For me, the dislikers are too religious. I believe in a God and pray but not as religious when it comes to science. I believe in both so no argument will occur.
in reallty we experience the effect of a black holse right now ... cuz in the center of our universe is a super masible black hole .... but like 0.00000001%... but it stil exist maybe smaller ... a black holse is a super cool think deadly but COOL!!!
Any life forms that exist on a planet or moon that orbits around that star are either feeling very doomed indeed, living in unthinkable circumstances, or already extinct.. I'm just glad it's not in proximity to us, hehe.
You always hear that nothing can escape a black hole then during the explaination they talk about jets of energy shooting out from each side. So it's escaping, right? Kind of a contradiction isn't it?
@thgoat68 Everything is theory, but if you listen carefully he says; Heat and magnetic energy build to a criticle level, the center cannot hold, the disk erupts, blasting some matter back into space at a rate of some 25x greater then what the black hole can swallow. Ok now, picture a water bomb getting filled up extremely fast, the water goes in so fast and it gets filled instantly, what happends? It bursts. - 02:50 - 03:10, it means after the sun is gone, the black hole will go back into
@superking95 Heh, exactly...nothing is indeed something and this something might be something and not nothing...we just cannot detect it. I love the SpaceRip videos, but the writers' choice of words and style--not so impressive. The black hole is also a "monster" here too *eye roll*...they should save that stuff for people who enjoy drama....
@xXSparky117Xx Wow, am I making first contact with aliens? ;)
Isn't every concept an argument? We do respect each other, which is what separates this sort of argument from other types that degenerate into slanging matches. You have all sorts of options available to you, join the discussion, ignore it, post your own comment on the vid (which you did and I agree great vid), but please don't discourage others from contributing. I'd rather it wasn't dominated by just 2 people.
watching this makes me wanna play eve online again..(the game is repetative and gets old quickly) but i can't deny the sheer beauty and scale of the mmo..its pretty dam realistic..*sigh, im so guted that im not born in an Era that won't be able to venture deep into the universe..
please dont even mention religion it comes from books that were made in times when they could not explain things like the sun and the moon so they made gods for each to comprehend them, dont tell me just because some guy in a fancy robe and hat says something is the word of god its suddenly the truth... there are simmilar cases where the same kind of thing is called madness how is it any more sane to believe in something just because more people think its true
@XlightninX You are reading all the wrong texts (if any) in Religion, my friend. Since you seem not to be religious at all, it gives you freedom of choice: choose a religious line and study about it... you will see that none is as simple as you presently think.
The innermost working of the unconscious mind is far from nothing and theories come out of the most amazing areas. Read Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and you may have a solid base on the subject.
A theory is a tested and peer-reviewed proposition (if not, it is just a hypotthesis).
When it comes to phylosophy, it used to model the Universe in the past and it was the very mother of science. Today, phylosophy almost sticks to morality and onthology.
@JulioMarco Again, Socrates would have teared that argument apart in a matter of seconds, and left these would-be intellectuals reeling, particularly if it is based on "The unconscious mind". He would start by proving the person does not know what consciousness is. What more can I say? Try to question these theories like Socrates would have, and you'll be on the right track. You'll never feel enlightened, or feel you hold all the answers, but I don't think we are meant to.
@strakha0 Well, Kuhn and Popper have been discussed against the classics for more than 2 decades and have fared very well, so far.
Socrates was a great phylosopher... at his time. Today, phylosophy has evolved a lot. Saying Socrates would destroy modern day Phylosophy of Science would be like trying to say Isaac Newton would destroy Relativity and Quantum Physics... unlikely, since modern day authors know the work of Scrates, like me and you.
@JulioMarco You seem to know a bit about Philosophy, but I don't understand why you keep spelling it wrong. I can't see "Phylosophy" listed as an alternate spelling in the dictionary.
I'm not familiar with Kuhn and Popper, but unless they preached humility as Socrates did, I can't see it being of that much value. People can come up with philosophical ideas until the cows come home, but the point is, there is little or no evidence. I'm not saying it doesn't make interesting reading though.
@strakha0 I am brazilian, not a native English speaker. Thank you for the spelling correction. ;)
Popper and Kuhn were not working mainly in the field of ethics, but in the field of phylosophy of science, which deals with the basis of the scientific activity. Their ideas, together with the workings of Comte, have shaped the modern scientific thought and, although not directly related to the high ideals Socrates worked with, are extremely relevant if one wishes to understand what science is.
@strakha0 When it comes to philosophy, the way to verify a proposition is different than that of science. Inscience you test and peer review, while in philosophy you check for interal coherence and adherece to reality.
Internal cohehrence is the property of an argument that does not contradict itself. That is usually not very hard to check.
Adherence to reality is, on the other way, very hard to check because, unlike science, philosophy does not deal with phenomena, but with noumena.
@strakha0 Since noumena (the essencial nature of something) not testable, you simply can not go to a lab or run a survey to have a probability distribuition related to the possible answers.
When checking for adherence to reality, the best way is to use the continued argument and involve a specialized community, so the idea becomes mature over time. A mature idea which suviived a long debate, tends to be close to truth.
Philosophy is diferent than science because targets diferent subjects.
I agree that scientific method can't be applied to what we regard as noumena, but sometimes this changes as we advance eg. Geo/Heliocentrism, origin of the universe etc.. When we are capable of applying science, it is almost always the case that our old ideas turn out to be wrong.
Science substituted philosophy when the subjects were natural phenomena, but there is a whole domain of subjects where it does not apply.
Say, for example, the question: "what should be the best methodology for science"?
The subject is outside the domain of science itself, since it is not testable ("best" here implies a variety of subjective issues, from morality to proximity to truth), it can not be scientific by current mainstream science methodology.
You can not use science to say what is BEST for you (if you do, you will be checking health issues and other factors that are still part of a philosophic approach to "what is best" - "is really health important to me?" is, intrinsically, a philosophic quetion)
You can not use science to say WHY the Universe exists and WHY we are how we are (you can say HOW we got here, but not WHY). This is a religious/philosophic question.
@JulioMarco Yes, there are some things that are never going to be answered using a scientific method, such as "is health important to me". However, you just made a mistake IMO, WHY we got here is a scientific question, and if we were to advance for a very long time, I believe we would answer it.
"Religious knowledge" is a contradiction - you can either have religion, or you can have knowledge.I accept the other 2 categories, but any idea that can be thought of scientifically, should be.
@strakha0 Well, I believe I did not commit a mistake here. When I say "WHY", I am referring not to causality (that would be "HOW"), but to the reason behind causality. Is there a greater goal in the Universe or are things only happening by chance? This question is not in the domain of science.
@strakha0 In what regards to Religious Knowledge, you are being prejudiced.
If a supreme being speaks to a person, what that being says is knowledge.
If someone talks to a spirit, what that spirit says is knowledge.
Is someone meditates and realizes something, that realization becomes knowledge.
You may not believe in revelation, but you can not prove it to be inexistent., so we all must agree that, formally, we can not rule out religion as a type of knbowledge.
@JulioMarco I think we are beginning to come to what really devides our opinion. What you regard as knowledge appears to be anything which a person believes to be true, and you regard all those things equally. So, you think that a person who thinks that God is talking to them, is of equal credibility to someone who has studied a subject all their lives and written countless peer reviewed papers.
In my reality, those things are not even comparable.
@JulioMarco I do not think religion is a bad thing, but in terms of "religious knowledge", I regard that as being the same as bad philosophy (ie applying ideas with no proof). My real objections are with "bad" philosophy, and so-called religious revelations. "Good" philosophy is valuable, and not dissimilar to theoretical science.
