of all existence" That last bit was Spock in ep. let that be your last battlefield --- boo yah!
Wow... I needed this video. I've got a friend who happens to be a well read chap and he is really a mobile library but he does not seem to have an opinion of his own... He lacks critical thinking.
Every time I put an assumption into question he yawns and dodges it. I felt that he feels humiliated by the fact that he can't think things through and comes with a "who are you to say that" when such and such have discussed it in such and such book .
Perhaps some questions have no definable or definite answers. Perhaps due to the incredible individuality of each and every human being there can never be a concrete answer to the greatest mysteries of life. I rather like that idea. It makes life more interesting and mysterious.
Science can help to answer the questions you mentioned. By gathering data over time and through analysis we can determine which inputs produce the most desired outputs. In fact, correct me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that this is already the case for every single question you suggested. Keep up the vids tho:) very thought provoking and enjoyable.
May Science can settle these questions. Our understanding and the science behind these topics just have to evolve into those realms. We can then finally start asking and testing these questions to then give answers.
My thoughts are still hanging on the "say anything with confidence and people will shun you as they recall the worse kings and party leaders". Is that the reason? As far as I know, confidence is what attracts others to you, even if you're shite in whatever field you're in. This is a common advice of a way to get the job: be confident, even if you know nothing about the bloody thing. Do you not think, too, that Hitler was only able to amass such an army of followers due to his visionary approach to the fine details of human soul? He seemed quite convinced in whatever he was doing was as right as it can be.
It's not to say that I disagree with the main thought: that even if it's hard, painful or uncomfortable, you should address whatever issue you deem important or urgent. Yet, I believe that confidence is part of the way, not solely diplomacy: it is how you show how you believe in whatever you're saying; if your point is to convince others that it's a subject worth exploring or deciding upon, being confident about your ideas seems to me to be the best way.
Jeez... Subscribed!
While no angle should ever be left unstudied, this articulates an healthy way to think of subjective discussion. One of life's biggest headaches comes from people's general discomfort of giving credit to ideas that make a better case and more sense. It doesn't matter if I'm talking humanitarian aid, sex-ed or which sports team is more interesting to watch with friends, I can bet my last dollar there will be someone in almost every circle ready to snip the tongue out of our conversation with something like "Well, that's just your opinion. We all have one." I even have to remind myself regularly that someone being confident in a grey area doesn't mean they're stifling my opinion just because "truth's relative, man."
Right before I watched this video I was thinking something about science that could have made it seem like I meant something negative, so I cleared up my thoughts and I added something positive to my statements, to be polite.
I love this music.
I often find myself, as a politics student, arguing with my friends who study history about whether I'm even *allowed* to make value judgements; as historians they will always retort with arguments for relativism.
But this is exactly the video I needed to send to them.
a relevant question is how you make people give a shit, or at least take into consideration by engaging their curiosity. I think this is the way progress is made, we should encourage it.
Very interesting video, I totally agree on how we all
seem to fight around subjective or complex matters and discourage
other's opinions with "you can't proof it". At the same time I find a
bit contradictory the denial of the relevance of faith and religion in
people's lifes. It is not a matter of being dogmatic but of asking
oneself one of those questions with difficult answers: what is the
meaning of life? Is this everything there is? Is there a god? I don't
see why The School of Life seems to put that always under the category
of dogmatic or dictatorships and refuse to acknowledge it's importance
in our society...
idk I never have this issue...must have a good group of smart, introspective peers around me
You’re lucky, and so am I. But you always occasionally come across people like that.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible.” -Aristotle
The best thing I've learnt so far is even subjective statement can be pass under test of "contradictions" if anything contradicts with that statement then say goodbye to it.
being charming/diplomatic/tactful can be a challenge to some ppl..
simpledaylife If not outright impossible.
I can't believe that this narrator can with a straight face praise democracy immediately after acknowledging that rulers fail to use reasoning in their positions. What part about democracy is reasoned? It's nothing more than appeal to popularity. It's literally rule by masses.
Many of the videos in this series are quite impartial, but the phrase "democratic discourse" only goes to show the inherent bias here.
+The School of Life fair enough. I think most of my beef comes with strict adherence to democracy, which doesn't really carry moral superiority to other forms of rule. I do appreciate your openness with respect to a bit of a dissenting opinion. Most would not afford that opportunity.
Agreed. Rule of the majority. Although, I hear there are other forms of democracy.
+The School of Life "emotional intelligence" implies you prefer a pathos to a logos argument. While it can be effective it creates the MOB MIND SET as well, where people turn reason off to appeal to the popularity of the mob. In practice that tends very much to be devoid of "wisdom and kindness". While we must not ignore emotion, we must also not let it over ride reason.
+TheShowThatSUX that's what I was trying to articulate.
+James Adams In the world of statistics, there is a mathematical theorem called the central limit theorem. One of its consequences is that if your voters have a random chance of picking the correct option in a yes/no vote and they are just slightly more accurate than coins, the outcome of a vote with many voters will be more likely to be correct than any single voter.
