James Burke : The Day The Universe Changed: "Worlds Without End", 5 of 5 (CC)

[grandmachristine42]

Hippie guru Steven Gaskin, asked "What are your group's spiritual beliefs?" said something like "Picture the old room-sized computers where everything was a hole in a card, a hole here means this, hole over here means this. So punch a hole in the right place for every spirtual belief there is. Now put the card in a neat stack and hold the stack to the light. You will se a few places where the hole goes all the way through the stack and you see light. (cont)

[grandmachristine42]

@grandmachristine42 (cont) THOSE are our beliefs."

[dreasim]

James Burke's work is pure awesome.

[rinchy100]

multiculture propaganda

[Ionian1006]

RE: his summation- Ultimately, this is a centrist view in that each of us is a viewpoint within ourselves and cannot actually relate to what anyone else believes.

Given that as a starting place...

[noobler9]

actually science gives us actual stuff to use, like say, pens, paper and so on

[MissingVoices77]

Great Vid!

[rockoqatsi]

Incredible...

If what we say on the Internet is truly "forever", then I wonder if eons ahead, our descendants will look upon the worldviews (and "truths") argued upon below with some sense of wry amusement.

[LucBertolotti]

@rockoqatsi I'm already doing it, except I'm not exactly amused. I'm pretty much seeing people saying things they dont understand and thinking "My God how stupid where the people who lived at the begining of 21 century" and now really get the feeling Galileo must had at the time (hopefully will not get burned or end in jail). Having said that, things could be much worse (just study history).

[JasonV213]

@rockoqatsi I am from the future and can confirm your hypothesis.

[kewlmynd99]

I find it interesting how James alludes to social networking via computers over 10 years before there was even any main stream internet access and a full 20 years before it actually started to unfold...

[grandmachristine42]

@kewlmynd99 Aired in '85. I was going to meetings in the 80's of several orgs where certain people would bring amazingly detailed handouts, with graphs and explanations and photos and histories drawn from seemingly everywhere sveral each week. I was mindblown. They had busy jobs (professors, lawyers); where did they find the time for all that every week? They reassured me that theyt were not gods, only people with access to computers.

[leavesofliberty]

I favor market anarchy as well.

[buckj54]

What does JB think about the idea of reconstructing scientific observation to account for the fractal like rip that quantum mechanics, dark matter & energy cause in the imperial sciences?

[NekuraCa]

While I am usually a fan of Mr. Burke, I have to object to his final thoughts in this episode. The universe is not whatever we say it is. The people who thought the earth was flat were flat out wrong. When heliocentrism came along, the sun didn't suddenly stop dead in the sky. We just learned more. Science does not "invent" the universe, nor is it in any way set in stone. The scientific method is designed to test and modify the theories as new and better data is found. The truth is not opinion.

[Jcolinsol]

@NekuraCa

Scientists create a hypothesis to explain a phenomenon (made up) they then construct an experiment to test their hypothesis (subjective experience), observe the experiment (made up) and draw logical conclusions (made up). Every step in the method involves something made up by humans, either consciously or un-consciously.

You're thinking is, that science gives us an objective view of absolute reality, I don't see anyway to prove such a thing. The truth does not exist.

[cprise]

My final thought is some advice:

Anyone who is trying to make you believe two mutually exclusive things at the same time is trying to get you to act according to a falsehood. And there is no more self-contradictory or mutually exclusive concept circulating today than a certitude that someone must be wrong because she knew something. It is the ultimate way to win debates without any work beyond acting charismatic and using cleaver turns of phrase.

cprise

[cprise]

What was a trendy and ultra-ironic postmodern dogma, that no one can be certain about anything (most definitely not YOU, factoid monger!!), made a lot of people from Burke's generation seem fascinating and hip. But denigrating science in this way has lead to today's situation where science is trying to warn us against the tide of consumerism and its massive effects, while the religious are joining forces with industry to suppress scientific understanding.

[Jcolinsol]

@cprise

I disagree with most of your points, but anyway:

You cannot ever get away from the only apparent fact, that all the evidence you have is derived through personal experience, and that is subjective. It's the only scientific principle you can check at any moment, and verify to still be true.

[cprise]

@Jcolinsol

Scientific principles are based on social interaction. If having a reputation for verifiability meant little (because personal experience is all) then there would be next to no incentive for discovery and no ability for new generations to build on the accomplishments of others. We also would not see the emergence of robust new fields that bridge and enhance the understanding of other fields, because the mounting burdens of personal experience would become too high.