@JulioMarco Saying something cannot be disproved is no argument to it existing. Occasionally, a parent kills their children, and says God told them to. Strangely, the jury never believe them, despite the story of Abraham in the bible. Why do you think that is? If you were on the jury in a case such as this, would you vote Not Guilty on the basis you cannot disprove it? It's complete nonsense. I am a practical person. If I am discriminating of fairytails, that is something I am proud of.
@strakha0 WOW! i was here talking about atheist activists and only now I read your profile!!! :P
No offense, I respect your ideas (just label them under "religion"). :)
Well, as we discussed before, experimentantion, study and peer review can not be considered a guarantee of truth... nor even of actual proximity to truth (since truth is outside the domain of science).
What happens is that what you are talking about is not religion.
@JulioMarco Presumably you are talking about the videos I've uploaded. You should watch the videos, they are easy to understand and discuss the proofs you have not taken the effort to hear.
I would also like to point out to you, that the last 3 Popes (God's representatives on Earth) accept evolution, and reject any suggestion that there is a conflict between religion and evolution. Learn more about science, and your religion. You are speaking to someone who knows about both.
@JulioMarco P.S. although I do not follow a religion, "Atheist" is not the word I would use to describe myself. Would you call the Pope an atheist? The current Pope is actually very critical of atheism.
Perhaps if you thought in a more scientific way, you would not make these kinds of presumptions. Let me make a presumption for you to prove wrong: despite telling you that the leader of your religion believes in evolution, you will still refuse to believe it.
@JulioMarco lol, this is actually the first time I have had an objection from anyone who is not a Christian. Obviously, disregard most of what I said, except for the statement that a person can believe in evolution without being an atheist.
I have a lot of arguments as to why a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution, but I have never had this discussion with a buddhist. Don't you think there is some room for evolution in your beliefs if you were to take a less literal view?
@JulioMarco Ok, now I'm really confused! Why would you then see my videos on evolution, and assume I am an atheist?
I have not completely rejected the idea of God. I was raised a Christian like you, and it was for similar reasons to you that I turned away from it. What little I know about Buddhism appeals to me.
There are plenty of good things in religion, as long as you accept that these things do not require religion to realise - only a moral outlook.
@strakha0 Presently, we see lots of articles on the Internet presenting scientific studies that confirm the beneficial effects of meditation, mainly from the branch of neuroscience (check h t t p :/ / w w w . n c b i . n l m . n i h .g o v / p u b m e d ? t e r m = 2 1 3 3 4 4 4 2 as an example). Religion got here with 1500 years of advantage. :)
PS: I put spaces between the characters to test if the errors were there because I was posting an internet link.
The Quran (or "Qu'ran"), there is a saying: "if you want to know Allah, know His creation". Because of that saying, the governments of ancient Arabia sponsored lots and lots of scientific and philosopical researches, giving rise to very relevant discoveries in the fields of mathematics, astronomy (astronavigation), engineering, etc.
@strakha0 Also, religion shaped the personality of various great men, such as Francis of Assis (regarded as a saint by the catholoics), Gandhi and so many others. We would not have many if not for the discussions and even some rules religion brings to the people in general.
@strakha0 Finally, some protestant churches in Brazil (and troughout the World) propose a very strict system of rules and punishments (eternal damntation being the most common) that has, quite interestingly, proven to be a dramatically effective path for many people to leave drug addiction and criminal tendencies.
They have become aware of that and started to build charity institutes oriented at people who wanted to free themselves of these problems "with the help of God". Respectful at least!
@JulioMarco Sorry for the delay, I'll try to be brief.
I could give many examples to the contrary, but I do regard religion as often being beneficial, with the provision that people don't believe things that are written in a holy book over what is proven (to a much greater degree) in science.
I do regard though that people who only refrain from hurting others because they believe they will go to Hell, have kind of missed the point of WHY it's wrong, but whatever works :)
@strakha0 For one year, I was invited to teach Philosophy of Science to a class in a university here in Brazil. At that time, my main goal was hard: to show my students the limitations of science.
Science is a great tool of understanding, but it can only show evidences, never proof. All scientific results are of temporary value and are permanently under suspition of being false... and that is exactely the greatest strength of science: it is bound by a rule that makes it evolve continuously.
@strakha0 That makes science very powerful, but also makes other types of knowledge completely independent of it.
Since the scientific knowledge is not absolute, other types of konwledge can (and very often do) superseed it in validity.
Take the questions "What is the purpose of life?", "Who is the best example of human being?", "What is true charity and true crime?", "Is there a deity that created the Universe?", "What do I want?".
@strakha0 Those questions can not be answered by science, but can be answered by philosophy and religion.
You may disbelieve religious information, but you can also disbelieve scientific information. Both have its origins and both have its limitations.
The point is that science generates an illusion of safety because it comes from test, but let's take a look at the process of scientific knowledge generation:
@strakha0 The first step is to formulate a hypothesis.
The hypothesis comes from the mind of the researcher, who is a person like any other, who has prejudices, ideology, personal interests and institutional ties that can - and do - blur its vision of reality.
A scientist, unlike what is depicted in pop culture, is a person inside the social process... a normal person that goes to the bathroom, falls in love, hates many things and, most of the time, speaks things just to regret it later.
Tests are procedures designed to falsify a hypothesys. If the hypothesys survive, it becomes a theory.
When a researcher formulates a testing experiment, his vision of life, his goals, his sponsors and his need to be right are all present in his mind. In consequence, most of the scientific experiments are designed with a pre-formulated idea that binds them to be true or false before they even start.
Testing works, but it has intrinsic flaws we must know.
@strakha0 Finally, there is the incorporation of the given tested hypothesis in a theoretical body.
Theories are linked by chains of causality, relations between their objects and, most important of all, a general vision of the object of study that is shared by a group of researchers: a paradigm.
A researcher earns its life by studying an object through a paradigm (ex: quantum physics, relativity, classical economics, etc.).
@strakha0 The respect enjoyed by a researcher comes, in great part, from the respect given to the paradigm she workss with. That is why many physicists that work with "Theory M" are not well accounted by many of their peers, despite being great at their jobs.
If a researcher comes out of her lab with a result that shows evidence against her own paradigm, she runs the risk of being "expelled from her club"... and this makes many good scientific experiments to be simply put aside and forgotten.
@strakha0 Such social exclusion is so true in the scientific environment that researchers are usually restricted to publish in a specific group of journals, simply because the "opposite group" will not accept their results.
One example is the existence of black holes, that came to be a disputed subject in physics community. Only a very small number of researchers worked with the hypothesis of their existence, since it did not fit the more newtonian-tending paradigm of the early fifties.
@strakha0 If not for the stubborness of one of Oppenheimer's students, John Weeler, we would probably be regarding that as an obscure page in the hisstory of astrophysics... and not because there were no evidences of the existence of black holes.
There were many evidences, but emminent physicists (including Einstein himself) ellaborated many different (and disconnected) theories to explain each particular case, in order not to accept the data as "black hole evidence".
@JulioMarco You needn't explain what science is to me, I have a science degree lol
To "accept science with your eyes closed" is a contradiction in terms. The entire basis of science is to question the hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. Of course scientists don't accept ideas immediately, but that's the whole point: you can't until it's proven, and the status quo changes. Black holes are an example of that, and as we reached (hopefully) the right conclusion, I see that as a success story.
@strakha0 Your example of Einstein also works out exactly how I said: he was wrong about something, and he was eventually proved wrong. So what? That's how science works.
Your argument is the same as creationists who point out gaps in knowledge, and times when scientists have been wrong. It makes no sense in response to say "Well then, it must be magic, with God, angels, unicorns, giants etc.," That is no more likely to be true than the theory we were bred by aliens to mine gold.
@strakha0 Well, I know just a bit about Christianism, but in Buddhism you should never believe something just because the Buddha Shakiamuni said so.
