Guys please help me out what is the one called where he talks about gazing up into the night sky and about how science sucks the fun out if it you know please help!
But I should also point out that all fundamental constants of nature are artifacts of the arbitrary choice of units by Humans. To attriute any special characteristics to them is an athropocentric point of view, and not even an interesting one. I hear arguments all the time for god that go, "if the constants were 1% different..."
If they were any different it would mean humans picked different units to express them. If we were smart, we'd make them all =1 and be done with it.
C0nc0rdance. I love the videos, I have to preface this with the caveat that my field is psychology, so physics is a little out side my expertise. With that said does the argument that the universe is so precise seem like a plausible argument for the existence of God? I ask because from what I understand the only major counter to that is the multiple universe hypotheses.
By "so precise" do you mean the fundamental constants of physics are fine-tuned for our existence? Why does that suggest supernatural intervention to you? To me it just looks like an interesting pattern. I can think of at least three reasons the constants all coordinate.
@C0nc0rdance I thought of the linked values as well but I have not found any discussion or theory that would elaborate on that. Do you have anything about linked valued cosmological constants that we can see or read?
@C0nc0rdance Maybe they suggest a "supernatural intervention", because there is no way to derive them from the first principles of current theories of the observable natural world.
@janne808 only the fine structure constant α can not be derived from first principles. all the rest can be, or can be expressed in terms of a few others who are derived from first principles. Regardless, they're all quite empirical, and they only matter as much as they can accuractely describe reality.
@attheveryend Cosmological constant is interesting, since the predicted value is totally off by what is actually observed. Because of this, I'd say you it's one of those "supernatural" plug-in constants as well to this date.
@janne808 It's totally off? The spiral of galaxies are confusing to us but you know it's all explained in non-supernatural terms right? I'm not quite sure what everyone's arguing about, lol
@janne808 Hold on. Our cosmological constant is tuned to indeed 1/10^120 -- but we know that. We can make these measurements and determine the constant. If anyone here is trying to imply that because the constant is so low that it calls for a maker is quite mistaken. I really don't see anything supernatural anywhere in this topic.
@janne808 Well I think everything in the face of science is "atheist." Atheists don't believe in a god because of the lack of evidence. If I see a statistical impossibility then I wouldn't even begin to bring up the subject of a god because the idea of an omnipotence is man made. Indeed, if I saw any given miracle, it gives no proof to the subject of wether or not there is a god. Which, so far, there isn't.
@aqouby I think you mean agnosticism? The most aggressive definition of atheism does indeed claim the non-existence of god. Like here, the claim seems to be that there is no evidence for it. In general, as far as I see it, lack of evidence doesn't prove a hypothesis wrong or right.
@janne808 Lack of evidence leads to the lack of a hypothesis. If you have no evidence for something then there can't be any progress made on the subject. Agnosticism is neither the belief or lack of belief in a god. Agnostics are people that either believe in a god and just don't want to pin it down to a religion, or they don't believe in god but have no objective reason why. Atheists understand that because of the lack of evidence of a higher power, that it's better to remain skeptical.
@janne808 There are atheists that claim that there is no god, but they have just as much proof to bare as the theists. I do not associate my atheism with theirs. Again, atheism is the lack of belief in a god because of the lack of evidence.
@janne808 And justifiably so-- But I can't agree. Theists believe, agnostics can go either way, atheists do not believe because they see the lack of evidence-- but are willing to believe if given evidence for the belief of a god. There are some atheists that deny the existence of a god all together but those atheists aren't the majority. These atheists don't critically think after their first critical conclusion to the non-belief in a higher power. It's really not a twist of words.
Agnosticism is precisely defined this way: a belief that knowledge of any deity or deities is unobtainable--that humans can not have knowledge about god. This is independent of any belief in the existence of a deity or deities.
As far as "aggressive definitions" go, I think the term is meaningless. Can you aggressively define a "hot dog" for me? Is it more aggressive if written furiously? Atheism is purely lack of belief in deities. Any addition to that is Atheism+
@janne808 The cosmological constant is not a fundamental constant of nature. It is about as interesting to consider as the dielectric constant of plastic. Einstein made it up to explain a stationary universe, which was proven to be something we do not live in. if it isn't 1, 0, π, εo, µo, h, G, α, e (natural base), e (fundamental unit of charge), or c(which can be expresed as 1/(εo*µo)^.5), then it pretty much doesn't count.
The fundamental constants of nature exist solely to transmogrify one unit system to another. A good example of this is the boltzmann constant, which exists purely as an artifact of using Avagadro's number to establish a mole. I argue that a fundamental unit of temperature would be 1 Kelvin * Boltzmann Constant--such a unit would eliminate the constant entirely and make it = 1. Further modifications to units would, in principle, eliminate all but pi and the natural base.
@C0nc0rdance Yes I did, I think the problem that I have is the Parallel multiverse is not proven, not that it means it does not exist I think Credible scientists have show how it could if I read the literature right. I think it suggests supernatural intervention because it seems for give the term designed in some way. As I said before I could be wrong I may be a little out of my depth in this realm. So what your saying is that the constants that we developed due to linked values?
You'll probably find most of that in developmental psychology, religion takes advantage of many mechanisms that were developed for social development (thus why the tendency to get them while they're young is common), not to mention many people can be preyed upon while in their most vulnerable personal moments and critical thinking is a lot harder than superstitious thinking
"What phenomenon that we currently observe is better explained by the existence of an undetectable world?" Subatomic quantum phenomena. Heisenberg et al. figured this shit out almost 100 years ago already. Objective local realism was shown experimentally to be totally flawed in later work.
No, no, no! Quantum physics is built on empirical observations! The reason we know neutrinos exist is their interactions with matter. You're saying spiritual worlds not revealed through empirical testing exist, and are significant. My question is what is the difference between something that cannot be observed, directly or indirectly, and something that does not exist.
For example, the Schfoozle is an undetectable animal... what does the study of Schfoozles teach us?
@C0nc0rdance The hardest of empirical sciences, quantum physics, literally states that physical properties of quantum objects only exist after they are observed and measured. Before that happens, nature contains the information of the object in it's wave function, which is not real in the sense of local realism - which you are indirectly and possibly unknowingly referring to with this argument.
@janne808 nice. your problem is you are too stupid to know what you don't know and you're very entertaining because you put it out there for everyone to see. classic. would you mind if i feature your 'local realism' comments in a video i'm making about "google galileos"? actually i don't care if you mind or not. can't wait for your next reply. it should be equally distasteful.
You're still missing the point. The phenomenon of non-locality is a phenomenon. It's observable, and based on an empirical observation. It explains anomalous behavior of uncertainty and non-locality in quantum phenomenon. It's built on empirical observations made by scientists, none of whom are relying on "spiritual senses".
What about the mating behavior of the undetectable Schfoozle? What does it teach us about the ecology of Schfoozles?
