I watched the entire video! Loved every moment and made me think about different kinds of power and it's distribution! Would love to know your opinion on what I think in response! Keep doing what you do! You're awesome and entertaining! :D
Hi, I plan on using these concepts to explain the massive lacuna in sociological/psychiatric research on ADHD for my thesis. I found your explanations very useful, and have helped me further develop my points. Thank you for the video!
Glad to be of use! I'm fascinated by your topic and have spent a little time thinking about it. I taught two courses on the ontology of psychopathology, and have some personal experience with inattentive ADHD, so it was a natural tie-in. Wishing you success in your thesis and hope I'll get to read it sometime!
Credibility, or trust, in a person's testimony or way of existance is subjective. The "just" amount of credibilty should not be responsible to only individual opinion. To assess credibility proper, I believe a process of experimentation should occur. For example, in your hypothetical of your friend telling you about a sale, your assessment was valid to you for good reason; They said there was a sale, yet there was none. However, consider the possibility the friend did not know the sale is only on a certain day? In your position, doubt in the friend's information would seem warrented, but your limited knowledge influenced what would be a rational conclusion. Let's say, in your frustration, you talked to the clerk. They clarify the sale is always on Wednesday. So you go back next Wednesday. The sale is there. You go again. The sale is back, so on and so fourth. Through experience, and more awareness of the sale's conditions, you gain more confidence in the credibility of both the clerk and your friend. You gain confidence by the claim's consistency. In summary, I believe that we can only do so much as rational agents. We will always be limited by what we know and perceive. In my opinion, we should not have absolute trust to the point of worship, or absolute doubt to the point of toxic skepticism. Nor should we as individuals only rely on our subjective measures of credibilty. We should assess any and all claims for their accuracy (how specific are the details) and precision (how consistent is the fact, how susceptible to change). To gather as much information possible before determining our confidence and us to test a claim's credibility through its utility.
This was so incredibly helpful currently writing a philosophy thesis on the topic and the way you explained everything is so helpful!
Great video. I really liked the pop up text boxes.
I watched the entire video! Loved every moment and made me think about different kinds of power and it's distribution! Would love to know your opinion on what I think in response! Keep doing what you do! You're awesome and entertaining! :D
Hi, I plan on using these concepts to explain the massive lacuna in sociological/psychiatric research on ADHD for my thesis. I found your explanations very useful, and have helped me further develop my points. Thank you for the video!
Glad to be of use! I'm fascinated by your topic and have spent a little time thinking about it. I taught two courses on the ontology of psychopathology, and have some personal experience with inattentive ADHD, so it was a natural tie-in. Wishing you success in your thesis and hope I'll get to read it sometime!
Hello professor, thank you for apploading these amazing videos. When are you going to make part 2 of standpoint theories
Credibility, or trust, in a person's testimony or way of existance is subjective.
The "just" amount of credibilty should not be responsible to only individual opinion. To assess credibility proper, I believe a process of experimentation should occur.
For example, in your hypothetical of your friend telling you about a sale, your assessment was valid to you for good reason; They said there was a sale, yet there was none.
However, consider the possibility the friend did not know the sale is only on a certain day? In your position, doubt in the friend's information would seem warrented, but your limited knowledge influenced what would be a rational conclusion.
Let's say, in your frustration, you talked to the clerk. They clarify the sale is always on Wednesday. So you go back next Wednesday. The sale is there. You go again. The sale is back, so on and so fourth.
Through experience, and more awareness of the sale's conditions, you gain more confidence in the credibility of both the clerk and your friend. You gain confidence by the claim's consistency.
In summary, I believe that we can only do so much as rational agents. We will always be limited by what we know and perceive.
In my opinion, we should not have absolute trust to the point of worship, or absolute doubt to the point of toxic skepticism. Nor should we as individuals only rely on our subjective measures of credibilty.
We should assess any and all claims for their accuracy (how specific are the details) and precision (how consistent is the fact, how susceptible to change). To gather as much information possible before determining our confidence and us to test a claim's credibility through its utility.