A buddhist is entitled to look into herself and question whether you see truth or not in what is said. Because of that, many different schools in Buddhism have been created and new lines of thought are rising (and sometimes falling) at every moment.
@strakha0 Some people, just as you said, think about religion as "turn off your brain and read your holy book", but this is not religion... this is religious obscurantism.
It also happens in science: "anything that is not science is not serious". Some people attack non-scientific information without even taking a look at that to see if there is something of value. This is scientific obscurantism and is just as usual as its religious counterpart.
@strakha0 In what regards to testing, the alternative is not to accept things, for that would be the death of science.
Actually, there is no need for an alternative for testing. As I said, it works.
What we need is to know its limitations in order to make better usage of the scientific knowledge.
People keep thinking science to be something above humanity. My point is that it is nothing but another human activity, full of errors, deviations, intentional and unintentional biases.
@strakha0 I tried to point out that scientists are as locked to social acceptance as any other professionals.
If an researcher in Chicago University Economics School starts writing papers which are pro-government intervention, she will quickly face the discontentment of her peers and a whole lot of political difficulties that will tend to make her change her attitude... or even her job.
Science is not ideologically neutral and it gives it an intrinsic bias. There is no way out for us.
@JulioMarco Comparing economics to science is not a fair comparison. QUALIFIED scientists who support the consensus understand the arguments and go along with it because that is what they trully believe - it has nothing to do with social acceptance. There are no scientists who study evolution who secretly believe it is a load of rubbish. However, with an unqualified scientist or a layman, it is about what you choose to believe, and social acceptance can play a part.(cont)
@strakha0 Comte has been a very important person in the history of science, but his ideas are not in use today... a qulified scientist will know what I mean. ;)
And in what comes to social acceptance, all I can say is that anyone who has any experience in the academic universe knows for sure what is the pressure towards certain ideas.
It would be beautiful if scientists were extraordinary people, away from mundane subjects and always sincere to themselves... but we are just people.
@JulioMarco This is why for instance, (virtually) all republicans reject global warming, and democrats accept it. Except for the few qualified scientists in the group, neither party understands the science.
Of course science is open to error, I'd go further and say science has to first be wrong before it can be right, but the question people have to ask themselves is "which is likely to have more error?". Qualified sources, or unqualified sources? Too many believe bloggers over PhD's :(
@strakha0 Repoublicans reject global warming not because they do not understand science. They do so because of their ties to the oil industry.
Can you see one of the heads of the Republican Party speaking favorably to the idea of climate changes? Do you really believe they would not ask an expert (and they DO know experts from bloggers) if they simply did not know how to detect global warming?
@JulioMarco I agree entirely, although there are exceptions such as Arnie the Governator. They use people labelled as "scientists" to support their viewpoint (often for financial gain), but if you look into it more deeply, those "scientists" are unpublished often have no relevant qualifications, and do not represent the consensus. Check out petitionprojectDOTorg, and look at the qualifications of the signers. Most only have a BSc, which is the same as what I have (Continued)
@strakha0 True. They use tnem because they get the illusion of a based argumentation and the scientists get it beacuse it is an easy way to get support or just to grow on the ranks of the party.
That is something very clear when ir is a newcommer speaking, but it happens to the "sacred monsters" too. When it comes to "publish and loose your friends and maybe your position" or "let it go and try something else", there are very rare cases of heroic behavior. :(
@JulioMarco Is someone with a BSc in Biology qualified to judge the issue of global warming? Not likely. I only know from studying biology to the level I did that I only scratched the surface. I can explain simple concepts like evolution and point to the evidence, but that is it. It doesn't give me any ability to judge issues outside of biology, or areas of biology that I have not studied myself.
I don't see these pretenders as scientists, but the danger is a layman is not to know.
@strakha0 Well, a scientist is a person who works on the academic field in one of the disciplines that are recognized as sciences. There is nothing else to the definition, formally.
A medicine doctor should be a priest of health, but anyone who gets a degree in medicine - even someone as twisted as the ficcional Dr. House or even worst - is a medicine doctor. Things as they should have been are often different than things as they presently are. :(
@JulioMarco Very true, there is science, and then there is "Science". I have a BSc in Biology, so the next time you're sick come and see me. I don't believe in red blood cells though (joke!).
Being able to separate good science from bad science is a skill. When you have done that, you are left with the good science, which is as good as we can get, but still is not perfect because as I mentioned before a consensus has to be wrong before it can be right.
@strakha0 I do not believe in a consensus, but in "mainstream science", which has a lot of space for disagreement.
Example: both relativity and quantum physics have their views on gravity (geodesics and gravitons, respectively) and those views are largely incompatible. Dispite that disagreement, both are mainstream science.
Fortunatelly for us, there is no real consensus, since it is exactely from the crash of two paradigms that great changes in science come (Thomas Kuhn, once again). :)
@JulioMarco Consensus is part of mainstream science. There isn't a clear consensus on all topics, but whether there is or isn't it's best to consider the research of many scientists, and not just one. On less controversial topics (such as the existance and role of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells), about 99% or more scientists agree. Of course that doesn't absolutely guarantee accuracy, but if all the independent research points in the same direction, it's a good indication.
@strakha0 Depends on what part of the issue they're looking at.. "Global warming" isn't one area of science. The study of this phenomenon falls into many disciplines. Biology being one of them.
@strakha0 You touched the most interesting question on the subject. Here it is not only social acceptance, but financial support on elections.
Additionally, why is it that about 95% of the researchers in the Globe see climate changes and only those who are somehow tied to oil companies (including via political parties) do not?
@strakha0 Again, I am not saying we should drop science and look for something else. That "something else" would also be tied to the social process and be biased, just like everything else.
We must stop thinking of science as something different. alien to the human mistakes, and see it as only one more of the four types of knowledge that we have to guide our lives.
All types of knowledge have their biases... all I say is that science is just on the same ground as the others.
@JulioMarco Really, what's the alternative? To accept every new idea immediately? If it was not so stringuent it wouldn't have such credibility.
Now, do you really need me to quote examples of times when religion and philosophy have been proven to be wrong? Religious thought in particular does not evolve at all - you read your holy book, and that is what you believe until the day you die, no matter the evidence to the contrary. Creationists believe the earth is just a few 1000 years old.
@strakha0 Science is one of the elements that shape our modern lives. It is a tool of incommensurable value to us... but it is only a human activity and has no authgority over nay other type of knowledge. It is as flawed as the people who work with it and we must be aware of it, in order to best make and use science.
If we believe in science with our eyes closed, we will be killing science, instead of elevating it.
@strakha0 Well, I stopped in the middle of my posting because of errors in YouTube. :P
I was really talking about the videos you have uploaded and I will tell you something that may shock you (or not...): I was an atheist militant myself until 1998.
I am also a scientist in the field of Economics and I have a great love for science... that is why I learn the more I can about it, its potential and its limitations.
@strakha0 The reason why I became an atheist is the facxt that, for long, all I knew about religion was the christian Bible... and I did not agree with many of its canon interpretations. Having a narrow view of religion is what made me an atheist and knowing more about it as a whole is what made me a religious man.
...but getting back to my previous argument, let me show you some examples of "good" religion.
@strakha0 Joseph Mengele tortured lots of people in his time to acquire data to his research on human tissue regeneration and applied tragic methods in his approach to "enhance" mankind. In all of this, he called it "science", just as the father that killed his son said he was ordered by God.
Can we condemn science now? I don't think so.
If we are to judge something, we must talk about its proper uses. "Bad" religion and "bad" philosophy against "good" science is not a fair competition.
@JulioMarco Bad science is worth mentioning. It is the absolute worst, because it unfairly gets credibility that would not be attached to philosophy or religion.
Science has proved eugenics is a poor concept. You will eventually have an effect on the gene pool, but it is so slow as to be ineffective, as well as immoral. On the other hand, we cannot disprove that murderers hear God. Only something that has the potential to be disproved should be looked at seriously.