@C0nc0rdance Actually, many of the quantum pioneers later on turned on to what you might call "spiritual senses". For example W. Pauli, famous for the Pauli exclusion principle, worked together with Carl Jung on synchronicity after his nervous breakdown. Schrödinger was heavily into eastern religions etc.
Which theory/postulate did they derive from their spiritual senses?
Heck, I spend hours every day observing the Schfoozles and contemplating their beauteous coats, but I don't invoke Schfoozles to explain the behavior of a cancer cell.... simply because they are undetectable.
What will happen when scientists find out that what we experience with the 5 physical senses is not necessarily true? Just like with our physical eyes we can see a mirage, someday it will be proven that we have been wrong about what we SEE with our physical eyes. There are multitudinous forms of creation that in our present state we cannot see. There is a whole other world out there waiting to be discovered with our spiritual senses.
What annoys me about the famous essay, is that Asimov seems to be arrogantly assuming that the ideas of modern physics are somehow as well proven as the fact that the earth is roughly spherical. He is essentially expressing a religious belief that somehow modern physics is as totally proven as something that was worked out by the Ancient Greeks, and is clearly shown by photos from space. The very thing for which the student rightly criticised him.
I hope you'll forgive a little criticism, but actually, YOU are displaying the exact properties of the "humanities correspondent". Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but we also don't hold truth to be relative and subjective. The words "totally proven" are something you are unlikely to ever hear a scientist say. We operate in decreasing uncertainties, not increasing certainty. We approach a narrower and narrower error bar in our knowledge. That's the message.
Excellent video! Glad to see I'm not the only one that remembers The Good Doctor's insights and brilliance in communicating science, logic and reason. He is sorely missed.
i have always admired people like yourself. being able to take complicated concepts or theories and break them down to a level that makes it understandable to people like me who aren't on the same plain as you. i love your vids and you method of explanations in them. keep it up.
UNBELIEVABLE , ASIMOV IS TRUE , DA VINCI GENIUS . I HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR OUR MEASUREMENT OF EARTH . THE GRID LINES OF LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE , ARE RIGID FOR SOMETHING IN A CIRCULAR DIMENSION , BY PULLING A NETTING TYPE MATERIAL OVER SOMETHING CIRCULAR YOU GET MORE OF A DIAMOND CROSS SECTION OF THE ORB.
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Yeah, a scientific or financial calculator might have sold for $170 in 1982 or three times that in 1981, but you could buy a plain, generic calculator running on an AA battery for as little as $10 back then.
The Bible teaches the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22) and suspended on nothing (Job 26:7). It is a myth that people at the time of Columbus believed the earth was flat. It was promoted by the book, "A History of the Life and Voyages of Chistopher Columbus" by Washington Irving. It has no basis in history. In Columbus' time the argument was the size of the earth, not it's shape.
@ShiftyLizardStore Not to mention that the bible says something about the earth being immovable. While actually the earth is moving around the sun, which in turn is moving around the center of our galaxy, which in turn is moving in space.
@ShiftyLizardStore Then why was the focus of Columbus' journey on finding a westward route to the Indies? If they knew the earth was round, the pope's decree on the wealth of the Indies belonging to Poland (IIRC) to the east of a certain longitude and to Spain to the west of it would have made no sense. In fact, the purpose of Columbus' journey was to give Spain a legitimate claim to the entirety of the Indies, as they would get to it by going to the west of that longitude.
@ShiftyLizardStore Then why was the focus of Columbus' journey on finding a westward route to the Indies? If they knew the earth was round, the pope's decree on the wealth of the Indies belonging to Poland (IIRC) to the east of a certain longitude and to Spain to the west of it would have made no sense. In fact, the purpose of Columbus' journey was to give Spain a legitimate claim to the entirety of the Indies, as they would get to it by going to the west of that longitude.
@ShiftyLizardStore Then why was the focus of Columbus' journey on finding a westward route to the Indies? If they knew the earth was round, the pope's decree on the wealth of the Indies belonging to Poland (IIRC) to the east of a certain longitude and to Spain to the west of it would have made no sense. In fact, the purpose of Columbus' journey was to give Spain a legitimate claim to the entirety of the Indies, as they would get to it by going to the west of that longitude.
@ShiftyLizardStore Then why was the focus of Columbus' journey on finding a westward route to the Indies? If they knew the earth was round, the pope's decree on the wealth of the Indies belonging to Poland (IIRC) to the east of a certain longitude and to Spain to the west of it would have made no sense. In fact, the purpose of Columbus' journey was to give Spain a legitimate claim to the entirety of the Indies, as they would get to it by going to the west of that longitude.
I like to consider myself an intelligent person but after talking to some physics grads I find that I have missed out on the last 100 years of science which has had a more profound effect on how we view reality than 3000 years of philosophy and literature and now I want to justify why I am studying a dinosaur subject.
Brilliant video. However, I wouldn't have described Aristotle and other ancient Greeks as scientists. They came up with ideas, but they didn't generally check them against experiment. That's why Aristotle thought that heavier masses fell faster and Galileo was able to prove him wrong so simply. I'd bet that most of the really wrong ideas we've had about the world, if there are any, stem from the pre-science era, when people simply didn't think to check their ideas.
According to your train of thought , we are completely devoid of scientist today since most accepted theories especially evolution don't stand up to the true scientific method without invoking LUCK and totally ignoring inconvenient data!
@hayomtov7 Except this is wrong... There are theories out there still in use that we know are incorrect but we continue to use them because a. we lack a better theory and b. while incorrect in some areas it still allows to make useful predictions in others. As for evolution, as the video stated it is probably currently incomplete but we have yet to find a flaw in our current understanding of biological evolution.
So what you're saying is that the plethura of conjecture which ...hmmm i guess we shouldn't call them scientist, ahh...that these philosophers engage in today regarding evolution of which so much is untestable are just men with ideas????
Wow, I just read an article over at the Scientific American blog site containing the line: "we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth."
It is too bad Isaac Asimov isn't still with us today to help guide humanity out of the darkness.
Wow, I just read an article over at the Scientific American blog site containing the line: "we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth."
It is too bad Isaac Asimov isn't still with us today to help guide humanity out of the darkness.
you ought to try to examine things more closely & think them over more critically
Asimov said; "It is only because the difference between the rate of change in a STATIC universe and the rate of change in an EVOLUTIONARY one"...
According to Asimov the universe that is not the static one, is now the Evolutionary one??? He's got it backwards. To this day and despite Einstein's validated discoveries, Evolutionists are still dreaming up all kinds of non-scientific, fairy tale theories that explain
@Chuichupachichi this is an example of a failure of reading (or listening) comprehension. I suppose its like trying to do complex mathematics, keeping 3 or 4 separate concepts and conclusions in mind at the same time while arriving at a final conclusion based on the results of the previously shown concepts. It's difficult for alot of people to do, and it's not your fault. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. You have completely and utterly missed the point.
the universe to be static. The fact that Evolutionists do this, indicates that they clearly understand that finite space/time is consistent with "special creation"
Ridiculously, Asimov claimed to know the "rate of change" by presenting the supposedly scientific figures of "zero & very nearly zero". Considering that only one universe can exist, either static or finite, its even more ridiculous that Asimov claims to know the rate of change for each of them...although one is obviously non existent
@Chuichupachichi he was using an analogy. You know, those devices that allow people who have no fundamental understanding of an alien concept, to acknowledge and attempt to understand it by comparisons to things that they can understand. He went to great effort to illustrate the analogy, and he doesn't claim at any point to know the rate, rather than its apparent smallness can be sufficient for some people to think it is zero.
