If you used science to confirm your atheism, there is no god complex there. If you believe in a god or religion, you have overlooked science and disregarded it and therefore have the god complex ego.
In the creative arts the idea of there being no "right" answer is the norm. Artists are used to being as divergent as possible, to trying things that often seem ridiculous to outsiders.
@NevilleRhysBarnes Yes but it's important to remember that the appreciation (or not) of any art is entirely an opinion, totally subjective and therefore there is obviously no right answer. However an opinion about how to solve some complex societal problem clearly is right or wrong or generally better or worse than other solutions. So having some strange seeming artistic style is all well and has no wider consequences but how you solve other problems can have serious consequences.
@DSBrekus Isn't the essence of Tim Hartford's argument precisely that you DON'T really know what's right or wrong for societal problems--you just think you do, and that's the God complex.
You dismiss the arts as subjective and inconsequential, but if you dispense with communicators then you simply don't have a civilisation.
The arts are as cutthroat, competitive and harshly-judged as almost any human endeavour. The "right answer" is the same as in all other spheres: it is what works.
@NevilleRhysBarnes I can see that my comment was a bit jumbled so I'll try to clarify. Yes artists do try random things and what sells sells, so you can see some of the trial and error/evolution in art. But the reason they try random things is 1. there's no societal risk for failure and 2. they are simply driven to express themselves in some odd form and have intuition that it will be good. Also, art IS subjective, tastes change over time so there will never be a "right" kind of art.
@DSBrekus Cont'd But there are right and wrong answers to societal problems and the experimenters aren't gonna do trials on strange ideas out of a desire to express themselves. Basically what I'm trying to say is that there's a big difference between an artist and a scientist, art is an unsolvable problem and artists do it from an emotional drive, scientists can solve real problems and do it out of the desire to solve them and the humility to accept that only testing can provide real evidence.
@DSBrekus Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by dispense with communicators? Does being an artist make one a great communicator? Are all communicators artists?
Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say that art is entirely inconsequential, art effects people like any form of entertainment. But I think it's important to accept that it is just entertainment, can it have messages in it? Sure, like any form of entertainment. But those messages can and do exist without art to back them up.
This is precisely the approach I'd like to see in politics. Trial and error, hypothesis, experimentation. The scientific method in parliament or congress in essence.
Odd how many people reflect this subject on religion/atheism. It has nothing to do with either. The god complex refers to the infallible faith people tend to have in their own mind, beliefs and capabilities, regardless of what they are. These are human characteristics, not the trademark of any faith, culture or whatever. Ironically enough some of you are proving Mr Harford's point: instead of looking at yourself and questioning your thoughts, you just point the finger. I could be wrong, though.
This subject doesn't have anything to do with religion. period.
One problem with Tim's lecture though, 12:35 he says
schools should teach with open answers instead of making them memorize everything, politicians should say that they don't know anything because they don't and we should pick them because they are honest.... seriously, that's never going to happen.
@dm7g The thing about should is that it doesn't have to be possible, it just has to be the best possible situation. His statement might be naive, but that does not draw away any truth from it.
@HibernumMortis The key issue here is "infallible faith" and "not the trademark of any faith." You should be able to see that all religions, even theists should agree, require faith. Specifically, in society we have theists who use their own infallible faith to justify the banning of abortion, yet simultaneously support capital punishment. Homosexuals are discriminated against, stem cell research is denied funding, and creationism seeps into education despite separation of church and state.
The nozzle was actually a very very profound example. Creationists often say "what practical application does evolution have?" "If there's a design there must be a designer". I can't wait to say not for a soap nozzle theres not
This "god complex" applies to far more ppl than creationists though. I think it permeates the thinking of most people in just about every society (or at least most of them, especially today)
Thanks for the comment. I was responding to a comment about gays playing the victim card. Here in Europe, as in the US, some christians are copying this tactic, taking any criticism as an attack on their rights. As an atheist, I will always fight for freedom of thought, and expression within the law.
I agree that infallibility is a fundamental problem of human society, and that we should find new methods of combating our desire to be right, but I do not agree that trial and error is the more efficient way of doing it, which is what this guy seems to be preaching. mistakes should be embraced but I don't think doing things that you know will be wrong is the way to go (even in his example with the heart attacks, at least one guy thought it was right). interesting concept, lacks efficiency
@derek24hudson Correction: "close minded" people use exactly the same tactics. As a Christian I absolutely LOVED this as well as many other TED talks. The God complex is easy to get sucked into. You reach a certain level of understanding on something and decide that is enough and you don't need anymore information. It happens to religious people and atheists alike. It is part of the human condition. The moment you close down to new information (no matter the source) you have the God complex.
@jonescaleb12 : You've got to be kidding me. The Christians consistently close down new information -- half of them have yet to catch up to a 200 year old theory about the diversity of species.
The atheists are the first people to rid themselves of a "god complex", by getting rid of the primary god complex. The one that non-atheists never get rid of.