@strakha0 We all can and must have fatih... and the faith in the inexistence of God, the inexistence of spirits, or the ineffectivity of meditation to attain truth is faith as well as their counterparts, no matter how much people try to look and talk "reasonably" and "with based arguments".
We can not prove revelation to be wrong, so if one is absolutelly sure it is wrong, then that person has fatih, and, if she does not accept other views, than that person is a religious fanatic!
@strakha0 I am completely sure that many militant atheists would "love" to be called religious people... or even religious fanatics, but that is what they are. :D
No matter how that person acquired the belief in atheism, if that person disregards the limits of her source, that person is handling the acquired information as revelation (absolute truth directed at mankid or at part of it), so it is religion. :D
@strakha0 Finally, in formal terms, if you can not call religious information as knowledge, than you can not call scientific information as knowledge too.
Science is as fallible as any other type of knowldge... and the term "knowledge" itself accounts for it.
"Knowledge" is not what things are, but what one person or group knows about what things are... with all imperfections that information may carry.
You can even use science to decide what to buy in the market, when you go there every month to resupply your kitchen, but it would be a waste of time and effort. This is a question much better dealt with by popular knowledge.
Every type of knowledge has its place. We can not cast any of them out of our lives without damage.
@JulioMarco I just want to add that I do think Philosophy has a lot of value, and I do enjoy reading it. I just think it should be looked at as views and opinions, not quite in the same way as testing.
I once did a stats project where we had to test 2 things for a statistical link. I chose traffic flow in a town against time of day. I wasn't able to prove a link, despite "Rush hour" times existing. Despite any flaws, to prove something in science is more difficult.
@strakha0 When it comes to consciousness, I suggest you to read Christopher Koch ("The Quest for Consciousness: a Neurobiological Approach"). It will show you that Socrates was right... at his time.
As for phylosophic approaches, Mahayana buddhism has a very intresting and accurate description of "the flow of consciousness" and you will see that phylosophy as we know it may even have started with Socrates, but did not end with it and was not restricted to Greece (as great as that country was).
@MayThereBePivot Let's take Newtonian phisics as an example. Many many experiments have proven it true in the past, but it did not stop it from being proven false.
Being into phylosophy, I prefer to follow Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, who, I think, knew it better than Socrates (but I thank you for the Socrates tip).
I agree with jimmy8shoes. Back then catholics though god put earth in the center of the universe, and everything revolved around Earth. Now we know Earth revolves around the Sun
did he say "stars that can burn for trillions of years" ?? I didnt think that the universe was that old... I thought it was about 14.6 billion years old. can someone correct me if Im wrong and explain the stars thing?
@Rahavin1 I think the guy just fucked up, this isn't a British documentry remember! And I could not agree more about the faith heads, it realy pisses me of fwhen you come on a site to discuss science and you get some fucking brain dead god squad talking bollox through their arse at you.
@XXXPopeBenedictXVI are my british friends really changing my speech that much? wow... need to start hanging out with americans again. just cant find any.
we shouldnt be debating whether or not god exists on here... what we should be discussing are things which can be inferred using physical evidence and observation. Why talk about a belief or disbelief in something you have only faith in? Pointless. Conclusions are impossible, so why bother?
@michaeljustussvcc and put off next to a very small star, off to the side of a small galaxy which itself is off somewhere non important.... maybe god hasn't come back to visit us cuz he forgot where he placed us...
@mlight333 Hawking Radiation; a black hole and the hypothetical "white hole" may be one and the same. Also, look up "virtual particles" (in this case, referrs to same thing); black holes can evaporate into radiation, and thus, "die."
Not neccecarilly "cycles" but linear patterns that have repeating themes, yes. Possibly, a black hole here may be a new Big Bang in "elsewhere."
:) Hello in your channel
Lion911199 1 day ago
Dick Rodstein nice name
GamSpoley 5 days ago
fuck it, im going into space
GreatVomitto 1 week ago in playlist Violent Universe
Epic music.
ChaosH 1 week ago
What a voice..
sungod1213 3 weeks ago
THE MUSIC SCARES ME MANN!!!!! : O
devrajvarma 1 month ago
The Universe is just one big killer machine
PyroMachinima 1 month ago
@ProjectDecade
For me, the dislikers are too religious. I believe in a God and pray but not as religious when it comes to science. I believe in both so no argument will occur.
89990000 4 months ago 2
beast of Bethlehem? really? tad overwrote there. but still a good video.
thecosmicgoose 5 months ago
Dick Rodstein? Really?
ElleRoni 6 months ago in playlist Lisää videoita käyttäjältä SpaceRip
in reallty we experience the effect of a black holse right now ... cuz in the center of our universe is a super masible black hole .... but like 0.00000001%... but it stil exist maybe smaller ... a black holse is a super cool think deadly but COOL!!!
UzumakiYodaime 6 months ago
Any life forms that exist on a planet or moon that orbits around that star are either feeling very doomed indeed, living in unthinkable circumstances, or already extinct.. I'm just glad it's not in proximity to us, hehe.
Scytherene122190 7 months ago
His name is DICK lol
GhostTownLeader 7 months ago
lool dick rodstein
iRuss876 8 months ago
@iRuss876 Grow up you tool..
DivineO2 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DivineO2 Fuck you im 14 .
iRuss876 8 months ago
@JulioMarco - I read all of your posts and I could not agree with you more - perspective is far more important than intelligence!
jamesinchicago1 8 months ago
JUST LOOK ABOVE!!!
alnutien 8 months ago
IM THE EMPEROR!!! HERES PICTURES OF MY GREATNESS!!!
alnutien 8 months ago
You always hear that nothing can escape a black hole then during the explaination they talk about jets of energy shooting out from each side. So it's escaping, right? Kind of a contradiction isn't it?
thgoat68 8 months ago
@thgoat68
it escapes as energy, not matter.
peni253 8 months ago
@peni253 same thing
goflamespaul 8 months ago
Comment removed
DivineO2 8 months ago
@thgoat68 darkness, waiting, for it's next victim to get to close.
DivineO2 8 months ago
@thgoat68 Everything is theory, but if you listen carefully he says; Heat and magnetic energy build to a criticle level, the center cannot hold, the disk erupts, blasting some matter back into space at a rate of some 25x greater then what the black hole can swallow. Ok now, picture a water bomb getting filled up extremely fast, the water goes in so fast and it gets filled instantly, what happends? It bursts. - 02:50 - 03:10, it means after the sun is gone, the black hole will go back into
DivineO2 8 months ago
Define nothing>>... what do they mean by that? at 2;50 to 2;56
superking95 8 months ago
@superking95 Heh, exactly...nothing is indeed something and this something might be something and not nothing...we just cannot detect it. I love the SpaceRip videos, but the writers' choice of words and style--not so impressive. The black hole is also a "monster" here too *eye roll*...they should save that stuff for people who enjoy drama....
tvswnet 8 months ago
@tvswnet Yup. exactly.. this is not drama class,, this is science..
superking95 8 months ago
poor star :O :'(
MrJimarla 9 months ago 2
morgan freeman?
quiznose224 10 months ago
I love the universe ;3
MyLlamaDrama 10 months ago
Why mess with something that can potentially kill you? loolol humans
spony123 10 months ago 19
@spony123 because it creates us too
MrJimarla 9 months ago 22
@MrJimarla Haha True also
spony123 9 months ago
@MrJimarla SUUUUUUUUUUURE. right....... derp
TheSamuraiElf 4 months ago
@spony123 Why stay in fear of things that can potentially kill us? We're going to die anyway...
tvswnet 8 months ago
@spony123 For science
Gameathoner 4 months ago
@spony123 like medicine or? Usual lethal in the wrong dosis. Your comment seems strange. Fx do you drive a car? It could kill you too
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago in playlist Violent Universe
@BjornSeverinLarsen Never looked at it like that good point man
spony123 1 month ago
Thank you
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 month ago
What a bunch of pathetic humans, arguing on youtube for nothing.