@Chuichupachichi he was using an analogy. You know, those devices that allow people who have no fundamental understanding of an alien concept, to acknowledge and attempt to understand it by comparisons to things that they can understand. He went to great effort to illustrate the analogy, and he doesn't claim at any point to know the rate, rather that its apparent smallness can be sufficient for some people to think it is zero.
Asimov's overabundance of ridiculousness goes much further in proving that although he obviously got it incorrect, the evolutionary rate of change which he fabricated, was very near to being accurate. Its actually zero and zero. Otherwise he wouldn't have needed to resort to such absurd degrees of ridiculousness
Once again, its required that a Creationist demonstrate the correct manner in which to execute properly reasoned, logical, "critical thinking"
This video lays out exactly where my philosophical thinking has been in recent weeks. It's the fundamental problem with most fallacious and dangerous beliefs, as well as counterproductive lack of belief and thus one of the largest and most fundamental problems of all. Most people I encounter seem too intellectually lazy, underdeveloped and uneducated to get past their sadly simplistic view of knowledge. This should be required viewing for everyone in the world.
Heh, not even. Certainty in scientific literature is usually 95% sure. If theory A is 95% certain though, and theories B, C, D, and E are 95% wrong, I'll put a good bit of confidence in A.
My faviorate Asimov's fiction is I,Robot for it has many cyberpunk themes in it and my faviorate nonfiction fro him is is the three volume Understanding Physics books , helped alot with Science homework when i was in school , His is defiantely one of the master SF writers
@jmm1233: well, according to the great Azimov/Clarke accord, Asimov is the greatest science fiction writer to ever have lived, while arthur c Clarke is the greats science writer. These roles are naturally exchanged when considering second place.
I often hear the mistake that the person writing to Asimov made--from my mother. She doesn't have a lot of 'faith' in the scientific method or scientists. I try to explain that her issue is placing faith in such a thing, in science we can demonstrate truth at various degrees and it is humble in admitting which degree that is. I tell her it's a self correcting process and she tells me that it is subject to the corruption of money. It took a while but she's as fed up with IntligentDesign as I.
@dookiecheez well placing faith in science is a bit obsured , thats like saying you place faith in a piece of software, scientific method is just java script in a great big operating system that is the rational mind
@jmm1233 What you just said is absurd in of itself. Putting faith in science is not putting "faith in a piece of software, scientific method", those are just tools to help us improve our lives and solve our problems. Science is just a way of observation based thinking and reasoning; thats where scientists and atheists put their faith in science.
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi If you want it in metric, then you need to go back in time 20+ years and ask Isaac Asimov to redo his essay. C0nc0rdance is reading the text as it written.
@footube1969 He paraphrased other things, why not just do the conversion? The diagram shown when he was talking about inches per mile was in km. I know the average person in the US is familiar with miles and such, but metric is the system of science (and the common system for 95% of the population of the earth).
Belive it or not Free energy is real,But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be part of the revolution!
I love your videos but I hate that you often don't you SI units. Its fairly common for people in life sciences or medicine and even more common for Americans.
Forty years ago, when I was in my teens, Asimov was my favourite writer - I think I read nearly everything he ever wrote, fiction and non-fiction, and he taught me a lot.
And this is the difference between science and religion. With the passage of time, science zeros in on the truth. But with each passing year, religion takes you further and further from truth, because you are forced to reinterpret your reinterpretations of translations of copies, of a scripture that had no real veracity to begin with. If God exists, he did not give us a mind in order to flee from truth.
@AronRaHAHAHA Please, go and measure it yourself... Oh wait. Can you trust the instruments? Maybe you should do a series of experiments just to be sure that math does indeed work. If you can't prove geometry and trigonometry then you really can't be sure of the results of your measurements. Then you can do your own peer review, where you can get others to duplicate your experiments, to confirm you made no errors.
Once you've done that, please publish your findings!
Would it be entirely wrong to suggest that an Open Text, eg the millenia-old books of the three Peoples of the Book, contains sufficient divergent text to effectively support any argument? E.g. it has been used to argue both for and against slavery. Of course, my favourite question is - why doesn't it commence a luminous divine glow once its been assembled?
Isn't it amazing that an advanced species of monkey, living on a very average planet in a single point of space, could think and understand the inner-workings of the universe around them.
It's a good position. Stay informed, but practically skeptical on new data. Though some lay members of the public believe scientist will be dogmatic on their various models; it never occurs to the same lay public that scientist got into science for the reward of making the next leap. Like all the hard training professional sportsman who want to break the record established in their game. The catch is that you have to preform better than the existing standard. Mutually, it's all about advance.
It's a moot point, because not everyone thought that the earth was flat. In fact people that lived thousands of years didn't believe that-Antikythera mechanism, Mayan calender etc...I would argue the opposite. I would say that people in the past were in some ways more intelligent than we are now. I would call the current outlook "neo-regressionist"- people are trying to convince you that you're just a bunch of random chemicals thrown together, and that's really silly.
Prove that people in the past were more intelligent, dont just say it. Everything is progressing upwards. "neo regressionist" view of the past is not silly, its a logical fact.
Solid rock of science? Science is based on theories. Even when a theory is proved through experiment it can be disproved through later ones. The solid rock of science as you call it is not do solid. As far as evolution, who says God is against organisms adapting to there ever changing environment. This is an un-winable argument on both sides. All will be revealed when we die, hopefully.
Sigh, did you even watch the video above? Of coarse a theory can give way to greater theories, but it must at least be part true, or imcomplete, to hold up for the time being. Compared to Creationism, Evolution is just like solid rock. I never said God doesnt allow for evolution, but I will say that its very lazy. There is no place for a God in the process.
@RedAlphaDingo Evolution doesn't explain "how" life began, it only studies how life changes over time. Jeez, sounds like the Evolutionist doesn't even know what Evolution is.
I never said anything of the sort. Do not put words in my mouth you lier. I am well aware that evolution explains speciation and abiogenesis explains the origins of life.
Dude. You followed me across four videos to come at me. Also, what is it about your beliefs that are worthy of respect? Thats how wacko beliefs get started: people respect them when there is no evidence, and continue to respect them. All the religions that have fallen, died when someone like me refused to continue respecting them and said "thats a pile of crap".