@jonescaleb12 You can't just claim to be open minded because this interests you. If you are a true Christian, then you believe that everything the Bible says is right, without doubting it. You haven't tried being an atheist (or any other religion than christianity) for a while, and then seen that God became mad. That is why it's called the God complex! Religious people believe that their belief is right and everything else is wrong.
@jonescaleb12 except that being atheist you aren't able to have a God complex cause you don't believe in a God. LOL So let's call it "You are crazy complex" instead.
@livedandletdie This has nothing to do with religion or the concept of deity. In the phrase "God Complex", the term "god" refers to us thinking we're infallible, not some deity.
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I don't think this guy understands evolutionary biology at all....since when is evolution based on trial & error??? Dawkins would be in the crowd having a fit....
@Moisty2010 Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.
The genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others. Factors that affect reproductive success are also important, an issue that Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection.
In what way is the parallel drawn between evolution and trial and error wrong? Surely evolution is countless minor (naturally occurring) variations being evaluated (in parallel) by their environment. This is done over and over again, with the best solutions to the problem carried forward. Surely this is trial and error on a grand scale. Then again, maybe I'm exposing my god complex...
Problem arise when two God complexed dudes are debating their concept, it took a while. I guess trial and error mentality is indeed very necessary before executing big and expensive project such as building a skyscraper. But firstly a God complexed personality should be appointed to defend the obviously working standard that is going to be used to determine boundaries for the trials and errors. The standard should have been trialed and errored / tested in different time periodically
This video applies to scientists as with anyone else... this God complex is especially prevelant in the area of evolution in general and evolutionary psychology in particular.
Congratulations TEDtalksDirector your channel was the theme of one of the articles at todaysfivecom, This was one of the top five videos, visit our channel for more information or visit our website to see the actual article.
Natural Selection is more error then trial rather than trial then error. But I get what he's saying. Arrogance about control of variables can create problems. (Central Planning in China) So in a way he's talking about the advantages of Free Markets. This is trial and error. (this is upsetting for many) Also Steven Johnson talks about what he talks about in "Where good Ideas come from" Also on TED
he is right that many ppl should stop to think they know something just because they heared about that. but thats problem if ppl argue outside of theyr competence.
big part of math is just a bunch of trial and error methods designed to solve complex problems.if u cant solve a problem analytically then u use one of this methods.since invention of computers we solve most problems this way.thats what computer was invented for. and then u build a prototype to see if it realy works.
In the US, what if we grant states more freedom and reallocated federal money to have a genuine test of fiscal theories. The competition between states would heat up, and some wonderful ideas could ensue.
@mikesomething cuz if u r then y r u taking this in a negative way im just saying wat r the americans doing other than sticking their nose where it dont belong
The problem with his argument is that despite his vivid examples and exhibits of how god complex is false and should have been avoided, he created a paradox by being the "god". There "the god" stands and explains that god complex is false. If he believes that god complex is false, he should not play "the god" by saying that god complex is wrong. Hahaha. Now don't get me wrong, I somewhat back his ideas. It's just funny for me to see how my mind play tricks on myself. Hahaha.
He should have talked more about his own field, because it is a major case of god-complex. There even is a school in economics that claims that only by typical god-complex methods you can gain knowledge. Economics is the "science" most affected by god-complex thinking.
his uncritical endorsement of genetic algorithms shows that he doesn't understand much about optimizing. Evolution may create good/workable solution but often not the ideal. The solution may contain artifacts of the path taken.
Hi. Tim just needed to sum it as just another form of faith & reason. Representing both with 1 (Trial & error and God). There's no argument at all. Just use both you'll have a more complete answer:)
(1)reason + (1)faith = 2
(1)Trial and error + (1)God = 2
You gain more by a good combination of two time tested (truths) tools: faith + reason. You try and get the error to form your facts things that work thing that don't, you try it once & sometimes get no error & then add faith as well. Gbu
science can't prove that things are 'facts'. that's because scientists understood, that you can only falsify theories, never prove they are true. its a problem of epistemology
13:52 "It's so hard to admit our own infallibility" - He means fallibility.
He has a point, but it is not an across the board point. Much of the world is complex, but not everything is. His point about trial and error should be applied in areas of complexity, but binary issues still exist. 2+2 still equals 4. Wisdom is knowing where to apply what, and not arguing for universal uncertainty - otherwise our future generations will keep reinventing the wheel.
Or you can vote for the politician who says "Government is not the solution to problems, Government is the problem," as Reagan said. The people, or the free market, can come up with a much better solution than an Ivy League pinhead working in a regulatory agency. The top down approach usually fails but most politicians say the answer is more regulations from so called "smarter people" instead letting people succeed and fail on their own.
@Duke1839 ...buddy you know what life was like before there was a government? know what life is like in places where there is no government? know what happens when governments fail? a government is an organisation that organize the movement of societies....and last i checked it was "governments" that made it illegal for people to own each other and this was thanks to "smarter" ppl. now go and use your internet infrastructure to troll some more about governments.