Great video by the way.
xXSparky117Xx 10 months ago
@xXSparky117Xx Wow, am I making first contact with aliens? ;)
Isn't every concept an argument? We do respect each other, which is what separates this sort of argument from other types that degenerate into slanging matches. You have all sorts of options available to you, join the discussion, ignore it, post your own comment on the vid (which you did and I agree great vid), but please don't discourage others from contributing. I'd rather it wasn't dominated by just 2 people.
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 You are right... but we are not discouraging other people to join... you joined and you are very welcome! :)
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 Ah! Now I saw it! I did not have seen the comment. thumbs up for you!
JulioMarco 10 months ago
watching this makes me wanna play eve online again..(the game is repetative and gets old quickly) but i can't deny the sheer beauty and scale of the mmo..its pretty dam realistic..*sigh, im so guted that im not born in an Era that won't be able to venture deep into the universe..
clovelywindheaven 10 months ago
Ouch!
I misspelled the name of John Wheeler!!!
Sorry, Dr. Wheeler... you DO deserve better! :)
JulioMarco 10 months ago
is ALIVEEE :D
botlight 11 months ago
Classically, we divide knowledge into four great categories:
-popular knowledge (comes from free repeated observation and social acceptance)
-religious knowledge (comes from revelation)
-philosophic knowledge (comes from rational speculation and debate)
-scientific knowledge (comes from the use of the scientific methodology)
So far, no one could eliminate any of those types of knowledge from the framework of human understanding of itself and of the Universe it exists in.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
Song is actually Earthbeat, not Heartbeat
Kabraxisx 11 months ago
Narrator is a Dick
1Nekit1 11 months ago
please dont even mention religion it comes from books that were made in times when they could not explain things like the sun and the moon so they made gods for each to comprehend them, dont tell me just because some guy in a fancy robe and hat says something is the word of god its suddenly the truth... there are simmilar cases where the same kind of thing is called madness how is it any more sane to believe in something just because more people think its true
XlightninX 11 months ago
@XlightninX You are reading all the wrong texts (if any) in Religion, my friend. Since you seem not to be religious at all, it gives you freedom of choice: choose a religious line and study about it... you will see that none is as simple as you presently think.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
Can we enjoy the video and not talk about religion....
Lightfox417 11 months ago 15
@Lightfox417 ...or politics? I don't want to hear the word "republicans" or "obama" again please. You sound like fucking idiots..
groovylocks 9 months ago
The innermost working of the unconscious mind is far from nothing and theories come out of the most amazing areas. Read Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and you may have a solid base on the subject.
A theory is a tested and peer-reviewed proposition (if not, it is just a hypotthesis).
When it comes to phylosophy, it used to model the Universe in the past and it was the very mother of science. Today, phylosophy almost sticks to morality and onthology.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco Again, Socrates would have teared that argument apart in a matter of seconds, and left these would-be intellectuals reeling, particularly if it is based on "The unconscious mind". He would start by proving the person does not know what consciousness is. What more can I say? Try to question these theories like Socrates would have, and you'll be on the right track. You'll never feel enlightened, or feel you hold all the answers, but I don't think we are meant to.
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 Well, Kuhn and Popper have been discussed against the classics for more than 2 decades and have fared very well, so far.
Socrates was a great phylosopher... at his time. Today, phylosophy has evolved a lot. Saying Socrates would destroy modern day Phylosophy of Science would be like trying to say Isaac Newton would destroy Relativity and Quantum Physics... unlikely, since modern day authors know the work of Scrates, like me and you.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco You seem to know a bit about Philosophy, but I don't understand why you keep spelling it wrong. I can't see "Phylosophy" listed as an alternate spelling in the dictionary.
I'm not familiar with Kuhn and Popper, but unless they preached humility as Socrates did, I can't see it being of that much value. People can come up with philosophical ideas until the cows come home, but the point is, there is little or no evidence. I'm not saying it doesn't make interesting reading though.
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 I am brazilian, not a native English speaker. Thank you for the spelling correction. ;)
Popper and Kuhn were not working mainly in the field of ethics, but in the field of phylosophy of science, which deals with the basis of the scientific activity. Their ideas, together with the workings of Comte, have shaped the modern scientific thought and, although not directly related to the high ideals Socrates worked with, are extremely relevant if one wishes to understand what science is.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco Sorry... I wrote "phylosophy" again! :P
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 When it comes to philosophy, the way to verify a proposition is different than that of science. Inscience you test and peer review, while in philosophy you check for interal coherence and adherece to reality.
Internal cohehrence is the property of an argument that does not contradict itself. That is usually not very hard to check.
Adherence to reality is, on the other way, very hard to check because, unlike science, philosophy does not deal with phenomena, but with noumena.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 Since noumena (the essencial nature of something) not testable, you simply can not go to a lab or run a survey to have a probability distribuition related to the possible answers.
When checking for adherence to reality, the best way is to use the continued argument and involve a specialized community, so the idea becomes mature over time. A mature idea which suviived a long debate, tends to be close to truth.
Philosophy is diferent than science because targets diferent subjects.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco Your English is excellent. :)
I agree that scientific method can't be applied to what we regard as noumena, but sometimes this changes as we advance eg. Geo/Heliocentrism, origin of the universe etc.. When we are capable of applying science, it is almost always the case that our old ideas turn out to be wrong.
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 Thanks! :)
Science substituted philosophy when the subjects were natural phenomena, but there is a whole domain of subjects where it does not apply.
Say, for example, the question: "what should be the best methodology for science"?
The subject is outside the domain of science itself, since it is not testable ("best" here implies a variety of subjective issues, from morality to proximity to truth), it can not be scientific by current mainstream science methodology.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 Just see this:
You can not use science to say what is BEST for you (if you do, you will be checking health issues and other factors that are still part of a philosophic approach to "what is best" - "is really health important to me?" is, intrinsically, a philosophic quetion)
You can not use science to say WHY the Universe exists and WHY we are how we are (you can say HOW we got here, but not WHY). This is a religious/philosophic question.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco Yes, there are some things that are never going to be answered using a scientific method, such as "is health important to me". However, you just made a mistake IMO, WHY we got here is a scientific question, and if we were to advance for a very long time, I believe we would answer it.
"Religious knowledge" is a contradiction - you can either have religion, or you can have knowledge.I accept the other 2 categories, but any idea that can be thought of scientifically, should be.
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 Well, I believe I did not commit a mistake here. When I say "WHY", I am referring not to causality (that would be "HOW"), but to the reason behind causality. Is there a greater goal in the Universe or are things only happening by chance? This question is not in the domain of science.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 In what regards to Religious Knowledge, you are being prejudiced.
If a supreme being speaks to a person, what that being says is knowledge.
If someone talks to a spirit, what that spirit says is knowledge.
Is someone meditates and realizes something, that realization becomes knowledge.
You may not believe in revelation, but you can not prove it to be inexistent., so we all must agree that, formally, we can not rule out religion as a type of knbowledge.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco I think we are beginning to come to what really devides our opinion. What you regard as knowledge appears to be anything which a person believes to be true, and you regard all those things equally. So, you think that a person who thinks that God is talking to them, is of equal credibility to someone who has studied a subject all their lives and written countless peer reviewed papers.