Watching a lot of documentaries about creationism, astrology, faith healing, ESP and other psuedo sciences it seems to me that 9 times out of 10, if the person talking first starts out by listing ALL their credentials and insist on calling themselves "doctor", bullshit is sure to follow.
Honestly one of the best videos available on youtube. Logical, clear and concise. I am constantly referring this video to creationists and others who wish to place doubt on scientific knowledge simply because we dont know everything, which is what their absolutist perspecitives require.
@RedAlphaDingo do they refer the koran/bible/tora back to you? quit being a bitch, they can believe what they want, so can you, but dont make them think the same way you do, then your no different than a muslim/christian/jewish missionary
So we can all hold hands and sing together? I will tell them theyre wrong and will relish doing it. You know why? Because there is no democracy in truth. Go cry to your mum
I have said these things to Arabs, but not in Iraq. I personally wouldnt mind doing it, you seem to make the assumption that they are all violent. But even if I wouldnt, fear of reprisal does not make them right, or mean that I should respect their position. I dont mind telling people that theyre wrong, but I can also explain the logic behind what I am saying.
I have never been to Iraq, but that doesn’t affect my point: Creationism is not true, Evolution is. I will gladly slam a creationist anytime, in real life and online. Because I stand on the solid rock of scientific evidence. Maybe take a listen to Greydon Square, an atheist rapper who has served in Iraq.
Guys please help me out what is the one called where he talks about gazing up into the night sky and about how science sucks the fun out if it you know please help!
Nightwalker9001 2 weeks ago
@Nightwalker9001 THE VIDEO IS CALLED HOW SCIENCE SAVED MY LIFE
SoulTears1 6 days ago
Another logical video :)
DrIdaho 2 months ago
Atheist: "there is no god"
theist: "there is a dear & fluffy lord"
Agnostic : "I'm too stupid to pick a side. Maybe I should become a young earth creationist baptist televangelist criminal"
paspax 2 months ago
giggle giggle, English majors
jcn35 3 months ago
But I should also point out that all fundamental constants of nature are artifacts of the arbitrary choice of units by Humans. To attriute any special characteristics to them is an athropocentric point of view, and not even an interesting one. I hear arguments all the time for god that go, "if the constants were 1% different..."
If they were any different it would mean humans picked different units to express them. If we were smart, we'd make them all =1 and be done with it.
attheveryend 3 months ago
@attheveryend Well said.
aqouby 3 months ago
one of my favorites! thank you!
skepticforthewin 3 months ago
C0nc0rdance. I love the videos, I have to preface this with the caveat that my field is psychology, so physics is a little out side my expertise. With that said does the argument that the universe is so precise seem like a plausible argument for the existence of God? I ask because from what I understand the only major counter to that is the multiple universe hypotheses.
TheNightwing01 3 months ago
@TheNightwing01
By "so precise" do you mean the fundamental constants of physics are fine-tuned for our existence? Why does that suggest supernatural intervention to you? To me it just looks like an interesting pattern. I can think of at least three reasons the constants all coordinate.
1. Linked values.
2. Parallel multiverse.
3. Multiple, sequential iterations of universes.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance I thought of the linked values as well but I have not found any discussion or theory that would elaborate on that. Do you have anything about linked valued cosmological constants that we can see or read?
alirezasepehrara 3 months ago
Comment removed
janne808 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Maybe they suggest a "supernatural intervention", because there is no way to derive them from the first principles of current theories of the observable natural world.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808 only the fine structure constant α can not be derived from first principles. all the rest can be, or can be expressed in terms of a few others who are derived from first principles. Regardless, they're all quite empirical, and they only matter as much as they can accuractely describe reality.
attheveryend 3 months ago
@attheveryend Cosmological constant is interesting, since the predicted value is totally off by what is actually observed. Because of this, I'd say you it's one of those "supernatural" plug-in constants as well to this date.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808 It's totally off? The spiral of galaxies are confusing to us but you know it's all explained in non-supernatural terms right? I'm not quite sure what everyone's arguing about, lol
aqouby 3 months ago
@aqouby It's off by a factor of 10^(-120). No kidding.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808 Hold on. Our cosmological constant is tuned to indeed 1/10^120 -- but we know that. We can make these measurements and determine the constant. If anyone here is trying to imply that because the constant is so low that it calls for a maker is quite mistaken. I really don't see anything supernatural anywhere in this topic.
aqouby 3 months ago
@aqouby Ofcourse. But then again the same goes for calling for the non-existence of god per atheism, using the same type of argument.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808 Well I think everything in the face of science is "atheist." Atheists don't believe in a god because of the lack of evidence. If I see a statistical impossibility then I wouldn't even begin to bring up the subject of a god because the idea of an omnipotence is man made. Indeed, if I saw any given miracle, it gives no proof to the subject of wether or not there is a god. Which, so far, there isn't.
Remember, atheism doesn't claim anything.
aqouby 3 months ago
@aqouby I think you mean agnosticism? The most aggressive definition of atheism does indeed claim the non-existence of god. Like here, the claim seems to be that there is no evidence for it. In general, as far as I see it, lack of evidence doesn't prove a hypothesis wrong or right.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808 Lack of evidence leads to the lack of a hypothesis. If you have no evidence for something then there can't be any progress made on the subject. Agnosticism is neither the belief or lack of belief in a god. Agnostics are people that either believe in a god and just don't want to pin it down to a religion, or they don't believe in god but have no objective reason why. Atheists understand that because of the lack of evidence of a higher power, that it's better to remain skeptical.
aqouby 3 months ago
@janne808 There are atheists that claim that there is no god, but they have just as much proof to bare as the theists. I do not associate my atheism with theirs. Again, atheism is the lack of belief in a god because of the lack of evidence.
aqouby 3 months ago
@aqouby This is Orwellian doublespeak in action, as far as I'm concerned.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808 And justifiably so-- But I can't agree. Theists believe, agnostics can go either way, atheists do not believe because they see the lack of evidence-- but are willing to believe if given evidence for the belief of a god. There are some atheists that deny the existence of a god all together but those atheists aren't the majority. These atheists don't critically think after their first critical conclusion to the non-belief in a higher power. It's really not a twist of words.
aqouby 3 months ago
@janne808 I'm even willing to say that I don't think agnosticism is a stance.
aqouby 3 months ago
@aqouby,
Agnosticism is precisely defined this way: a belief that knowledge of any deity or deities is unobtainable--that humans can not have knowledge about god. This is independent of any belief in the existence of a deity or deities.
