I think the way you teach this course and the way you present everything is so strategic. Rofl it's actually more fun this way because it's not confusing despite being analytic. In a sense you are a chess player.
Great talk. I love the way he applies the scientific method steps. Very smooth, effective and clear. College of Southern Nevada instructors should learn from Hakob on how to teach.
How is it possible that when Miriam asked a question about Tarot being scientific since it was based on experience, slides existed that were precisely related to her question?
Two years later and I am still returning to your lecturers so thank you again for sharing. This lecture has given rise to many questions. I too am a lecturer in Aotearoa New Zealand and my focus is on education and indigenous epistemologies. Recently I was visited by a science non-indigenous lecturer from a Canadian university as their university looks to include indigenous knowledge into their science curriculum. Understanding that your lecturers are from a Western science perspective, how do you see this inclusion of indigenous epistemologies and theories possibly altering the scientific mosaic? Also, my second question is in understanding Case 2, would the persecution of those who get in the way, simply be the case of what happened in colonization? Therefore Western science in colonized places such as Canada (colonized twice) therefore breaking its own rule of ethical conduct? And finally, how does the science community know the theories are better, how do they diagnose, measure or gauge the improvement? Your thoughts would be appreciated to help me get clarification.
Hmmm... I am not sure about the whole "deductive consequences of existing theory" idea 45:55. Surely you might have multiple possible *consistent* theories, and you might have an observation that is not consistent with one of these theories so then you change the theory. I don't think deduction is a good check. What is the problem with homeopathy then? Well... the fact that is is scientifically false helps! Also that it would break a bunch of other science.
He was talking about the applied scientific method, it always has to be a deductive consequence of accepted theories, which testimonials are not. Therefore, it would be unscientific to apply this method.
Lysenko had plenty of confirmed novel predictions. And that is because while the theory was predominantly wrong, it was still partially correct. Lysenko opposed mendelian genetics and advocated acquired characteristics. However, nowadays we know that Lysenko was wrong about genes while Mendelians were also wrong: epigenetics has shown that acquired characteristics actually can be passed down to offspring in a limited way but in a fascinating irony *it happens via genes.* If that is not marxian dialectics then I dont know what is hahaha
The characteristics are acquired through a change in the genes which has nothing to do with what you do in your life unless you're spending a lot of time near high radiation.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Ok, not in genes themselves, but as far as I understand it, it has still nothing to do with what you do in your life, does it?
@@firstaidsack epigenetics seems to claim that events in your life can trigger certain genes, which your children can even inherit. For example the effects of wars or famines can in some cases be observed in genes of populations still after several generations.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 But can we actually actively do something to improve our epigenetics and that of our descendants? Like having a healthy lifestyle and exercising a lot? I found an article where it says (as far as I understand) that exercising can "improve the epigenetics" of the region where the exercises were performed, but I don't see how this can be inherited. I could imagine that this doesn't have an answer yet.
14:50 The career is shown by the Midheaven, and which planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars aspect it most closely. Only a fool would ignore the Lot of Fortune. Astrology as you know it is unscientific. I agree. In actuality, its totally legit -- just not in the Newtonian framework. The rediscovery and translation and elucidation of the primary source text of astrology going back, according to conventional chronology, some 2500 years, has been rather illuminating. But of course, when it comes to scholarship, unless the scholar takes the materials seriously, you couldn't really expect to find anything of value. Plato, Eudoxus and Aristotle were not exactly dumbasses.
I think the way you teach this course and the way you present everything is so strategic. Rofl it's actually more fun this way because it's not confusing despite being analytic. In a sense you are a chess player.
31:50 In my culture, we also do that when people sneeze. Wow, Hakob. Stellar mind.
Great talk. I love the way he applies the scientific method steps. Very smooth, effective and clear. College of Southern Nevada instructors should learn from Hakob on how to teach.
25:33
I guess you didn't end up cutting that out! :)
Thank you for this good explanation!
How is it possible that when Miriam asked a question about Tarot being scientific since it was based on experience, slides existed that were precisely related to her question?
Two years later and I am still returning to your lecturers so thank you again for sharing. This lecture has given rise to many questions. I too am a lecturer in Aotearoa New Zealand and my focus is on education and indigenous epistemologies. Recently I was visited by a science non-indigenous lecturer from a Canadian university as their university looks to include indigenous knowledge into their science curriculum. Understanding that your lecturers are from a Western science perspective, how do you see this inclusion of indigenous epistemologies and theories possibly altering the scientific mosaic? Also, my second question is in understanding Case 2, would the persecution of those who get in the way, simply be the case of what happened in colonization? Therefore Western science in colonized places such as Canada (colonized twice) therefore breaking its own rule of ethical conduct? And finally, how does the science community know the theories are better, how do they diagnose, measure or gauge the improvement? Your thoughts would be appreciated to help me get clarification.
Get the Fouc(alt) outta here
Is Philosophy a science or non-science?
Arguably, science is applied philosophy.
Hmmm... I am not sure about the whole "deductive consequences of existing theory" idea 45:55.
Surely you might have multiple possible *consistent* theories, and you might have an observation that is not consistent with one of these theories so then you change the theory.
I don't think deduction is a good check.
What is the problem with homeopathy then? Well... the fact that is is scientifically false helps! Also that it would break a bunch of other science.
He was talking about the applied scientific method, it always has to be a deductive consequence of accepted theories, which testimonials are not. Therefore, it would be unscientific to apply this method.
Lysenko had plenty of confirmed novel predictions. And that is because while the theory was predominantly wrong, it was still partially correct. Lysenko opposed mendelian genetics and advocated acquired characteristics. However, nowadays we know that Lysenko was wrong about genes while Mendelians were also wrong: epigenetics has shown that acquired characteristics actually can be passed down to offspring in a limited way but in a fascinating irony *it happens via genes.* If that is not marxian dialectics then I dont know what is hahaha
The characteristics are acquired through a change in the genes which has nothing to do with what you do in your life unless you're spending a lot of time near high radiation.
@@firstaidsack google epigenetics
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404
Ok, not in genes themselves, but as far as I understand it, it has still nothing to do with what you do in your life, does it?
@@firstaidsack epigenetics seems to claim that events in your life can trigger certain genes, which your children can even inherit. For example the effects of wars or famines can in some cases be observed in genes of populations still after several generations.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404
But can we actually actively do something to improve our epigenetics and that of our descendants? Like having a healthy lifestyle and exercising a lot? I found an article where it says (as far as I understand) that exercising can "improve the epigenetics" of the region where the exercises were performed, but I don't see how this can be inherited. I could imagine that this doesn't have an answer yet.
14:50
The career is shown by the Midheaven, and which planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars aspect it most closely. Only a fool would ignore the Lot of Fortune.
Astrology as you know it is unscientific. I agree. In actuality, its totally legit -- just not in the Newtonian framework.
The rediscovery and translation and elucidation of the primary source text of astrology going back, according to conventional chronology, some 2500 years, has been rather illuminating. But of course, when it comes to scholarship, unless the scholar takes the materials seriously, you couldn't really expect to find anything of value.
Plato, Eudoxus and Aristotle were not exactly dumbasses.
Bill Cosby found the elixir of love
Why only female audience is giving a round of applause - that is the question.. :)