In my reality, those things are not even comparable.
strakha0 11 months ago
@JulioMarco I do not think religion is a bad thing, but in terms of "religious knowledge", I regard that as being the same as bad philosophy (ie applying ideas with no proof). My real objections are with "bad" philosophy, and so-called religious revelations. "Good" philosophy is valuable, and not dissimilar to theoretical science.
strakha0 11 months ago
@JulioMarco Saying something cannot be disproved is no argument to it existing. Occasionally, a parent kills their children, and says God told them to. Strangely, the jury never believe them, despite the story of Abraham in the bible. Why do you think that is? If you were on the jury in a case such as this, would you vote Not Guilty on the basis you cannot disprove it? It's complete nonsense. I am a practical person. If I am discriminating of fairytails, that is something I am proud of.
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 WOW! i was here talking about atheist activists and only now I read your profile!!! :P
No offense, I respect your ideas (just label them under "religion"). :)
Well, as we discussed before, experimentantion, study and peer review can not be considered a guarantee of truth... nor even of actual proximity to truth (since truth is outside the domain of science).
What happens is that what you are talking about is not religion.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco Presumably you are talking about the videos I've uploaded. You should watch the videos, they are easy to understand and discuss the proofs you have not taken the effort to hear.
I would also like to point out to you, that the last 3 Popes (God's representatives on Earth) accept evolution, and reject any suggestion that there is a conflict between religion and evolution. Learn more about science, and your religion. You are speaking to someone who knows about both.
strakha0 11 months ago
@JulioMarco P.S. although I do not follow a religion, "Atheist" is not the word I would use to describe myself. Would you call the Pope an atheist? The current Pope is actually very critical of atheism.
Perhaps if you thought in a more scientific way, you would not make these kinds of presumptions. Let me make a presumption for you to prove wrong: despite telling you that the leader of your religion believes in evolution, you will still refuse to believe it.
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 I am a buddhist. ;)
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco lol, this is actually the first time I have had an objection from anyone who is not a Christian. Obviously, disregard most of what I said, except for the statement that a person can believe in evolution without being an atheist.
I have a lot of arguments as to why a person can be a Christian and believe in evolution, but I have never had this discussion with a buddhist. Don't you think there is some room for evolution in your beliefs if you were to take a less literal view?
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 Buddhism is strongly tending towards evolutionism. Creationism implies the interference of God in the World, which we deny.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco Ok, now I'm really confused! Why would you then see my videos on evolution, and assume I am an atheist?
I have not completely rejected the idea of God. I was raised a Christian like you, and it was for similar reasons to you that I turned away from it. What little I know about Buddhism appeals to me.
There are plenty of good things in religion, as long as you accept that these things do not require religion to realise - only a moral outlook.
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 I guess I came upon so many atheist profiles (which also have lots of videos against creationism) that I became too "trigger happy". :P
Well, but, going back to our discussion, let me present some examples of good religion and its interference on our society.
PS: If I fail to send them now (i.e. if YouTube does not let me post), I will send them later. :)
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 Presently, we see lots of articles on the Internet presenting scientific studies that confirm the beneficial effects of meditation, mainly from the branch of neuroscience (check h t t p :/ / w w w . n c b i . n l m . n i h .g o v / p u b m e d ? t e r m = 2 1 3 3 4 4 4 2 as an example). Religion got here with 1500 years of advantage. :)
PS: I put spaces between the characters to test if the errors were there because I was posting an internet link.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0
The Quran (or "Qu'ran"), there is a saying: "if you want to know Allah, know His creation". Because of that saying, the governments of ancient Arabia sponsored lots and lots of scientific and philosopical researches, giving rise to very relevant discoveries in the fields of mathematics, astronomy (astronavigation), engineering, etc.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 Also, religion shaped the personality of various great men, such as Francis of Assis (regarded as a saint by the catholoics), Gandhi and so many others. We would not have many if not for the discussions and even some rules religion brings to the people in general.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 Finally, some protestant churches in Brazil (and troughout the World) propose a very strict system of rules and punishments (eternal damntation being the most common) that has, quite interestingly, proven to be a dramatically effective path for many people to leave drug addiction and criminal tendencies.
They have become aware of that and started to build charity institutes oriented at people who wanted to free themselves of these problems "with the help of God". Respectful at least!
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco Sorry for the delay, I'll try to be brief.
I could give many examples to the contrary, but I do regard religion as often being beneficial, with the provision that people don't believe things that are written in a holy book over what is proven (to a much greater degree) in science.
I do regard though that people who only refrain from hurting others because they believe they will go to Hell, have kind of missed the point of WHY it's wrong, but whatever works :)
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 For one year, I was invited to teach Philosophy of Science to a class in a university here in Brazil. At that time, my main goal was hard: to show my students the limitations of science.
Science is a great tool of understanding, but it can only show evidences, never proof. All scientific results are of temporary value and are permanently under suspition of being false... and that is exactely the greatest strength of science: it is bound by a rule that makes it evolve continuously.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 That makes science very powerful, but also makes other types of knowledge completely independent of it.
Since the scientific knowledge is not absolute, other types of konwledge can (and very often do) superseed it in validity.
Take the questions "What is the purpose of life?", "Who is the best example of human being?", "What is true charity and true crime?", "Is there a deity that created the Universe?", "What do I want?".
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 Those questions can not be answered by science, but can be answered by philosophy and religion.
You may disbelieve religious information, but you can also disbelieve scientific information. Both have its origins and both have its limitations.
The point is that science generates an illusion of safety because it comes from test, but let's take a look at the process of scientific knowledge generation:
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 The first step is to formulate a hypothesis.
The hypothesis comes from the mind of the researcher, who is a person like any other, who has prejudices, ideology, personal interests and institutional ties that can - and do - blur its vision of reality.
A scientist, unlike what is depicted in pop culture, is a person inside the social process... a normal person that goes to the bathroom, falls in love, hates many things and, most of the time, speaks things just to regret it later.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 The next step is testing.
Tests are procedures designed to falsify a hypothesys. If the hypothesys survive, it becomes a theory.
When a researcher formulates a testing experiment, his vision of life, his goals, his sponsors and his need to be right are all present in his mind. In consequence, most of the scientific experiments are designed with a pre-formulated idea that binds them to be true or false before they even start.
Testing works, but it has intrinsic flaws we must know.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 Finally, there is the incorporation of the given tested hypothesis in a theoretical body.
Theories are linked by chains of causality, relations between their objects and, most important of all, a general vision of the object of study that is shared by a group of researchers: a paradigm.
A researcher earns its life by studying an object through a paradigm (ex: quantum physics, relativity, classical economics, etc.).
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 The respect enjoyed by a researcher comes, in great part, from the respect given to the paradigm she workss with. That is why many physicists that work with "Theory M" are not well accounted by many of their peers, despite being great at their jobs.
If a researcher comes out of her lab with a result that shows evidence against her own paradigm, she runs the risk of being "expelled from her club"... and this makes many good scientific experiments to be simply put aside and forgotten.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 Such social exclusion is so true in the scientific environment that researchers are usually restricted to publish in a specific group of journals, simply because the "opposite group" will not accept their results.
One example is the existence of black holes, that came to be a disputed subject in physics community. Only a very small number of researchers worked with the hypothesis of their existence, since it did not fit the more newtonian-tending paradigm of the early fifties.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 If not for the stubborness of one of Oppenheimer's students, John Weeler, we would probably be regarding that as an obscure page in the hisstory of astrophysics... and not because there were no evidences of the existence of black holes.
There were many evidences, but emminent physicists (including Einstein himself) ellaborated many different (and disconnected) theories to explain each particular case, in order not to accept the data as "black hole evidence".
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@JulioMarco You needn't explain what science is to me, I have a science degree lol
To "accept science with your eyes closed" is a contradiction in terms. The entire basis of science is to question the hypothesis and attempt to disprove it. Of course scientists don't accept ideas immediately, but that's the whole point: you can't until it's proven, and the status quo changes. Black holes are an example of that, and as we reached (hopefully) the right conclusion, I see that as a success story.