@jalzter1 Government takes money from you that you earned through your hard work or wise investments under threat of force. Government also made it legal for people to own each other before they made it illegal. When governments fall they are quickly replaced by a new government. The point isn't to get rid of government, it is to stop looking to government for solutions to problems. A gov. that respects and protects private property is what was intended for the US but not what we have.
@Duke1839 The American illusion of free markets struggling to overcome the hostile influence of government is a fantasy. What you have is a corporate monopoly corrupting the democratic process of government and monopolising all the resources conducive to free enterprise.
When discussing a resource based economy, many people get hung up on the question "who makes the decisions?" A far more relevant and important question is "How are decisions arrived at?" Using the tools of methods of science in application to human concern, we can have access abundance for all people and significantly decrease crime, hunger, poverty and war. To learn more, please look into the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement.
@Lightrider4444 There are far more important questions than "Who makes the decision" and "How are decisions arrived at" The RBE in it's current plan cannot work. Too many "what if?" questions that would need to be addressed. The Venus Project is, at best, a fictional novel worth reading on a flight from NY to Sydney.
@tommy605 What questions specifically? I will take on the challenge of trying to answer those questions as a society over the unbelievable circumstances we've created for ourselves in the present system.
@Lightrider4444 I've already gone through these on one of the Venus Project videos. Actually, not even all/ Just a couple. We couldn't get past the human behavior and motivation to do dangerous work problems that are obvious problems. What I wanted to ask is what about those that do not want to join this project? All the resources will be mined within the city, so how do I get my water and gas and such? Since there's no need for a money in the city, I can't just pay for it. Or, are they forced?
@Lightrider4444 I think you'd find few people that think the current system is working or is just. No one on the planet should be starving or not have fresh water available to them while 1% of the worlds population has more than enough to feed every last one of them.
But I don't think abandoning one bad system for another one is the best answer. TZM and Venus may lead to something better, but on it's own, I'm sorry, it's not workable at all.
@Lightrider4444 Yes. What I have is 10's of thousands of years of human behavior craving power and riches. Putting it bluntly, as long as there are products, things to own and eat, there will always be greed and ways to acquire it. ie, money. (And yes, I know they said eliminate money but they don't know the dif. between money and currency)
They never talk about incentive to do anything, to be an active participant of society. If everyone gets somethng whether they work or not. No motivation.
@tommy605 I doubt that everything you do is motivated purely for money. I doubt that all of the important historical figures who made great advancements did so for money. We live as a society in spite of money, not because of it.
@Lightrider4444 Not everyone is motivated by money. Many are motivated by power. Some aren't motivated at all. But the point is, once a group of people start to use something as money (ie, "I'll trade you this for that" type of thing) then you start to put a demand on some items, giving them a monetary value. Now that things start to have a value to them, you get people that start to collect and hoard those items, creating a short supply, increasing the value, making the holder wealthier.
@tommy605 Collecting and hoarding things is due to environmental and social pressure. Attaching imaginary and artificial value to things does not change the physical reality of the item. Money is a system of control, not "freedom" or democracy. Primitive systems such as barter or money are no longer necessary given the unprecedented technical capability and scientific knowledge we have attained.
@Lightrider4444 "Attaching imaginary and artificial value to things does not change the physical reality of the item" If by this you mean value, then I disagree with you 100%.
Money is a system of control, no doubt. And the current system may not be necessary, but that doesn't have a lot to do with reality. In the proposed RBE model, currency will be replaced by resources for money. It is in man's nature to lead, to obtain power. RBE does not address that at all.
@tommy605 There is no "human nature". Human behavior emerges from his needs and his environment. Our current dominant societal and cultural values create competitive, acquisitive, violent and barbaric people. We can choose to have a better life for all people if we begin transitioning into a resource based economy, based on reality, cooperation, sustainability and valuing life over property.
@Lightrider4444 I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There IS human nature. And sure, it's the result of the environment that humans (and all pre human stages from approx 5 mil yrs ago) have been in and created, but there is human nature. You can't just "educate" people and expect them to change. It's a process. It's a long process.
Jacque Fresco hasn't worked with experts in human behavior to see what the possible problems and solutions would be. He's trying to push forward.
@Lightrider4444 The world and society really aren't that bad. With living standards steadily raising almost all across the globe in the past couple centuries, all thanks to people cooperating and sharing ideas and resources, there is not much evidence for that kind of hostile reality. Sure, there is ugliness in society but that is a part of human nature and the good far outweighs the bad; hence our prosperity. Eliminating everything one may consider ugly in society would be a false ideal.
@dudepal187 Things are worse than you are lead to believe. Unfortunately, we are not shown reality in our general exposure to corporate controlled media. People die needlessly every minute from undue suffering caused by the structural violence caused by the monetary system. Just because any particular individual's life is more comfortable than most does not equate to a better world for all people.