As far as "aggressive definitions" go, I think the term is meaningless. Can you aggressively define a "hot dog" for me? Is it more aggressive if written furiously? Atheism is purely lack of belief in deities. Any addition to that is Atheism+
attheveryend 3 months ago
@attheveryend Thanks for the definition of agnosticism. lol, aggressively define a hot-dog..
aqouby 3 months ago
@janne808 The cosmological constant is not a fundamental constant of nature. It is about as interesting to consider as the dielectric constant of plastic. Einstein made it up to explain a stationary universe, which was proven to be something we do not live in. if it isn't 1, 0, π, εo, µo, h, G, α, e (natural base), e (fundamental unit of charge), or c(which can be expresed as 1/(εo*µo)^.5), then it pretty much doesn't count.
attheveryend 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@attheveryend Go away, you're stupid.
janne808 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance,
The fundamental constants of nature exist solely to transmogrify one unit system to another. A good example of this is the boltzmann constant, which exists purely as an artifact of using Avagadro's number to establish a mole. I argue that a fundamental unit of temperature would be 1 Kelvin * Boltzmann Constant--such a unit would eliminate the constant entirely and make it = 1. Further modifications to units would, in principle, eliminate all but pi and the natural base.
attheveryend 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Yes I did, I think the problem that I have is the Parallel multiverse is not proven, not that it means it does not exist I think Credible scientists have show how it could if I read the literature right. I think it suggests supernatural intervention because it seems for give the term designed in some way. As I said before I could be wrong I may be a little out of my depth in this realm. So what your saying is that the constants that we developed due to linked values?
TheNightwing01 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance P.S thanks for taking the time to respond how you are having a great Monday :)
TheNightwing01 3 months ago
I don't know about you, but calling the Earth a sphere is good enough for me.
Hell, we even called the earth flat in physics class when they taught us about parabolic motion.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 3 months ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 a flat earth is a good approximation of reality for any application inside of a few square miles.
attheveryend 3 months ago
The theories of science suggest we people are evolved primates that have figured out how to build a society and civilization.
The theories will be incomplete for me until we figure out how and why most brains persist in their belief in God.
I can live with that.
Highlyskeptical 3 months ago
@Highlyskeptical
You'll probably find most of that in developmental psychology, religion takes advantage of many mechanisms that were developed for social development (thus why the tendency to get them while they're young is common), not to mention many people can be preyed upon while in their most vulnerable personal moments and critical thinking is a lot harder than superstitious thinking
garith21 3 months ago
"What phenomenon that we currently observe is better explained by the existence of an undetectable world?" Subatomic quantum phenomena. Heisenberg et al. figured this shit out almost 100 years ago already. Objective local realism was shown experimentally to be totally flawed in later work.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808
No, no, no! Quantum physics is built on empirical observations! The reason we know neutrinos exist is their interactions with matter. You're saying spiritual worlds not revealed through empirical testing exist, and are significant. My question is what is the difference between something that cannot be observed, directly or indirectly, and something that does not exist.
For example, the Schfoozle is an undetectable animal... what does the study of Schfoozles teach us?
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 6
@C0nc0rdance The hardest of empirical sciences, quantum physics, literally states that physical properties of quantum objects only exist after they are observed and measured. Before that happens, nature contains the information of the object in it's wave function, which is not real in the sense of local realism - which you are indirectly and possibly unknowingly referring to with this argument.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808 ugh! facepalm
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@uknowispeaksense Fuck off troll.
janne808 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@janne808 nice. your problem is you are too stupid to know what you don't know and you're very entertaining because you put it out there for everyone to see. classic. would you mind if i feature your 'local realism' comments in a video i'm making about "google galileos"? actually i don't care if you mind or not. can't wait for your next reply. it should be equally distasteful.
uknowispeaksense 3 months ago
@janne808
You're still missing the point. The phenomenon of non-locality is a phenomenon. It's observable, and based on an empirical observation. It explains anomalous behavior of uncertainty and non-locality in quantum phenomenon. It's built on empirical observations made by scientists, none of whom are relying on "spiritual senses".
What about the mating behavior of the undetectable Schfoozle? What does it teach us about the ecology of Schfoozles?
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Actually, many of the quantum pioneers later on turned on to what you might call "spiritual senses". For example W. Pauli, famous for the Pauli exclusion principle, worked together with Carl Jung on synchronicity after his nervous breakdown. Schrödinger was heavily into eastern religions etc.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808
Which theory/postulate did they derive from their spiritual senses?
Heck, I spend hours every day observing the Schfoozles and contemplating their beauteous coats, but I don't invoke Schfoozles to explain the behavior of a cancer cell.... simply because they are undetectable.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance You should check out Schrödinger's book called "What is life?" which inspired Watson's discovery of the DNA double helix.
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808 Roger Penrose too.
aqouby 3 months ago
@janne808 thats a bold faced lie. Nearly uniformly the scientists who developed quantum mechanics were atheists.
attheveryend 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@attheveryend Umm.. who said anything about theism. Don't accuse me of lying, when you're not even reading what I write here.
janne808 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Hell, even Newton was an alchemist and an occultist!
janne808 3 months ago
@janne808 Ya I think Newton measured his gravitational constant when studying the change in mass the moment lead turned into gold.
Dracanic 3 months ago
@Dracanic What ever dipshit.
janne808 3 months ago
@Dracanic,
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
attheveryend 3 months ago
What will happen when scientists find out that what we experience with the 5 physical senses is not necessarily true? Just like with our physical eyes we can see a mirage, someday it will be proven that we have been wrong about what we SEE with our physical eyes. There are multitudinous forms of creation that in our present state we cannot see. There is a whole other world out there waiting to be discovered with our spiritual senses.
nodlon20 3 months ago
@nodlon20
You missed the point of this video, so let me try a few questions:
1. What is the difference between an undetectable object and no object at all?
2. What phenomenon that we currently observe is better explained by the existence of an undetectable world?
3. If I told you that money doesn't truly exist even though you think you perceive it, would you send me all the money you possessed?
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 5
@nodlon20 What spiritual senses?
meaninter03 3 months ago
What annoys me about the famous essay, is that Asimov seems to be arrogantly assuming that the ideas of modern physics are somehow as well proven as the fact that the earth is roughly spherical. He is essentially expressing a religious belief that somehow modern physics is as totally proven as something that was worked out by the Ancient Greeks, and is clearly shown by photos from space. The very thing for which the student rightly criticised him.
Newtspeare 4 months ago
@Newtspeare
I hope you'll forgive a little criticism, but actually, YOU are displaying the exact properties of the "humanities correspondent". Science doesn't deal in absolutes, but we also don't hold truth to be relative and subjective. The words "totally proven" are something you are unlikely to ever hear a scientist say. We operate in decreasing uncertainties, not increasing certainty. We approach a narrower and narrower error bar in our knowledge. That's the message.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago 20
@C0nc0rdance With one exception. Your a totally proven badass,
PaperSoapy 3 months ago
Excellent video! Glad to see I'm not the only one that remembers The Good Doctor's insights and brilliance in communicating science, logic and reason. He is sorely missed.