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 Your example of Einstein also works out exactly how I said: he was wrong about something, and he was eventually proved wrong. So what? That's how science works.
Your argument is the same as creationists who point out gaps in knowledge, and times when scientists have been wrong. It makes no sense in response to say "Well then, it must be magic, with God, angels, unicorns, giants etc.," That is no more likely to be true than the theory we were bred by aliens to mine gold.
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 Well, I know just a bit about Christianism, but in Buddhism you should never believe something just because the Buddha Shakiamuni said so.
A buddhist is entitled to look into herself and question whether you see truth or not in what is said. Because of that, many different schools in Buddhism have been created and new lines of thought are rising (and sometimes falling) at every moment.
Religion evolves, just as science does.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 Some people, just as you said, think about religion as "turn off your brain and read your holy book", but this is not religion... this is religious obscurantism.
It also happens in science: "anything that is not science is not serious". Some people attack non-scientific information without even taking a look at that to see if there is something of value. This is scientific obscurantism and is just as usual as its religious counterpart.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 In what regards to testing, the alternative is not to accept things, for that would be the death of science.
Actually, there is no need for an alternative for testing. As I said, it works.
What we need is to know its limitations in order to make better usage of the scientific knowledge.
People keep thinking science to be something above humanity. My point is that it is nothing but another human activity, full of errors, deviations, intentional and unintentional biases.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 I tried to point out that scientists are as locked to social acceptance as any other professionals.
If an researcher in Chicago University Economics School starts writing papers which are pro-government intervention, she will quickly face the discontentment of her peers and a whole lot of political difficulties that will tend to make her change her attitude... or even her job.
Science is not ideologically neutral and it gives it an intrinsic bias. There is no way out for us.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@JulioMarco Comparing economics to science is not a fair comparison. QUALIFIED scientists who support the consensus understand the arguments and go along with it because that is what they trully believe - it has nothing to do with social acceptance. There are no scientists who study evolution who secretly believe it is a load of rubbish. However, with an unqualified scientist or a layman, it is about what you choose to believe, and social acceptance can play a part.(cont)
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 Comte has been a very important person in the history of science, but his ideas are not in use today... a qulified scientist will know what I mean. ;)
And in what comes to social acceptance, all I can say is that anyone who has any experience in the academic universe knows for sure what is the pressure towards certain ideas.
It would be beautiful if scientists were extraordinary people, away from mundane subjects and always sincere to themselves... but we are just people.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@JulioMarco This is why for instance, (virtually) all republicans reject global warming, and democrats accept it. Except for the few qualified scientists in the group, neither party understands the science.
Of course science is open to error, I'd go further and say science has to first be wrong before it can be right, but the question people have to ask themselves is "which is likely to have more error?". Qualified sources, or unqualified sources? Too many believe bloggers over PhD's :(
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 Repoublicans reject global warming not because they do not understand science. They do so because of their ties to the oil industry.
Can you see one of the heads of the Republican Party speaking favorably to the idea of climate changes? Do you really believe they would not ask an expert (and they DO know experts from bloggers) if they simply did not know how to detect global warming?
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@JulioMarco I agree entirely, although there are exceptions such as Arnie the Governator. They use people labelled as "scientists" to support their viewpoint (often for financial gain), but if you look into it more deeply, those "scientists" are unpublished often have no relevant qualifications, and do not represent the consensus. Check out petitionprojectDOTorg, and look at the qualifications of the signers. Most only have a BSc, which is the same as what I have (Continued)
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 True. They use tnem because they get the illusion of a based argumentation and the scientists get it beacuse it is an easy way to get support or just to grow on the ranks of the party.
That is something very clear when ir is a newcommer speaking, but it happens to the "sacred monsters" too. When it comes to "publish and loose your friends and maybe your position" or "let it go and try something else", there are very rare cases of heroic behavior. :(
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@JulioMarco Is someone with a BSc in Biology qualified to judge the issue of global warming? Not likely. I only know from studying biology to the level I did that I only scratched the surface. I can explain simple concepts like evolution and point to the evidence, but that is it. It doesn't give me any ability to judge issues outside of biology, or areas of biology that I have not studied myself.
I don't see these pretenders as scientists, but the danger is a layman is not to know.
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 Well, a scientist is a person who works on the academic field in one of the disciplines that are recognized as sciences. There is nothing else to the definition, formally.
A medicine doctor should be a priest of health, but anyone who gets a degree in medicine - even someone as twisted as the ficcional Dr. House or even worst - is a medicine doctor. Things as they should have been are often different than things as they presently are. :(
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@JulioMarco Very true, there is science, and then there is "Science". I have a BSc in Biology, so the next time you're sick come and see me. I don't believe in red blood cells though (joke!).
Being able to separate good science from bad science is a skill. When you have done that, you are left with the good science, which is as good as we can get, but still is not perfect because as I mentioned before a consensus has to be wrong before it can be right.
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 I do not believe in a consensus, but in "mainstream science", which has a lot of space for disagreement.
Example: both relativity and quantum physics have their views on gravity (geodesics and gravitons, respectively) and those views are largely incompatible. Dispite that disagreement, both are mainstream science.
Fortunatelly for us, there is no real consensus, since it is exactely from the crash of two paradigms that great changes in science come (Thomas Kuhn, once again). :)
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@JulioMarco Consensus is part of mainstream science. There isn't a clear consensus on all topics, but whether there is or isn't it's best to consider the research of many scientists, and not just one. On less controversial topics (such as the existance and role of mitochondria in eukaryotic cells), about 99% or more scientists agree. Of course that doesn't absolutely guarantee accuracy, but if all the independent research points in the same direction, it's a good indication.
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 Or better: "things as they should be are different than things as they presently are".
The phrase looked like "today, things are ALL wrong" and this would be a mistake. :)
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 Depends on what part of the issue they're looking at.. "Global warming" isn't one area of science. The study of this phenomenon falls into many disciplines. Biology being one of them.
groovylocks 9 months ago
@strakha0 You touched the most interesting question on the subject. Here it is not only social acceptance, but financial support on elections.
Additionally, why is it that about 95% of the researchers in the Globe see climate changes and only those who are somehow tied to oil companies (including via political parties) do not?
Science is a human activity... it is not neutral.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@JulioMarco Oops! Response to the wrong person! :P
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 Again, I am not saying we should drop science and look for something else. That "something else" would also be tied to the social process and be biased, just like everything else.
We must stop thinking of science as something different. alien to the human mistakes, and see it as only one more of the four types of knowledge that we have to guide our lives.
All types of knowledge have their biases... all I say is that science is just on the same ground as the others.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@JulioMarco Really, what's the alternative? To accept every new idea immediately? If it was not so stringuent it wouldn't have such credibility.
Now, do you really need me to quote examples of times when religion and philosophy have been proven to be wrong? Religious thought in particular does not evolve at all - you read your holy book, and that is what you believe until the day you die, no matter the evidence to the contrary. Creationists believe the earth is just a few 1000 years old.
strakha0 10 months ago
@strakha0 Science is one of the elements that shape our modern lives. It is a tool of incommensurable value to us... but it is only a human activity and has no authgority over nay other type of knowledge. It is as flawed as the people who work with it and we must be aware of it, in order to best make and use science.
If we believe in science with our eyes closed, we will be killing science, instead of elevating it.
JulioMarco 10 months ago
@strakha0 Religion, put to good use, creates knowledge (whether religious knowledge or not) and has strong effects over our day-by-day life.
Religious knowledge is not testable, but can and must be taken seriously, for it has much to give us.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 These errors from YouTube are really annoying! :)
I took you for an atheist because of the viedos, but, now that you said it, there are only videos against creationism, not against religion. :)
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 Well, I stopped in the middle of my posting because of errors in YouTube. :P
I was really talking about the videos you have uploaded and I will tell you something that may shock you (or not...): I was an atheist militant myself until 1998.