@Lightrider4444 Any statistics to back that up? Yes, the world has problems that are unacceptable. Look our history, however, and we see nothing but improvement with a few hiccups. Living standards everywhere have gotten better thanks to the advancement of technology and progression in agriculture. Corporations actually play a big part in making things more efficient and cheaper too. Per GDP, the world is getting better. Humans are good at solving problems. Careless resentment won't help.
@dudepal187 unfortunatly blind optimism isn't helping either, one must remember that for the well off to continue their living standards, there needs to be a large proportion of the poor to sustain it. With the wealth divide ever increasing, the living standard of the average folk will only decrease.
@plllll0 Blind anything doesn't help, but optimism isn't blind when its supported by facts. When I talk about living standards I am talking about a better life for all, not equal wealth for all. If living standards for the middle class goes up then life gets better for the lower class. For example, if the price of an iPhone drops to a price affordable to anyone on a salary because advancements create an iPhone 4, then the quality of life improves and opportunities open up.
Scientist are so funny,they chase their tails but never catch it.Monkey fish folly strikes again.Get right with the man!Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt!
haha.... TED speeches. Damn....Americans really want to act like the wise peoples from value schools ? It's so dump and funny at once. In EU lessons in high school are on higher level that this...
Basically outling the scientific method here. Wouldn't call it trial and error myself. Should be more scientists in government office instead of politicians who don't have a clue on such methods.
Wow. So, if you work by trial and error your chances of big suces are larger but still small? And you should be prepared to hate your life so much that you want to commit suicide?
@blasel33 the basis here is to not care about error and see it as a means to an end because that is what it actually is, unless one just gives up halfway.
If you have a REALLY strong, one-sided opinion of this (or anything else)... ...you might just have a God complex. You might just be a red-neck, too, but these two things are not necessarily mutually inclusive.
@FmMan33 I think EmmaTheAtheist summed it up for me, telling people that trial and error are useful is similar to saying exercise can be good for you.
"Sometimes trying something and failing can be a good learning mechanism" -WOW REALLY......
@FmMan33 Maybe your right, but this isnt anything new or interesting its part of the sceintific method which everyone learns at school. maybe american schools are different and maybe this is relevant to americans but....
they teach kids trial and error in New Zealand schools so to me this just sounds like "Reasearch, falsifiable hypothesis and the God Complex"
where if he went on for 20minutes about why we need to research things rather than just say this is the answer.....yeah.....no shit?
This guy is a bit of a dick, stating the obvious is not insight, my school taught trial and error, its a problem solving technique but not one to be used in english, math, some areas have objective answers.
"The reason the american economy is strong is because 10% of business go bankrupt" - No, No no no no, you fkn dickhead, sure that correlates to your argument but its not correct.
is EGO the universe expressing itself through us.? Heaven help us if we see ourselves as cosmic in nature and divine by design me? I don't make mistakes. . I make choicess. some I learn from more than others. Each time I have a fresh idea come to mind I am showered with memories putting it in context., providing me with the BIG Picture. Which has each of us being a unique expression of the universe, with each give a different take on life to enrich one another's sense of reality with.
"You clearly did not get the point of this talk. Its humility not that people are meant to use trial and error for everything."
First, I was mearly stating he could just say "use science" because that is the process he describes. Second, the point of the talk is that you can't use trial & error (science) unless you can admit you're wrong or that a better solution exists because you won't change the status quo. It looks like you were the one that actually missed the point...
@KemaTheAtheist You're right about science being trial and error, but it would be difficult to convince anyone that any biological organism alive today was produced by science even though they are all clearly the product of (blind) trial and error. The speaker's choice of words is appropriate. :)
" would be difficult to convince anyone that any biological organism alive today was produced by science"
Mycoplasma laboratorium
As a less snarky response, he's talking about a process humans can use, not the process biology uses, though they're much the same thing as they based on trial & error. But a trial & error process humans can use? That is the scientific method.
@KemaTheAtheist He's clearly talking about the efficacy of trial and error not drawing lines between humans and other processes (say, to win an argument). You do realize we're on the same side here, yes? Your bias toward the word "science" is apparent. Let it go. A rose by any other name...
However, the kind of T&E he seems to talk about is more of the genetic kind, selection and variation. And with the nozzle example, "we have no idea how or why it works". As with the scientific method those two questions are the questions we try to answer.
This has been flagged as spam show
WOAOOW?! ´;D
I AM BEGINNING TO GROW IQ AND PERSPECTIVE HERE HAHAHAHAAAA!!! ´;D
hhhehm I´ll remember to be humble though :D
blankprobe 7 hours ago
Comment removed
blankprobe 7 hours ago
I have a god complex I think, I am 18... and due to this video, I WILL change! Thank you!
wildicepick 15 hours ago in playlist Grey's Favorites Volume 1
One of the best TEDtalks I've seen. Amazing argument, incomparable appeal to the audience, and a phenomenal speaker. Well done Hartford.
mikeating42 1 week ago
If you used science to confirm your atheism, there is no god complex there. If you believe in a god or religion, you have overlooked science and disregarded it and therefore have the god complex ego.