AthenaSchroedinger 4 months ago
i have always admired people like yourself. being able to take complicated concepts or theories and break them down to a level that makes it understandable to people like me who aren't on the same plain as you. i love your vids and you method of explanations in them. keep it up.
octobergrey1985 4 months ago
I love how after I watch your videos, I know it's only a matter of time before I WILL be quoting them at someone!
professorimpossible 5 months ago
crazy damn porkchops
xnothingbutthetruth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
holy fucking shit
xnothingbutthetruth 5 months ago
UNBELIEVABLE , ASIMOV IS TRUE , DA VINCI GENIUS . I HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR OUR MEASUREMENT OF EARTH . THE GRID LINES OF LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE , ARE RIGID FOR SOMETHING IN A CIRCULAR DIMENSION , BY PULLING A NETTING TYPE MATERIAL OVER SOMETHING CIRCULAR YOU GET MORE OF A DIAMOND CROSS SECTION OF THE ORB.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI SEPTEMBER ./ 5 / 2011
9493760 6 months ago
Fucking OWNED!
zellfalcon31 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Genetic information (DNA), like other forms of information, can't happen by chance, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Read my Internet articles under my name: Babu G. Ranganathan
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
So is this video right or wrong? Its fuzzy to me.
irclaw42 8 months ago 3
Yeah, a scientific or financial calculator might have sold for $170 in 1982 or three times that in 1981, but you could buy a plain, generic calculator running on an AA battery for as little as $10 back then.
jackdeath 8 months ago
The Bible teaches the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22) and suspended on nothing (Job 26:7). It is a myth that people at the time of Columbus believed the earth was flat. It was promoted by the book, "A History of the Life and Voyages of Chistopher Columbus" by Washington Irving. It has no basis in history. In Columbus' time the argument was the size of the earth, not it's shape.
ShiftyLizardStore 8 months ago
@ShiftyLizardStore
Isaiah 40:22 says "circle" (חוג), not sphere. A circle is a flat, 2D object. Hebrew word for "sphere": כדור
Job 26 also has vivid imagery about the pillars of heaven, clouds being balloons with water on top of them.
In fact, it's the very worst science textbook written by an omniscient person I've ever read.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago 48
@C0nc0rdance
They had no word for balloons so stop lying, and the Idea is 'ROUND' so your desperate tortured reasoning is just that... desperate!
And your critique rates right up there with the most biblically illiterate I have every read!
hayomtov7 5 months ago
@ShiftyLizardStore Not to mention that the bible says something about the earth being immovable. While actually the earth is moving around the sun, which in turn is moving around the center of our galaxy, which in turn is moving in space.
Sanquinity 5 months ago
@ShiftyLizardStore Then why was the focus of Columbus' journey on finding a westward route to the Indies? If they knew the earth was round, the pope's decree on the wealth of the Indies belonging to Poland (IIRC) to the east of a certain longitude and to Spain to the west of it would have made no sense. In fact, the purpose of Columbus' journey was to give Spain a legitimate claim to the entirety of the Indies, as they would get to it by going to the west of that longitude.
therealfriday13th 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ShiftyLizardStore Then why was the focus of Columbus' journey on finding a westward route to the Indies? If they knew the earth was round, the pope's decree on the wealth of the Indies belonging to Poland (IIRC) to the east of a certain longitude and to Spain to the west of it would have made no sense. In fact, the purpose of Columbus' journey was to give Spain a legitimate claim to the entirety of the Indies, as they would get to it by going to the west of that longitude.
therealfriday13th 5 months ago
@ShiftyLizardStore Then why was the focus of Columbus' journey on finding a westward route to the Indies? If they knew the earth was round, the pope's decree on the wealth of the Indies belonging to Poland (IIRC) to the east of a certain longitude and to Spain to the west of it would have made no sense. In fact, the purpose of Columbus' journey was to give Spain a legitimate claim to the entirety of the Indies, as they would get to it by going to the west of that longitude.
therealfriday13th 5 months ago
@ShiftyLizardStore Then why was the focus of Columbus' journey on finding a westward route to the Indies? If they knew the earth was round, the pope's decree on the wealth of the Indies belonging to Poland (IIRC) to the east of a certain longitude and to Spain to the west of it would have made no sense. In fact, the purpose of Columbus' journey was to give Spain a legitimate claim to the entirety of the Indies, as they would get to it by going to the west of that longitude.
therealfriday13th 5 months ago
@ShiftyLizardStore 4 month late but here we go.
The bible claims thatt all the worlds kingdoms are visible from a mountain top, thats some rather strange geometry.
Sweddude 4 months ago
What the English Lit student is really saying is;
I like to consider myself an intelligent person but after talking to some physics grads I find that I have missed out on the last 100 years of science which has had a more profound effect on how we view reality than 3000 years of philosophy and literature and now I want to justify why I am studying a dinosaur subject.
chrisofnottingham 8 months ago
This is pretty much the core of my critical thought.
Trinivalts 9 months ago
Brilliant video. However, I wouldn't have described Aristotle and other ancient Greeks as scientists. They came up with ideas, but they didn't generally check them against experiment. That's why Aristotle thought that heavier masses fell faster and Galileo was able to prove him wrong so simply. I'd bet that most of the really wrong ideas we've had about the world, if there are any, stem from the pre-science era, when people simply didn't think to check their ideas.
wowsa0 9 months ago
@wowsa0
According to your train of thought , we are completely devoid of scientist today since most accepted theories especially evolution don't stand up to the true scientific method without invoking LUCK and totally ignoring inconvenient data!
hayomtov7 7 months ago
@hayomtov7 Except this is wrong... There are theories out there still in use that we know are incorrect but we continue to use them because a. we lack a better theory and b. while incorrect in some areas it still allows to make useful predictions in others. As for evolution, as the video stated it is probably currently incomplete but we have yet to find a flaw in our current understanding of biological evolution.
CareerKnight 5 months ago
@wowsa0
So what you're saying is that the plethura of conjecture which ...hmmm i guess we shouldn't call them scientist, ahh...that these philosophers engage in today regarding evolution of which so much is untestable are just men with ideas????
hayomtov7 5 months ago
@hayomtov7 Men, and don't forget women, with experimentally testable ideas which have passed the experimental tests, yes.
wowsa0 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow, I just read an article over at the Scientific American blog site containing the line: "we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth."
It is too bad Isaac Asimov isn't still with us today to help guide humanity out of the darkness.
neilrieck 9 months ago
Wow, I just read an article over at the Scientific American blog site containing the line: "we are a people estranged from critical thinking, divorced from logic, alienated from even objective truth."
It is too bad Isaac Asimov isn't still with us today to help guide humanity out of the darkness.
neilrieck 9 months ago
This is an excellent post...
StunnedByStupidity 9 months ago
you ought to try to examine things more closely & think them over more critically
Asimov said; "It is only because the difference between the rate of change in a STATIC universe and the rate of change in an EVOLUTIONARY one"...