[cprise]

@Jcolinsol cont.

We reduce subjectivity and increase objectivity when we make falsifiable claims, test them and publish the results. As for being able to check scientific principles at a moment's notice, don't you think that's being a bit unrealistic? I don't live moment to moment doubting my senses, and if I lose them (or my mind) don't you think other people would notice? Objectivity may not be absolute, but neither is it a phantom.

[Jcolinsol]

@cprise

None of that refutes my point. It's fine reasoning, but it's only reasoning. The observation that your experience is subjective can be verified at any time, everything else is just you being fooled by your central nervous system.

[Jcolinsol]

@cprise

What truth? I see no truth. I'm just describing what I observe. Everything else is reasoning. None of it is truth.

When did I claim that others couldn't analyze my internal "states"? You should watch out, your reasoning has you inventing fantasies.

[cprise]

Science has lately been experiencing an interdisciplinary revolution with lots of 'in-between' fields like evolutionary psychology appearing and becoming quite fruitful. The level of corroboration between fields of research is increasing, and as this happens science and maths are looking more and more like universal languages shared by people in all corners of the globe.

[cprise]

Burke doesn't seem to acknowledge that these supposed scientific dogmas that just come and go according to societal priorities (really not true at all, IMO, given the rise of anti-science politics in the US) are actually getting better over time, sharpening the focus of understanding. The dogmas that do take hold last decades or months, and they are getting fewer and shorter in duration. Traditional culture incl. religion cannot claim similarity to research culture on this point.

[cprise]

I think what we have in James Burke (at least in 1985) is another journalist who made science and technology his hobby and proceeded to misrepresent those subjects with shortcuts in language and reasoning. He may also be another humanities snob in that he can get excited like a kid about science... but come now, real life is serious and the real people like MBAs, lawyers, journalists and English teachers need to know that science is no less dogmatic than the rest of society.

[cprise]

An exercise like the "blind spot test" tells us a lot about the potential for human understanding with science. You see the flaws in perception caused by your blind spots, but also that we can discover such things and take them into account.

We can also discover that the perceptions of phenomena like ball lightning seen during thunder storms are largely created inside our heads by unusual magnetic fields from the storm.

continued...

[cprise]

I share the dismay of some others here about this episode. Much of what Burke tries to put across is disingenuous.

For instance: He shows examples of misconceptions as proof that we can't trust our senses. But how then can we discover those misconceptions so he can point them out over a televisual medium? Using what, religion and telepathy?

continued...

[DonQuixotedeKaw]

"The fellow that can only see a week ahead is always the popular fellow, for he is looking with the crowd. But the one that can see years ahead, he has a telescope but he can't make anybody believe that he has it."

Will Rogers

[HannuMarijarvi]

I can't believe what I'm hearing in the clip.

All science gives you is certainty? That is pure BS. What Science provides is an evidence-based methodology towards slowly iterating towards truth about the observable reality around us. Does Buddism have that? No, it doesn't.

And does Buddhism contain empirical procedures to indentify which part of their teachings are actually correct and which aren't? If not then Science is superiour as a worldview to Buddhism.

[wado1942]

@HannuMarijarvi

So? All you just did was state that science and Buddism are different. They're still just tdifferent ways of explaining different aspects of the world. Science has things Buddism doesn't and vice versa (like peace of mind and morality). Neither of them can work as a model for everything and they never could. We need science, but we need philosophy and spirituality too, or else it's all meaningless data.

[HannuMarijarvi]

@wado1942 Yet do you need either philosophy or spirituality to perceive meaning or make sound value judgments? No, you don't need either for either. I am living proof of that.

Therefore science is still a superiour worldview. Besides, Burke in this video clearly tries to insinuate that they are comparable (as he proceeds to compare them), but in comparison Science wins hands down. Every time.

[wado1942]

@HannuMarijarvi

Science is NOT a world view. It's method of getting answers to very specific physical questions. It doesn't address those issues you just mentioned either. My point is, physics, chemistry & the like are not the answer for every thing. Now, I'm no Buddist, but I've known quite a few and none of them would be so arrogant to state that their way of life is the only valid way. Science doesn't teach modesty either.

[HannuMarijarvi]

@wado1942 You too disagree with Burke, then, that Buddhism gives to the communities in the clip the same things that science gives us? Because that's what he states in there.