DaJbro024 2 weeks ago
@DaJbro024 Thats obvious? But do you realy think a crazy relgious neanderthal could understand logic? No.
TheMidwestsk8ter 2 weeks ago
In the creative arts the idea of there being no "right" answer is the norm. Artists are used to being as divergent as possible, to trying things that often seem ridiculous to outsiders.
NevilleRhysBarnes 3 weeks ago
@NevilleRhysBarnes Yes but it's important to remember that the appreciation (or not) of any art is entirely an opinion, totally subjective and therefore there is obviously no right answer. However an opinion about how to solve some complex societal problem clearly is right or wrong or generally better or worse than other solutions. So having some strange seeming artistic style is all well and has no wider consequences but how you solve other problems can have serious consequences.
DSBrekus 2 weeks ago
@DSBrekus Isn't the essence of Tim Hartford's argument precisely that you DON'T really know what's right or wrong for societal problems--you just think you do, and that's the God complex.
You dismiss the arts as subjective and inconsequential, but if you dispense with communicators then you simply don't have a civilisation.
The arts are as cutthroat, competitive and harshly-judged as almost any human endeavour. The "right answer" is the same as in all other spheres: it is what works.
NevilleRhysBarnes 2 weeks ago
@NevilleRhysBarnes I can see that my comment was a bit jumbled so I'll try to clarify. Yes artists do try random things and what sells sells, so you can see some of the trial and error/evolution in art. But the reason they try random things is 1. there's no societal risk for failure and 2. they are simply driven to express themselves in some odd form and have intuition that it will be good. Also, art IS subjective, tastes change over time so there will never be a "right" kind of art.
DSBrekus 2 weeks ago
@DSBrekus Cont'd But there are right and wrong answers to societal problems and the experimenters aren't gonna do trials on strange ideas out of a desire to express themselves. Basically what I'm trying to say is that there's a big difference between an artist and a scientist, art is an unsolvable problem and artists do it from an emotional drive, scientists can solve real problems and do it out of the desire to solve them and the humility to accept that only testing can provide real evidence.
DSBrekus 2 weeks ago
@DSBrekus Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by dispense with communicators? Does being an artist make one a great communicator? Are all communicators artists?
Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to say that art is entirely inconsequential, art effects people like any form of entertainment. But I think it's important to accept that it is just entertainment, can it have messages in it? Sure, like any form of entertainment. But those messages can and do exist without art to back them up.
DSBrekus 2 weeks ago
11:57 They have already done so.
dookiecheez 1 month ago
This is precisely the approach I'd like to see in politics. Trial and error, hypothesis, experimentation. The scientific method in parliament or congress in essence.
dookiecheez 1 month ago 4
@dookiecheez I came to the same conclusion!
DSBrekus 2 weeks ago
i know in advance this is a good talk because the people who watched it have voted a Christan to the top comment
TMOMFXD 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
Odd how many people reflect this subject on religion/atheism. It has nothing to do with either. The god complex refers to the infallible faith people tend to have in their own mind, beliefs and capabilities, regardless of what they are. These are human characteristics, not the trademark of any faith, culture or whatever. Ironically enough some of you are proving Mr Harford's point: instead of looking at yourself and questioning your thoughts, you just point the finger. I could be wrong, though.
HibernumMortis 1 month ago
@HibernumMortis Good point.
This subject doesn't have anything to do with religion. period.
One problem with Tim's lecture though, 12:35 he says
schools should teach with open answers instead of making them memorize everything, politicians should say that they don't know anything because they don't and we should pick them because they are honest.... seriously, that's never going to happen.
dm7g 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
@dm7g The thing about should is that it doesn't have to be possible, it just has to be the best possible situation. His statement might be naive, but that does not draw away any truth from it.
TheAtheologian 1 month ago
@HibernumMortis The key issue here is "infallible faith" and "not the trademark of any faith." You should be able to see that all religions, even theists should agree, require faith. Specifically, in society we have theists who use their own infallible faith to justify the banning of abortion, yet simultaneously support capital punishment. Homosexuals are discriminated against, stem cell research is denied funding, and creationism seeps into education despite separation of church and state.
GeekProdigyGuy 1 month ago
This reminds me of genetic algorithm
mkaatr 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
Well... iam god
damppp 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
Now I understand why Aperture science keeps testing
TheBOOM64channel 1 month ago 7
@TheBOOM64channel they do what they must because they can
RISEAGAINST0922 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites 3
TEST, we must test!
googolplexbyte 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
Since the goal of humanity is to become god it is no surprise that we succumb to the god complex
goclbert 1 month ago
I hate the way he smirks and raises his eyebrows. He's a douchebag.
AlejandroRoggio 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
but how the fuck did he know to use marmite? sure, it's brilliant that he found the cure, but HOW?!
AlejandroRoggio 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
@AlejandroRoggio A guess
Have you not used Trial and ERROR before?