According to Asimov the universe that is not the static one, is now the Evolutionary one??? He's got it backwards. To this day and despite Einstein's validated discoveries, Evolutionists are still dreaming up all kinds of non-scientific, fairy tale theories that explain
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
@Chuichupachichi this is an example of a failure of reading (or listening) comprehension. I suppose its like trying to do complex mathematics, keeping 3 or 4 separate concepts and conclusions in mind at the same time while arriving at a final conclusion based on the results of the previously shown concepts. It's difficult for alot of people to do, and it's not your fault. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. You have completely and utterly missed the point.
koed15 8 months ago
the universe to be static. The fact that Evolutionists do this, indicates that they clearly understand that finite space/time is consistent with "special creation"
Ridiculously, Asimov claimed to know the "rate of change" by presenting the supposedly scientific figures of "zero & very nearly zero". Considering that only one universe can exist, either static or finite, its even more ridiculous that Asimov claims to know the rate of change for each of them...although one is obviously non existent
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
@Chuichupachichi he was using an analogy. You know, those devices that allow people who have no fundamental understanding of an alien concept, to acknowledge and attempt to understand it by comparisons to things that they can understand. He went to great effort to illustrate the analogy, and he doesn't claim at any point to know the rate, rather than its apparent smallness can be sufficient for some people to think it is zero.
koed15 8 months ago
@Chuichupachichi he was using an analogy. You know, those devices that allow people who have no fundamental understanding of an alien concept, to acknowledge and attempt to understand it by comparisons to things that they can understand. He went to great effort to illustrate the analogy, and he doesn't claim at any point to know the rate, rather that its apparent smallness can be sufficient for some people to think it is zero.
koed15 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Asimov's overabundance of ridiculousness goes much further in proving that although he obviously got it incorrect, the evolutionary rate of change which he fabricated, was very near to being accurate. Its actually zero and zero. Otherwise he wouldn't have needed to resort to such absurd degrees of ridiculousness
Once again, its required that a Creationist demonstrate the correct manner in which to execute properly reasoned, logical, "critical thinking"
~ The Ape Hunter ~
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
Comment removed
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
Theories are just logical models that represent something.
and we all know that even wrong solution may give you good answer.
Right from wrong differs in just one thing right theory cannot have any exceptions.
and we have quite many of such theories that were completely wrong.
deltaxcd 10 months ago
Easily one of the most important videos on YouTube or the internet for that matter. I consider it your best video.
LogosSteve 10 months ago
This video lays out exactly where my philosophical thinking has been in recent weeks. It's the fundamental problem with most fallacious and dangerous beliefs, as well as counterproductive lack of belief and thus one of the largest and most fundamental problems of all. Most people I encounter seem too intellectually lazy, underdeveloped and uneducated to get past their sadly simplistic view of knowledge. This should be required viewing for everyone in the world.
kyebean 10 months ago
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH, ZIIIINNNNGGGGGG!!!
What an answer to John!
Feistycadaver 11 months ago
Had to chuckle at this. Too bad more people don't take the time to think things through like Asimov.
RHODOAN 11 months ago 2
c0nc0rdance, you are win
TheHomelessCripple 11 months ago
Thank you for this.
every116 11 months ago
*Clap, clap, clap*. Couldn't have said it better.
elchafa 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this.
CircaCertainty 1 year ago
I think people should be more honest:
Instead of writing "u r wrong" (wich is a pointless statement without a context),
one can point some reference
or just say "i cannot comprehend given information, so i'll comfort me with farytales".
SEThatered 1 year ago
This video actually brought a small dampness to my eyes.. Beautiful and poetic, and as strong an argument as any I have heard for logic and reason.
laforcemajeure 1 year ago 3
Thanx for making these videos.
thenoeggplantzone 1 year ago
0:39 - Eff that mess. Knowledge is power, dude.
SnarkLicker 1 year ago
beautiful.. thank you so much concordance. enlightening!
sinprelic 1 year ago
english major...HAHA
lianghaochen 1 year ago
Certainty is the point where the margin of error is at its smallest but no further. A margin of error is always there. I am certain of this.
ZenMondo 1 year ago
@ZenMondo
Heh, not even. Certainty in scientific literature is usually 95% sure. If theory A is 95% certain though, and theories B, C, D, and E are 95% wrong, I'll put a good bit of confidence in A.
1:11 is absolutely beautiful.
RichardMNixon 1 year ago
beautiful
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 year ago 2
Excellent video.
NixuzE 1 year ago
"Theory not wrong but incomplete"
this is pure genies.
xXDominoXx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Be Naughty with people near you benaughtyman.info
mandakiniization 1 year ago
My faviorate Asimov's fiction is I,Robot for it has many cyberpunk themes in it and my faviorate nonfiction fro him is is the three volume Understanding Physics books , helped alot with Science homework when i was in school , His is defiantely one of the master SF writers
jmm1233 1 year ago
@jmm1233: well, according to the great Azimov/Clarke accord, Asimov is the greatest science fiction writer to ever have lived, while arthur c Clarke is the greats science writer. These roles are naturally exchanged when considering second place.
puncheex 1 year ago
I often hear the mistake that the person writing to Asimov made--from my mother. She doesn't have a lot of 'faith' in the scientific method or scientists. I try to explain that her issue is placing faith in such a thing, in science we can demonstrate truth at various degrees and it is humble in admitting which degree that is. I tell her it's a self correcting process and she tells me that it is subject to the corruption of money. It took a while but she's as fed up with IntligentDesign as I.
dookiecheez 1 year ago 16
@dookiecheez , Great comment.
Belief and faith have no basis where facts are involved.
1BustedMyth 1 year ago
@dookiecheez well placing faith in science is a bit obsured , thats like saying you place faith in a piece of software, scientific method is just java script in a great big operating system that is the rational mind
jmm1233 1 year ago
@jmm1233 What you just said is absurd in of itself. Putting faith in science is not putting "faith in a piece of software, scientific method", those are just tools to help us improve our lives and solve our problems. Science is just a way of observation based thinking and reasoning; thats where scientists and atheists put their faith in science.
BurtonKelly0 1 year ago
One of the best videos on the difference between creationist concept of theory vs science concept of theory. Thank you. ou have another subscriber.
I particularly liked "Theories are not so much wrong, as they are incomplete."
Evolution as a theory is incomplete, but it is far more complete than creationism (which I consider to be barely a theory if at all).
drfoxcourt 1 year ago 2
Great video as usual, but I really wish you'd use the metric system.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 1 year ago
@sdrawkcabgnipytmi If you want it in metric, then you need to go back in time 20+ years and ask Isaac Asimov to redo his essay. C0nc0rdance is reading the text as it written.
footube1969 1 year ago
@footube1969 He paraphrased other things, why not just do the conversion? The diagram shown when he was talking about inches per mile was in km. I know the average person in the US is familiar with miles and such, but metric is the system of science (and the common system for 95% of the population of the earth).
tml4873 1 year ago
*Already subscribed to C0nc0rdance*
TheNamelessCharacter 1 year ago
"Bulgier" just earned you another subscriber...
TheBookSnake 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Belive it or not Free energy is real,But the Establishment doesn't want ppl to know this,Get a REAL working magnet motor at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be part of the revolution!