Even if science itself is a specifically structured way of acquiring knowledge and not a worldview, that does not mean one cannot possess a scientific worldview. One certainly can: By acknowledging that nobody starts out with the answers, and that assertions must be validated by evidence, unlike religions try to claim.

[wado1942]

@HannuMarijarvi

I won't say I agree with Burke entirely, but there is validity to what he said. See, Buddhism doesn't try to explain the physical nature of the world but science does. On the other hand, science does not try to explain things of a metaphysical nature, but Buddhism does. Yet both are ways of thinking about the universe.

[persianlor]

Thank you so much to JBW for putting this up. Watching this now, is so much more powerful than it was when I first saw it at 13 years of age. I can't find this on TV since TLC stopped becoming The Learning Channel and became a overdone reality network.

This has the single greatest quote I've ever heard, "Utopia...why?if, as I said all along, the universe is, at any time, what you say it is...than say!"

Excuse me while I pick up my jaw from the floor. LOL.

[Timschoh]

My Dad is a scientist who has been burned at the stake by those whose religion is global warming. Tolerance? We're still centuries or more away from that.

[TheLastBrainLeft]

@Timschoh Climate change is today's plate tectonics, today's Piltdown Man. This particular episode encapsulates everything that makes me a AGW skeptic. I may not understand the science, but I can understand the behavior of scientists. Unlike Wegener and continental drift, we still do not know who is right, the establishment or the dissenters on this issue.

[dsmith5167]

Bravo !!

[cubancigarcrisis]

Incredible. This one is so very excellent. Science, viewed philosophically, through history - which is what all of his episodes are basically. I am off, and on to Connections 2! I was talking to my dad the other day about James Burke, and apparently I saw him speak when I was 10 at DeAnza collage in California (but I don't remember it) and apparently James also made a bit of a bid to be the spokes person for Silicon Valley there for a minute. And to JBW out in Cambodia, THANK YOU!

[oneputtsteven]

Wow he nearly predicts social networking and sharing on computers, as we are doing now. SAY what the universe is and it becomes that!!

[persianlor]

without a doubt he does. I wonder what he thinks of it all now...burke must be over 70 by now...if he is still alive.@oneputtsteven

[tessabela]

who is James Burke?

[AlIord]

A very knowledgeable and wise man.

[Jcolinsol]

This is the best episode in the series, it has really given form to some of the notions I initially learned listening to Robert Anton Wilson.

[URProductions]

Somebody once asked me, "What's a fourteen letter word for freedom?"

I told him - "America."

[JamesBurkeWeb]

lol

[Grak70]

The other interesting thing I got out of this episode was his closing statement about e-communities, which have become a reality. Yet, just like the first episode where he talked about telecommuting, there have been unintended consequences. In this case, the fact that internet access has given equal voice to fools and scholars. The know-nothing populist culture (anti-vax, GW denial, conspiracy theorists, etc) can be as loud as the professionals who have data to back up what they say.

[JamesBurkeWeb]

Yes, but that's a *good* thing (that "whacko" views can be heard). The best evidence against a "crackpot" (for lack of a better word) comes right out of their own mouths.

- JBW

[Grak70]

I agree, people should be heard. The problem is when an incoherent view takes us backwards because a lot of people believe it and either a) everyone is too polite to tell them they're full of it or b) their movement gathers steam because it's based on ignorant masses as a *virtue* rather than a fault.

I guess that means the rationalists have got their work cut out for them. I just think it's very sad that someone's got to run off the angry mob in front of the library all over again.

[JamesBurkeWeb]

Never been tested. I suspect neither a nor b would happen *with every voice having equal opportunity to be heard*

Cases like b happen because of suppression of opposing views and cases like a... well you know how people love to talk.

I've never seen it happen over a long period of time, but even if it did it would just amount a slow, silent death rather than the more vociferous and often violent one we all know and love ;)

- JBW

[Grak70]

Quite true, all voices need to be heard.

The potential confusion I see today is the tendency to equate dismissal of an opinion with suppression. As long as we don't confuse the right to be heard with legitimate, evidence-based controversy, I'm on board with you.

[JamesBurkeWeb]

It should become apparent naturally. The reason nutcases are so successful is exactly that:

The cool, calm thinking, non-judgmental voice, the one which considers the evidence and examines it without recourse to base emotions or slogans is rarely if ever heard. And the reasons are often nothing to do with ideology, but instead that there simply isn't an existing forum, or format for such voices to be heard. Which is why, say, I have 50 characters left (+ laziness) I have to be concise.