Of course, this assumes that your voters are smarter than coins and that their votes are independent. If they are dumber than coins, you get the opposite. If the votes are not independent (say, everyone votes for what that one guy told them to) you also lose the benefit. But voting is certainly one of these cases where you can make a solid logical argument from science that it is superior to the alternatives.
"Who are you to say that?"
An individual; with thoughts and opinions of his own.
I think the main problem with these videos is that you think human's can behave themselves or act decently
+Mrcharrio who are you to say that!! ;)
Who are YOU to ask HIM who HE is to say that ? (;
This channel constantly addresses this very concern.
Please watch more before criticizing their collective output as a whole.
Are you saying that humans are incapable? I'm not sure of your point. Anyways, the more people who earnestly try, the better off we are. We shouldn't assume it's too idealistic or preposterous, and so not even try to be decent
I think you're so jaded by malevolent human behavior that you confuse it with human nature which is a very different thing. Humans are not naturally aberrant, indecent, or violent and it should be understood that the old Christian "humans are naturally evil" argument is very outdated.
Who are you to say that?
amazing amazing amazing. thanks.
Me: *says something*
Person: who are you to say that?
Me: a person with opinions
Had to subscribe after this, Great work!
I am free to speak of (and act upon) the ideas born of my mind any where, any time, but there is likely to be somebody who disagrees. A fact and opinion make some your friends, others indifferent, and others your enemies. This is both the boon and the bane of what it means to be human. This is only one's philosophical outlook though.
There is one justifiable answer to the question of "Who are you to say that?!" which should demand a certain level of attention from others: "I'm a person with good arguments".
Other than that, who we are obviously never matters. Reasons matter. Whether they are reasons in the form of scientific evidence or reasons that are derived from/constructed on the basis of logical extrapolation.
Oh yes we all remember the good ol monarchs
That's actually a very sound apology for the existence of social science, magnificently done, congratulations! Though I would argue that the reason we trust 'pure science' is more due to ideology (science can be trusted) than its inherent truth - at the frontline of physics, math or chemistry there's some really weird stuff going on, we just don't hear about it because its abstracted into formal and symbolic languages. Not to mention the sheer number of 'facts' which stem from situational, badly performed and methodologically weak researches.
Music in this video is so nice.
I would say those questions are not outside the realm of science. Neuroscience can shed light on what we find to be pleasing to the eye (nice cities, attractive buildings), as well as what generally enhance our sense of well being in connection to others (relationships), and how cognition and childhood learning develops (education). What businesses should focus on depends highly on values (standard of living, better technology, medicine, poverty, the environment, etc). There is always room for dissent and opinion, of course, but at the same time we need to acknowledge that a well reasoned argument can be made about almost anything, and that science gives us a chance to shed some objectivity onto the subject.
haha this channel has taught me more about life than anything else
This guy may very well dethrone Morgan Freeman as the most pleasant narrator of all time.
Great video. Great content.
Wow. What a quick response.
Some of this videos reminds me of Qualia Soup. Great work they are very helpful.
"The School of Life is the best channel on youtube" is usually countered with "WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT!?!!" hehe
Some of those questions can be answered scientifically, actually. You just need social scientists.
"You're not allowed to decide if thats offensive or not"
Democracy isn't the same as righteousness or freedom.
It reminds me of how the issue of value was adressed by robert m. pirsig in "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance", you narrator, would probably enjoy aknowledging the metaphysics of quality. That is, if you don't know it already.
"we only accept an idea if it is scientific fact" lol not even that anymore!
It also shows that a lot of people still require a certain form of absolute authority for them to accept any notion about anything. It's really sad and though it stems from different times, it also has a lot to do with todays anti-intellectualism and not being able to think up anything on your own.
I also find that many people only seem to be relativists when you disagree with them.
They can go on at length about why, for example, their favourite musician is so wonderful, but the moment you point out that musicians flaws, then they'll give you the whole "art is subjective" speech.
However, you never get this when you also think their favourite musician is (objectively) great.
I find this also happens when I tell people that something they like has been panned by critics. Who are critics, who have spent far more time studying the medium, to say whether a work of art is good or bad or not?
Again, when their opinion agree with that of critics, they consider it to be a confirmation of their good taste.
My conclusion is that most people would rather throw out any possibility of objective discourse surrounding art than admit they might have bad taste.
AlG214 Just to make it clear, I don't think that I'm some objective barometer of taste and anyone that disagrees with me is stupid and wrong. I admit that I like a lot of art that isn't great, dislike a lot of art that is and there are great swathes of art that I totally ignorant of. This is why I respect and listen to critics.
if people say things like that to me in certain situations, mainly on topics to do with perhaps with social issues such as crime, often they ask what my qualifications are in an attempt to debase my solutions. I point out that the so called experts are clueless to solve the problems, so it is obvious they have no idea what they are doing, and that their apparent education and experience is meaningless as it has not solved the problem. So it is apparent that all that education is irrelevant.