AquaPhoenix2006 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
@AlejandroRoggio Or maybe he already knew it had the vitamin in it, so it was an educated shot-in-the-dark
AquaPhoenix2006 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
Amazing talk, I was on the edge of my seat.. but if i'm honest I couldn't stop looking at his large 'package'. Does that make me bad?
SC0OBYSN4XX 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
A solid 90% of people have this problem.
TKMSeznam12 2 months ago
The nozzle was actually a very very profound example. Creationists often say "what practical application does evolution have?" "If there's a design there must be a designer". I can't wait to say not for a soap nozzle theres not
jccarbunkle 3 months ago
@jccarbunkle
This "god complex" applies to far more ppl than creationists though. I think it permeates the thinking of most people in just about every society (or at least most of them, especially today)
stealthswimmer 2 months ago
Thanks for the comment. I was responding to a comment about gays playing the victim card. Here in Europe, as in the US, some christians are copying this tactic, taking any criticism as an attack on their rights. As an atheist, I will always fight for freedom of thought, and expression within the law.
derek24hudson 3 months ago
كنت احمق نذل ط اللعنة أمك
AmazingMichaelJordan 3 months ago
Try doing trial and error on human bodies or space stations :D
Corvv 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Corvv we do it all the time, but with certain limits
sh1zlEE 3 months ago
I agree that infallibility is a fundamental problem of human society, and that we should find new methods of combating our desire to be right, but I do not agree that trial and error is the more efficient way of doing it, which is what this guy seems to be preaching. mistakes should be embraced but I don't think doing things that you know will be wrong is the way to go (even in his example with the heart attacks, at least one guy thought it was right). interesting concept, lacks efficiency
wge621 3 months ago
@lightandbeautiful
And now christians in the west are using exactly the same tactics.
derek24hudson 3 months ago
@derek24hudson Correction: "close minded" people use exactly the same tactics. As a Christian I absolutely LOVED this as well as many other TED talks. The God complex is easy to get sucked into. You reach a certain level of understanding on something and decide that is enough and you don't need anymore information. It happens to religious people and atheists alike. It is part of the human condition. The moment you close down to new information (no matter the source) you have the God complex.
jonescaleb12 3 months ago 32
@jonescaleb12
exactly
stealthswimmer 2 months ago
@jonescaleb12 : You've got to be kidding me. The Christians consistently close down new information -- half of them have yet to catch up to a 200 year old theory about the diversity of species.
The atheists are the first people to rid themselves of a "god complex", by getting rid of the primary god complex. The one that non-atheists never get rid of.
websnarf 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
@jonescaleb12 that only happens if one gets dreams of granduer or forgets his own abilities
B1itZKr3iGC4 1 month ago
@jonescaleb12 You can't just claim to be open minded because this interests you. If you are a true Christian, then you believe that everything the Bible says is right, without doubting it. You haven't tried being an atheist (or any other religion than christianity) for a while, and then seen that God became mad. That is why it's called the God complex! Religious people believe that their belief is right and everything else is wrong.
Yoku5 2 weeks ago 2
@jonescaleb12 except that being atheist you aren't able to have a God complex cause you don't believe in a God. LOL So let's call it "You are crazy complex" instead.
livedandletdie 3 days ago in playlist Grey's Favorites Volume 1
@livedandletdie This has nothing to do with religion or the concept of deity. In the phrase "God Complex", the term "god" refers to us thinking we're infallible, not some deity.
jonescaleb12 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
vit-eh-mihn c
charmander4533 4 months ago
Amazing talk, but I have to disagree with this forgiving attitude towards complex problems.
Many of them have simple solutions.
And many questions debated by bureaucrats and academics are too simple and important to be left to them.
darkerforest 4 months ago
I would have clicked this video much sooner if "genetic algorithm" was in the title.
ross817 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
I don't think this guy understands evolutionary biology at all....since when is evolution based on trial & error??? Dawkins would be in the crowd having a fit....
Moisty2010 4 months ago
@Moisty2010 Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.
The genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others. Factors that affect reproductive success are also important, an issue that Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection.
shizzleman8 4 months ago
In what way is the parallel drawn between evolution and trial and error wrong? Surely evolution is countless minor (naturally occurring) variations being evaluated (in parallel) by their environment. This is done over and over again, with the best solutions to the problem carried forward. Surely this is trial and error on a grand scale. Then again, maybe I'm exposing my god complex...
Karloffspring 4 months ago
too idealistic.
Denmarkpwns 5 months ago
I dont think this guy understands logic at all.
Tradd20 5 months ago
Comment removed
Denmarkpwns 5 months ago
Damn. This was eye-opening. I have a serious GOD-complex.
Ko252 5 months ago 56
@Ko252 but admitting it is a good start =]
ryandrums1001 4 months ago
@ryandrums1001 Yes, changing yourself is even better.
Ko252 4 months ago
@Ko252 me too but more literaly as a sociopath
bboy32167 1 month ago in playlist Grey's Favorites
@bboy32167 Cool.