- JBW

[Grak70]

Boy, I really had a problem with this episode. Is it just me, or is Episode 10 apologizing for Episodes 1-9? Some views are clearly NOT equal to other views if the purpose of having that view is explanatory power. Yes, views change and the "truth" that we understand changes with it, but that doesn't mean that all views are equally useful or equidistant from an explanation that fits all the data.

[JamesBurkeWeb]

Well you're right, but that's now what he said.

Not that all views are different and equally valid, but that there *may be* as many views as there are people (although that would be highly improbable) and also that the most commonly accepted view isn't *necessarily* the *only* right view.

The point is to enable all views to be heard and then considered by others. Much like website allows.

- JBW

[Grak70]

Thanks. I guess nowadays I can really see this show being interpreted in the light of the resurgent luddites. "Science is just one more dogma" has been gathering steam lately and I fear that the fools have the numbers to institutionalize that view.

Burke of course understands why the *methodology* of science is superior even while he acknowledges the existence of other views that influence *what* we do science about.

[JamesBurkeWeb]

Well it's the best methodology we've got, if our goal is (minimally) to be able to predict and to provide for ourselves, as well as to possibly invent our future rather than to rely on random chance.

It's not a dogma though, I don't think. Unless I have the definition wrong, a dogma is a kind of belief system. Science is a "disbelief" system. The goal of science is to remove all certainty from our view of the universe so as to allow our knowledge to develop. Belief has the opposite effect.

[Grak70]

I'd use slightly different definitions of "belief" and "knowledge", but essentially I am on board with you. Thanks again for posting all of these!

[JamesBurkeWeb]

Ya, words are a poor means of communication... I use the word knowledge in the "soft" sense. Knowledge is what we learn from experience. What we have "awareness" of (but I'm simply begging the definition with another ill defined word!).

Whether or not the elements of our knowledge have any definitive truth value associated with them is moot.

And you're welcome.

- JBW

[wkearn13]

I used to watch Connections reruns on the Science Channel a few years ago. Since the Science Channel removed Connections from the lineup, I've been looking for this show somewhere on the Internet. After watching all of the episodes of Connections and TDTUC here, I just want to say thank you for posting these.

[JamesBurkeWeb]

Not at all. Enjoy.

[mcnicols11]

Thanks for all the series. Great memories. Haha his predictions are way more accurate than nostradamus! Haha. Karmapa chenno

[Philonus]

I look back 2 years ago when I saw this series,and I look now, and I realize that I have learned a lot in between because now I understand what James Burke is talking about. This is probably the best episode I saw because it shows our our preconception of things really dictates (or influences) how we percieve reality and behave. Thank you so much for posting this series.

[JamesBurkeWeb]

Yes, there is a lot more evidential truth to some previous conjectures in light of these closing remarks made in 1985; that "the future is whatever we care to invent" [forget which episode]

In this case, those whom he refers to "We and They" have reversed in less than a generation.

- JBW

[JamesBurkeWeb]

oops, rearrangement typo:

refers to *as* "We and They"

[kewlmynd99]

Thanks for posting! Excellent series...

[JamesBurkeWeb]

You're very welcome. - JBW

[runefreak05]

the 2012 doomsday scares me loads :S

[petrospills11]

just wanted to say thanks for the reply

[petrospills11]

not sure why earlier episodes have been made

"private" What does this mean???

[JamesBurkeWeb]

It is temporary. Kind of a call-out. They will be restored on the 14th. Nothing to worry about.

[boxant]

What an excellent end to an excellent series!

[JamesBurkeWeb]

I'll 2nd that!

- JBW

[vunak2000]

I will third that......... =)

[jckchrstphr]

This is spiritual. It's beautiful to me. It's the best I've seen on YouTube, and probably one of the best clips ever aired on TV.

[JamesBurkeWeb]

Yes, I agree. This is my favourite segment too. Not only because if the accuracy of the prediction (remember this is 1985, exactly one year before Microsoft's IPO, and just before or about the same time "Microsoft Windows" was initially released [which was a major failure btw.]) but also it's current relevance: "In who's hands?"

This world that he is describing is me typing this message from Phnom Penh Cambodia (where I am now) and you reading it while he proposes this as a "possible" future.

[vunak2000]

You know I never realized how accurate he was...