The ability to recognize optimal sets of solutions rather than narrowly focusing on linear, one size fits all based on a particular result of a particular measurement, is a hallmark of intelligence.
2:44
* _What should children learn at school?_
Know thyself, Character building, Relationships, How to think critically, How to apply the scientific method, and other fundamental things.
* _What's a good relationship?_
A genuinely friendly one.
* _How should we build nice cities?_
Collectively (with input from the collective using the cloud).
* _What's an attractive building?_
Query the collective of a given region/locale to find out (i.e., present designs and let the collective choose).
* _What should businesses concentrate on?_
Depends on what phase the business is at, how large the business is, the type of product/service it provides etc, But overall, focus on building the best product of service possible.
* _How should bosses behave towards workers?_
Good (as opposed to _Bad_ or _Ugly_).. i.e., In a way that promotes both the business and the betterment/well being of the employee.
Brilliant!
I love your channel! What song is the background for this video?
Excellent video !
this is really good.
The School of Life, you should check, if you haven't already, Sam Harris' work on how science can answer moral questions. I do agree that right now plenty of questions are out of the realm of science as you say, but it's just a matter of time.
I think science can answer a lot(if not all) of those questions. For example should kids learn an extra language in school because being bilingual makes them cognitive stronger throughout their lives.
I hope you are wrong that people, in general, are willing to accept the findings of a scientific experiment as fact. I am trying my hardest to get students to engage in critical thinking, and a part of critical thinking is to examine the findings of an experiment to determine how reliable they are. Even a layperson can look at many pertinent aspects of the study to decide whether to believe the findings (too numerous to mention here). Moreover, I think it is also important to dispel the idea that science is incontrovertible fact. I know the philosophy of science is a complicated topic, and I'm no expert, but I've always found useful Karl Popper's definition of what makes something a scientific hypothesis: it has to be capable of being falsified. In theory it can never be proven right once and for all because there is always another experiment waiting around the corner to disprove it. I think Popper can help lay people understand the tentative nature of science, so they understand why one week a study presents findings that show a particular food item is good for us, and a few months later another study presents findings that show the reverse.
And then there is the scientific paradigm. Thomas Kuhn has a very convincing theory of the way science really works, which has more to do with metaphor or analogy and little to do with fact. My studies over the years have led me to the conclusion that there is very little, if anything, we can say about the world with any certainty, and that includes from a scientific viewpoint. I'm not saying we should remain in limbo because of this; I'm just saying it's misguided to treat scientific knowledge as fact, and I'm grateful to philosophy for teaching me to be critical and questioning of the assumptions of every academic (and non-academic) discipline.
Its an issue of people not recognizing that 'subjective' topics are actually more subtly scientific and logical given some very fundamental intrinsic values.
In fact, science wouldn't even have any extrinsic value without those intrinsic values. (and this would apply to everything else with extrinsic value) And the extrinsic values of science (applications) are often a big reason a lot of people value it rather than science's intrinsic value (curiosity).
The notion that religions, kings, and professionals of the past has created this state of affairs is rather difficult to defend, especially since most people readily embraced the orthodoxy of the day. It is not that rejection of non-scientific authorities in the past has made people afraid to debate ideas, it is the popular idealization of science that has done this. With positivism accepted as the new orthodoxy (replacing prior non-scientific orthodoxies), talk of "good" debates over essentially unanswerable questions will be met with derision. In effect, positivist people DO have an opinion on these non-positive issues, they believe that any other opinion on such a matter is meaningless and has no truth value. This opinion may sound arrogant, but they can ably defend there position.
Good for you! This.needed saying. (Even if you're not quite as well-qualified to say it as I am.)
i would venture to say "who are you to say that?" is a form of ad hominem response - deflecting the validity of the stance, and rather than attack the position, it's an attack on the person's authority/social status.
I love these videos nice job
This reminds me of some points made my Charles Taylor in "The Ethics of Authenticity". Has anybody read it? I think it's a really important book and was ahead in its time in some ways, shame its so tough to read!
it is really hard sometimes, cause everything has to be prefaced with "this is just my opinion" or has to be phrased so delicately without offending anyone. not saying i don't approve of saying things in the nicest most considerate way possible, you see i'm so afraid of even writing this i can barely finish making my attempt at a point. we'll never get anywhere if people can't say anything :(
who are you to say that? is an ad hominum (insult based fallicy i forget the spelling of) which is irrelivant, i think its usually emotionally charged like in this video rather than logically... great video
Absolutely!!!
Is scientific judgement free of subjectivity? Paul Feyerabend has made great progress to highlight the subjectivity of Science, viz. he dethroned science and positivism.
Sometimes it's good to be "elitist and snobbish", it means that you admit that you think your opinion is better than someone else's - everyone is a snob in their own way, so I wouldn't be too fussed about being judged one.