Ko252 1 month ago
@Ko252 I didn't know God ever closed His eyes.
lisa8220 1 month ago
@lisa8220 Why would a GOD need to have HIS/HERS eyes open for?
Ko252 1 month ago
@Ko252 That's right, he/she can breath deep and draw all reality in and breath it out.
It is the year of the Dragon, and we are his/her breath.
lisa8220 1 month ago
10:34 evolution algorythm.
Ko252 5 months ago
60 people are christians. lol
nadams008 5 months ago in playlist Videos from TEDtalksDirector
Problem arise when two God complexed dudes are debating their concept, it took a while. I guess trial and error mentality is indeed very necessary before executing big and expensive project such as building a skyscraper. But firstly a God complexed personality should be appointed to defend the obviously working standard that is going to be used to determine boundaries for the trials and errors. The standard should have been trialed and errored / tested in different time periodically
Melki 5 months ago
This video applies to scientists as with anyone else... this God complex is especially prevelant in the area of evolution in general and evolutionary psychology in particular.
marcdaddy33 5 months ago
@marcdaddy33
"this God complex is especially prevelant in the area of evolution in general"
How do you figure that?
KemaTheAtheist 5 months ago
Wow... this video is different than what I thought it would be... a very good video.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Congratulations TEDtalksDirector your channel was the theme of one of the articles at todaysfivecom, This was one of the top five videos, visit our channel for more information or visit our website to see the actual article.
todaysfive 6 months ago
Is it weird i cried
benbie 6 months ago
Economists are the world's real gods.
CJones990 6 months ago
@CJones990 true, the only ones that can see indefinite growth in a finite world, unless you count the madmen :)
inphuriated 6 months ago
@CJones990 Well thanks but no thanks :-)
suzettegm 1 month ago
MARMITE ON THE BLACKMARKET...brilliant.
antoshahorosha 6 months ago
He even finished perfectly on time. Nice speech.
GypsyLeah 6 months ago
Trail and error is all fine and dandy for most things, but when humans are involved it is too brutal a method.
CassiusFA 6 months ago
@CassiusFA Yeah Like Geinee Pigs Idk How To Spell
xInfected27x 6 months ago
It's very difficult to make good mistakes... Indeed...
netinaut 6 months ago
Natural Selection is more error then trial rather than trial then error. But I get what he's saying. Arrogance about control of variables can create problems. (Central Planning in China) So in a way he's talking about the advantages of Free Markets. This is trial and error. (this is upsetting for many) Also Steven Johnson talks about what he talks about in "Where good Ideas come from" Also on TED
brian1625 6 months ago
November 12, 1927, Kisai near Tokyo – November 17, 1958. Taniyama was over 30, not before when he killed himself.
molemanryan1 6 months ago
If trial and error is so much better, how come it's not already a standard way of thinking?
a575981735977018 6 months ago
@a575981735977018 because of the god complex
KisekiDonum 5 months ago
cute :)
he is right that many ppl should stop to think they know something just because they heared about that. but thats problem if ppl argue outside of theyr competence.
big part of math is just a bunch of trial and error methods designed to solve complex problems.if u cant solve a problem analytically then u use one of this methods.since invention of computers we solve most problems this way.thats what computer was invented for. and then u build a prototype to see if it realy works.
ILoveSoImAlive 6 months ago
In the US, what if we grant states more freedom and reallocated federal money to have a genuine test of fiscal theories. The competition between states would heat up, and some wonderful ideas could ensue.
johnlassie 6 months ago
At 15:50 .....wow!
toecutterr6 6 months ago
Absolutely wonderful video. I get it now.
toecutterr6 6 months ago
@tclark1
"I just love comments that are snide and degrading to others or the video itself. Apparently that makes you intelligent. Well done Kema."
Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle.
KemaTheAtheist 6 months ago
did u notice that none of these guys are american
sullykillsully 6 months ago
@sullykillsully they are also not chinese ...... whats your point ?
mikesomething 6 months ago
@mikesomething thats cuz the chinese r doing stuff with robotics
sullykillsully 6 months ago
@sullykillsully spend a lot of time in china do you ?
mikesomething 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mikesomething kinda i was there less than a year ago hey are you american
sullykillsully 6 months ago
@mikesomething cuz if u r then y r u taking this in a negative way im just saying wat r the americans doing other than sticking their nose where it dont belong
sullykillsully 6 months ago
The problem with his argument is that despite his vivid examples and exhibits of how god complex is false and should have been avoided, he created a paradox by being the "god". There "the god" stands and explains that god complex is false. If he believes that god complex is false, he should not play "the god" by saying that god complex is wrong. Hahaha. Now don't get me wrong, I somewhat back his ideas. It's just funny for me to see how my mind play tricks on myself. Hahaha.
iporgot 6 months ago
Funny that the top two commenters completely missed the point.
"Herp derp scientific method duh"
Clearly what we need here is 12 year old Youtube geniuses to show everyone the light.
LongWindedUsername 6 months ago
@LongWindedUsername
"Funny that the top two commenters completely missed the point."