I am also a scientist in the field of Economics and I have a great love for science... that is why I learn the more I can about it, its potential and its limitations.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 The reason why I became an atheist is the facxt that, for long, all I knew about religion was the christian Bible... and I did not agree with many of its canon interpretations. Having a narrow view of religion is what made me an atheist and knowing more about it as a whole is what made me a religious man.
...but getting back to my previous argument, let me show you some examples of "good" religion.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 Joseph Mengele tortured lots of people in his time to acquire data to his research on human tissue regeneration and applied tragic methods in his approach to "enhance" mankind. In all of this, he called it "science", just as the father that killed his son said he was ordered by God.
Can we condemn science now? I don't think so.
If we are to judge something, we must talk about its proper uses. "Bad" religion and "bad" philosophy against "good" science is not a fair competition.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco Bad science is worth mentioning. It is the absolute worst, because it unfairly gets credibility that would not be attached to philosophy or religion.
Science has proved eugenics is a poor concept. You will eventually have an effect on the gene pool, but it is so slow as to be ineffective, as well as immoral. On the other hand, we cannot disprove that murderers hear God. Only something that has the potential to be disproved should be looked at seriously.
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 We all can and must have fatih... and the faith in the inexistence of God, the inexistence of spirits, or the ineffectivity of meditation to attain truth is faith as well as their counterparts, no matter how much people try to look and talk "reasonably" and "with based arguments".
We can not prove revelation to be wrong, so if one is absolutelly sure it is wrong, then that person has fatih, and, if she does not accept other views, than that person is a religious fanatic!
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 I am completely sure that many militant atheists would "love" to be called religious people... or even religious fanatics, but that is what they are. :D
No matter how that person acquired the belief in atheism, if that person disregards the limits of her source, that person is handling the acquired information as revelation (absolute truth directed at mankid or at part of it), so it is religion. :D
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@strakha0 Finally, in formal terms, if you can not call religious information as knowledge, than you can not call scientific information as knowledge too.
Science is as fallible as any other type of knowldge... and the term "knowledge" itself accounts for it.
"Knowledge" is not what things are, but what one person or group knows about what things are... with all imperfections that information may carry.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
You can even use science to decide what to buy in the market, when you go there every month to resupply your kitchen, but it would be a waste of time and effort. This is a question much better dealt with by popular knowledge.
Every type of knowledge has its place. We can not cast any of them out of our lives without damage.
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco I just want to add that I do think Philosophy has a lot of value, and I do enjoy reading it. I just think it should be looked at as views and opinions, not quite in the same way as testing.
I once did a stats project where we had to test 2 things for a statistical link. I chose traffic flow in a town against time of day. I wasn't able to prove a link, despite "Rush hour" times existing. Despite any flaws, to prove something in science is more difficult.
strakha0 11 months ago
@strakha0 When it comes to consciousness, I suggest you to read Christopher Koch ("The Quest for Consciousness: a Neurobiological Approach"). It will show you that Socrates was right... at his time.
As for phylosophic approaches, Mahayana buddhism has a very intresting and accurate description of "the flow of consciousness" and you will see that phylosophy as we know it may even have started with Socrates, but did not end with it and was not restricted to Greece (as great as that country was).
JulioMarco 11 months ago
Science is not the discovery of strange new objects, science is just the act of proving old thoughts and myths right or wrong.
MayThereBePivot 11 months ago
@MayThereBePivot Let's take Newtonian phisics as an example. Many many experiments have proven it true in the past, but it did not stop it from being proven false.
Being into phylosophy, I prefer to follow Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, who, I think, knew it better than Socrates (but I thank you for the Socrates tip).
JulioMarco 11 months ago
@JulioMarco (general speaking is general)
MayThereBePivot 11 months ago
i was farting all the way through this video
DooTyProductions 11 months ago
The narration makes too much drama and gives too little information. They never explain the rate of the X-ray pulse - why it occurs at that rate.
drav1dan 11 months ago
I agree with jimmy8shoes. Back then catholics though god put earth in the center of the universe, and everything revolved around Earth. Now we know Earth revolves around the Sun
iAsianXX 11 months ago
did he say "stars that can burn for trillions of years" ?? I didnt think that the universe was that old... I thought it was about 14.6 billion years old. can someone correct me if Im wrong and explain the stars thing?
Rahavin1 11 months ago
@Rahavin1 I think the guy just fucked up, this isn't a British documentry remember! And I could not agree more about the faith heads, it realy pisses me of fwhen you come on a site to discuss science and you get some fucking brain dead god squad talking bollox through their arse at you.
XXXPopeBenedictXVI 11 months ago
@XXXPopeBenedictXVI are my british friends really changing my speech that much? wow... need to start hanging out with americans again. just cant find any.
anyway, cheers
Rahavin1 11 months ago
@Rahavin1 perhaps he was exaggerating
iAsianXX 11 months ago
we shouldnt be debating whether or not god exists on here... what we should be discussing are things which can be inferred using physical evidence and observation. Why talk about a belief or disbelief in something you have only faith in? Pointless. Conclusions are impossible, so why bother?
Rahavin1 11 months ago
7 Muslims believe in virgins more than black holes
abadplanner1 11 months ago
stay thirsty, black hole...
ouggnoy 11 months ago
wow what a god we have! he created everything!
michaeljustussvcc 11 months ago
@michaeljustussvcc God doesn't exist.
Ub3rSk1llz 11 months ago
@michaeljustussvcc and put off next to a very small star, off to the side of a small galaxy which itself is off somewhere non important.... maybe god hasn't come back to visit us cuz he forgot where he placed us...
Riggro 11 months ago
@Riggro Nah I doubt that, god is so great and powerful he has this entire universe in the palm of his hands, yeah he knows exactly where we are.
michaeljustussvcc 11 months ago
@TheJgfkj 03:17
Jeggis89 11 months ago
@MrZokys i liked the vid but im still scared of black holes
lastninja5 11 months ago
@MrZokys I'm afraid of them but this videos to awesome to dislike
ChocoboEatsMoggle 11 months ago
If nothing lasts forever, then what kills a Black Hole? If there is a beginning, doesn't there need to be an end? "Things" happen in cycles.
mlight333 1 year ago
@mlight333 Hawking Radiation; a black hole and the hypothetical "white hole" may be one and the same. Also, look up "virtual particles" (in this case, referrs to same thing); black holes can evaporate into radiation, and thus, "die."
Not neccecarilly "cycles" but linear patterns that have repeating themes, yes. Possibly, a black hole here may be a new Big Bang in "elsewhere."
Xunkun 11 months ago
music reminds me of mass effect
SMMsideproject 1 year ago
Are you feeding black holes shredded wheat?
downdatubes 1 year ago
the narrator reminds me of my grandpa
playadominical 1 year ago
0:47 that's not that long.
killercrx91 1 year ago
Best astronomy porn vid I've seen.
PrometheusRumiHuxley 1 year ago
D+
BetaGudan 1 year ago
this cool but i already new that black holes have beats
but it is still cool
y5o3615 1 year ago
@y5o3615 No you didn't. You can barely communicate in correct English. There's no way that you're intelligent enough to comprehend this.
Supermassively 1 year ago
@Supermassively u beter shut ur mouth cuz im so intelligent man and also i know so much bout space that im ganna work for nasa u idiot
y5o3615 1 year ago
@y5o3615 HAHAHAHA! Wow.
You're going to flip burgers for the rest of your life. Stop deluding yourself.
Supermassively 1 year ago
@y5o3615 your spelling disagrees with your statement.
Helge129 11 months ago
now there are 7 people and more scared of black holes!
BassCreek 1 year ago
the music is beautiful
jongmagee 1 year ago