Added: 2 years ago
From: MisterBusta
Views: 11,630
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (44)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Great vid.

    Even though you misrepresent slightly Kuhn's controversial position, still the point of his book and your vid are coterminous, namely putting positivists (Kuhn) and new atheists (as I think the aim of this vid is) with their conceited scientism in their place.

  • You've completely missed Kuhn's point.1) You are mistaken in saying "Each new paradigm is always better...brings us closer to the truth", according to Kuhn. One of the biggest pillars of "The Structure" is that paradigms move in a noncumulative & arbitrary manner. Shifting from Newton to Einstein is not progress, only a change in the rules of the game (see ch.9). 2) Dogmatic belief in scientific research is NECESSARY for scientific progress. Questioning paradigms only hinders scientific research

  • you tube sucks my ass right now

  • One can make sense of quantum mechanics. It is complex, and people must be willing to let go of some preconceived notions first, but it is possible.

  • its not that physicists dont care about the interpretation , they do, only thing is that many physicists tried to find an answer and betted their careers and failed , we tried to make sense of quantum mechanics, we failed , for now, and until we get something new , we calculate.

  • Anyone knows where I can download that intro music??? What is the music/song called?

  • good video

  • The Singularity is Near. Or maybe the Plurality.

  • good stuff man. you've inspired me. how i'm not sure. but you have.

  • Good work. keep it up

  • That would be silly, especially because we have more than enough evidence to prove it does. The lack of evidence is enough to have an agnostic tone, but calling bullshit holds no merit outside personal bias. I must admit the idea of the universe being a matrix of energy and constants definately holds ground, but that whole quantum consciousness idea needs a hell of a lot more to back it up to be considered a theory.

  • Yes, we should be ready and excited for the paradigm shift. However, that doesn't mean that we should let ourselves devolve back to crackpot and preposterous ideas. That's what I think many people are starting to do with shitty ideas like quantum consciousness. It may just be people using science to attempt and justify their own dogmatic ideas they came up with while smoking weed but it's still. It's worrying.

  • @MakeshiftEstablished, true, but I would not be so quick to call bullshit by saying someones theory is crackpot. I know what your getting at though.

  • So quantum consciousness is a theory? An accepted scientific theory? It's been peer reviewed and featured in respected Scientific journals? I think not. You know what I'm getting at and I appreciate that but still, you give these people a millimeter and they take a mile. It really is something that should be laughed at. If you believe the "theory" that Elvis is still alive you will be laughed out of the room. It should be the same for many many more unfortunately overly respected ideas.

  • @MakeshiftEstablished, I never said that, I just said not to call bullshit too quickly. If someone told you about the Higs Boson, but failed to support his arguement with enough evidence, does that mean that you can assert it does not exist. Of course not.

  • You're right, you can't. But that's not what I'm talking about. There are just some things that are fundamentally contrary to the laws of physics such as Telepathy. I know not to call bullshit too quickly but I also know WHEN to call bullshit. I trust our scientists for the most part for their expertise not for their authority. I'm not afraid to be wrong...for example if it were demonstrably shown beyond a reasonable doubt that god existed I would believe. Or telepathy, or quantum consciousness.

  • @MakeshiftEstablished , I got to admit that I don't believe the notion that the wave collapse function occurs just because your aware of it. And telepathy, mehhhhhh! I won't call bullshit, but they are assuming quit alot with such little support. If I could use telepathy, my dumbass would not be typing this message. I'd be making some serious dough(money)! You know what I mean. KA-CHING!!!

  • @MakeshiftEstablished

    "It may just be people using science to attempt and justify their own dogmatic ideas they came up with while smoking weed but it's still. It's worrying."

    You mean like those Terence McKenna people?

  • Just when you think you have it all figured out some ass hole comes along with a paradigm shift and just screws up everything you thought you knew... Grrr !!!

    ^..^

  • so is there now a socialist paradigm of science?

  • there's nothing dogmatic about science and evolution has stolen nothing except maybe the irrational faith of a few people.

  • Yes, sadly only a few people.

  • what has evolution "stolen" from mans life?

  • "evolution theory has stolen from average man's life and what it has given in return (naturalism, socialism, etc.)."

    It has stolen NOTHINGIf your religious dogma forbids you to accept reality, that is no body's fault but your own. Also, Socialism, as a practice predated the discovery of evolution by centuries, not to mention that Marx published the Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his works. Not that I expect you to let this fact get in the way of your dogma, really, though...

  • @Akatam0t0ma And, actually, if you want to really smash that paradigm (evolution = socialism), consider this- Darwin was aware of the work of, and heavily influenced by, Adam Smith, the author of 'The Wealth of Nations', who is considered the father of free market capitalism and economics. In fact, Smith's metaphor for a free enterprise market organizing things without the use of a central organizer is remarkably similar to Darwin's concept of natural selection. Yeah, not socialism at all. 

  • @Virgil0211:

    "Smith's metaphor for a free enterprise market organizing things without the use of a central organizer is remarkably similar to Darwin's concept of natural selection"

    I agree, well said. I've been thinking about it that way for a while now :-)

  • Though I feel that this video should be a prelude to some science courses (yes, that good!) there are always exceptions to rules, due to the chaotic nature of man himself. One that comes to mind, is that the idea of the dinosauria being active & vigorous, preceded the long dominant paradigm of them being lethargic galumphs, barely able to move at all. This was due strictly to influence, pandering, & the subsequent out shouting, over the party that in the end, was closer to correct.

    Great video!

  • Personally, I'm ready to accept anything that's demonstrably better at prediction. I simply view science as a collection of ever improving models.

    However, I'm not sure that dogmatism is such a big problem in practice either. When Kuhn says the "the opponents die out", he forgets that a new theory has won the moment it is getting taught to young people in the first place. That some diehards will fight progress to their deaths is sad, but not a very important phenomenon.

  • Wow! Good to know! Lord Kelvin was extraordinarily smart and very respectable, but he's still a good example of out-of-control arrogance (or perhaps just ignorant regarding paradigm shifts).

  • Just a note on relativity: While it makes more sense to study our solar system from the reference from in which the sun is at its center (because it is the center of gravity and it makes our mathematical predictions more accurate). That reference frame is no more objectively true than the reference frame which puts the Earth at the center of the solar system.

  • I dogmatically insist that it is always preferable to avoid dogmatism in every form.

    At any rate, great video. Dogma is the first step to "holy war", which is the main reason it should be avoided.

    Those firmly entrenched in an ideology, whatever that ideology happens to be, become close-minded and even violent or abusive, both physically and verbally to any challenging view. This doesn't change at all when we move from religion to politics to science.

  • No fair... I wanted to dissagree with you.

  • True, as long as we remind people that a "changing paradigm" doesn't mean going back to a previously discredited one. Science doesn't work *that* way, either. Only a different brand of dogmatism does.

  • Sure, that's why I made sure to say that each new paradigm is always better than the preceding one ( 4:20 in the video).

  • Great video!

  • As always, another challenging video. Thank you for your time here.

  • Thanks! =)

  • Great Intro!

    Excellent video. One thing I would say, at around 4:20 you say "we should all have faith in our current scientific paradigm"

    I would take the word faith out, because it can be misunderstood to mean that we should believe in what our sciences currently tell us without examination or verification.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more