Rread4549 1 year ago
I love your videos but I hate that you often don't you SI units. Its fairly common for people in life sciences or medicine and even more common for Americans.
antonyneal 1 year ago
Asimov... master of the thought experiment. great video. : )
raverdeath100 1 year ago
Forty years ago, when I was in my teens, Asimov was my favourite writer - I think I read nearly everything he ever wrote, fiction and non-fiction, and he taught me a lot.
mandolinic 1 year ago
And this is the difference between science and religion. With the passage of time, science zeros in on the truth. But with each passing year, religion takes you further and further from truth, because you are forced to reinterpret your reinterpretations of translations of copies, of a scripture that had no real veracity to begin with. If God exists, he did not give us a mind in order to flee from truth.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
Watched it.
Well appointed video, lots to think about, but there's a lot of measurements, are we to take all these as fact?
I think it's clear to say the earth is almost round, but I can't say for sure, I have not got a rocket to find out for myself..
AronRaHAHAHA 1 year ago
@AronRaHAHAHA Please, go and measure it yourself... Oh wait. Can you trust the instruments? Maybe you should do a series of experiments just to be sure that math does indeed work. If you can't prove geometry and trigonometry then you really can't be sure of the results of your measurements. Then you can do your own peer review, where you can get others to duplicate your experiments, to confirm you made no errors.
Once you've done that, please publish your findings!
jacevicki 1 year ago 2
Would it be entirely wrong to suggest that an Open Text, eg the millenia-old books of the three Peoples of the Book, contains sufficient divergent text to effectively support any argument? E.g. it has been used to argue both for and against slavery. Of course, my favourite question is - why doesn't it commence a luminous divine glow once its been assembled?
yermawasahampster 1 year ago
Good explanation, but probably not good enough for Creationist. Oh well, we can still hypothesize that one day they will evolve their theories.
celainea 1 year ago
only a sith deals in absolutes.
bunshine8plutz 1 year ago 2
I think I've said this before, but I just really, really love this.
OgreVI 1 year ago
& people say there is nothing to be learned off of you tube.
circusboy90210 1 year ago 59
Isn't it amazing that an advanced species of monkey, living on a very average planet in a single point of space, could think and understand the inner-workings of the universe around them.
Dig801 1 year ago
I'd give you a bro fist if I could
Tiosh 1 year ago
It's a good position. Stay informed, but practically skeptical on new data. Though some lay members of the public believe scientist will be dogmatic on their various models; it never occurs to the same lay public that scientist got into science for the reward of making the next leap. Like all the hard training professional sportsman who want to break the record established in their game. The catch is that you have to preform better than the existing standard. Mutually, it's all about advance.
granddad2002 1 year ago
Comment removed
skeys79 1 year ago
It's a moot point, because not everyone thought that the earth was flat. In fact people that lived thousands of years didn't believe that-Antikythera mechanism, Mayan calender etc...I would argue the opposite. I would say that people in the past were in some ways more intelligent than we are now. I would call the current outlook "neo-regressionist"- people are trying to convince you that you're just a bunch of random chemicals thrown together, and that's really silly.
flapjack9999 1 year ago
@flapjack9999
Prove that people in the past were more intelligent, dont just say it. Everything is progressing upwards. "neo regressionist" view of the past is not silly, its a logical fact.
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago
Solid rock of science? Science is based on theories. Even when a theory is proved through experiment it can be disproved through later ones. The solid rock of science as you call it is not do solid. As far as evolution, who says God is against organisms adapting to there ever changing environment. This is an un-winable argument on both sides. All will be revealed when we die, hopefully.
skeys79 1 year ago
@skeys79
Sigh, did you even watch the video above? Of coarse a theory can give way to greater theories, but it must at least be part true, or imcomplete, to hold up for the time being. Compared to Creationism, Evolution is just like solid rock. I never said God doesnt allow for evolution, but I will say that its very lazy. There is no place for a God in the process.
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago
@RedAlphaDingo Evolution doesn't explain "how" life began, it only studies how life changes over time. Jeez, sounds like the Evolutionist doesn't even know what Evolution is.
flapjack9999 1 year ago
@flapjack9999
I never said anything of the sort. Do not put words in my mouth you lier. I am well aware that evolution explains speciation and abiogenesis explains the origins of life.
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago
@flapjack9999
Oh LOL. You believe in the psychic journey of Edgar Cayce? HAHA
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago
@flapjack9999
And Alien landings and encounters? LMAO
Please for the love of you own sanity. Dont believe anything until it is acutally proved with evidence.
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago
@flapjack9999
Seriously. Read a book called "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. You might actually get back on the same level as the rest of us.
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago
@RedAlphaDingo You are completely disrespectul, so why should anyone listen to you at all?
flapjack9999 1 year ago
@flapjack9999
Dude. You followed me across four videos to come at me. Also, what is it about your beliefs that are worthy of respect? Thats how wacko beliefs get started: people respect them when there is no evidence, and continue to respect them. All the religions that have fallen, died when someone like me refused to continue respecting them and said "thats a pile of crap".
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago
Watching a lot of documentaries about creationism, astrology, faith healing, ESP and other psuedo sciences it seems to me that 9 times out of 10, if the person talking first starts out by listing ALL their credentials and insist on calling themselves "doctor", bullshit is sure to follow.
Why is that?
mrdaym 1 year ago
Honestly one of the best videos available on youtube. Logical, clear and concise. I am constantly referring this video to creationists and others who wish to place doubt on scientific knowledge simply because we dont know everything, which is what their absolutist perspecitives require.
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago 2
@RedAlphaDingo do they refer the koran/bible/tora back to you? quit being a bitch, they can believe what they want, so can you, but dont make them think the same way you do, then your no different than a muslim/christian/jewish missionary
Frostyjesus 1 year ago
@Frostyjesus
So we can all hold hands and sing together? I will tell them theyre wrong and will relish doing it. You know why? Because there is no democracy in truth. Go cry to your mum
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago
@RedAlphaDingo Good come to iraq with me and you can say it to a couple arabs faces, see what happens. No, you dont want to? Thats what i thought
Frostyjesus 1 year ago
@Frostyjesus
I have said these things to Arabs, but not in Iraq. I personally wouldnt mind doing it, you seem to make the assumption that they are all violent. But even if I wouldnt, fear of reprisal does not make them right, or mean that I should respect their position. I dont mind telling people that theyre wrong, but I can also explain the logic behind what I am saying.
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago
@RedAlphaDingo oh? excuse me, i didnt know you went to iraq
Frostyjesus 1 year ago
@Frostyjesus
I have never been to Iraq, but that doesn’t affect my point: Creationism is not true, Evolution is. I will gladly slam a creationist anytime, in real life and online. Because I stand on the solid rock of scientific evidence. Maybe take a listen to Greydon Square, an atheist rapper who has served in Iraq.
RedAlphaDingo 1 year ago