The stupid comment claiming the top comments missed the point has already been made. Clearly what we need is less trolls.
KemaTheAtheist 6 months ago
He should have talked more about his own field, because it is a major case of god-complex. There even is a school in economics that claims that only by typical god-complex methods you can gain knowledge. Economics is the "science" most affected by god-complex thinking.
his uncritical endorsement of genetic algorithms shows that he doesn't understand much about optimizing. Evolution may create good/workable solution but often not the ideal. The solution may contain artifacts of the path taken.
0MoTheG 6 months ago
Hi. Tim just needed to sum it as just another form of faith & reason. Representing both with 1 (Trial & error and God). There's no argument at all. Just use both you'll have a more complete answer:)
(1)reason + (1)faith = 2
(1)Trial and error + (1)God = 2
You gain more by a good combination of two time tested (truths) tools: faith + reason. You try and get the error to form your facts things that work thing that don't, you try it once & sometimes get no error & then add faith as well. Gbu
SevenDeMagnus 6 months ago
"It is very difficult to make good mistakes" Blown away
sh1zlEE 6 months ago 18
TED Upload in HD :(
NicenEasyuk 6 months ago
Vit-timan
ChuroScuro 7 months ago
Quite frankly, this speech did not blow me away.
AntonSlizzardhands 7 months ago
science can't prove that things are 'facts'. that's because scientists understood, that you can only falsify theories, never prove they are true. its a problem of epistemology
MrBeumel 7 months ago
At least 10 people sleeping at 2:31.
shakesk 7 months ago
13:52 "It's so hard to admit our own infallibility" - He means fallibility.
He has a point, but it is not an across the board point. Much of the world is complex, but not everything is. His point about trial and error should be applied in areas of complexity, but binary issues still exist. 2+2 still equals 4. Wisdom is knowing where to apply what, and not arguing for universal uncertainty - otherwise our future generations will keep reinventing the wheel.
skinniyah 7 months ago
Spare your fingers people. You're dealing with a professional troll. Don't feed the trolls!
Kotesu 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
That is really cool.
ImagineTheWorld100 7 months ago
great talk, i agree completely
everyone around me has the god complex
"Follow those who seek the truth, run from those who claim to have found it."
CircusOfBedlam 7 months ago 4
Or you can vote for the politician who says "Government is not the solution to problems, Government is the problem," as Reagan said. The people, or the free market, can come up with a much better solution than an Ivy League pinhead working in a regulatory agency. The top down approach usually fails but most politicians say the answer is more regulations from so called "smarter people" instead letting people succeed and fail on their own.
Duke1839 7 months ago
@Duke1839 ...buddy you know what life was like before there was a government? know what life is like in places where there is no government? know what happens when governments fail? a government is an organisation that organize the movement of societies....and last i checked it was "governments" that made it illegal for people to own each other and this was thanks to "smarter" ppl. now go and use your internet infrastructure to troll some more about governments.
jalzter1 7 months ago 2
@jalzter1 Government takes money from you that you earned through your hard work or wise investments under threat of force. Government also made it legal for people to own each other before they made it illegal. When governments fall they are quickly replaced by a new government. The point isn't to get rid of government, it is to stop looking to government for solutions to problems. A gov. that respects and protects private property is what was intended for the US but not what we have.
Duke1839 7 months ago
@Duke1839 The American illusion of free markets struggling to overcome the hostile influence of government is a fantasy. What you have is a corporate monopoly corrupting the democratic process of government and monopolising all the resources conducive to free enterprise.
leconfidant 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most scientists have the god complex, they don't use the scientific method.
guyboy625 7 months ago
@guyboy625
"Most scientists have the god complex, they don't use the scientific method."
Translation: "Most scientists don't come to the conclusion *I* want them to. Those bastards!"
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
I think most YT vloggers have the God complex.
MarkArandjus 7 months ago 2
When discussing a resource based economy, many people get hung up on the question "who makes the decisions?" A far more relevant and important question is "How are decisions arrived at?" Using the tools of methods of science in application to human concern, we can have access abundance for all people and significantly decrease crime, hunger, poverty and war. To learn more, please look into the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement.
Lightrider4444 7 months ago 3
@Lightrider4444 There are far more important questions than "Who makes the decision" and "How are decisions arrived at" The RBE in it's current plan cannot work. Too many "what if?" questions that would need to be addressed. The Venus Project is, at best, a fictional novel worth reading on a flight from NY to Sydney.
tommy605 7 months ago
@tommy605 What questions specifically? I will take on the challenge of trying to answer those questions as a society over the unbelievable circumstances we've created for ourselves in the present system.
Lightrider4444 7 months ago
@Lightrider4444 I've already gone through these on one of the Venus Project videos. Actually, not even all/ Just a couple. We couldn't get past the human behavior and motivation to do dangerous work problems that are obvious problems. What I wanted to ask is what about those that do not want to join this project? All the resources will be mined within the city, so how do I get my water and gas and such? Since there's no need for a money in the city, I can't just pay for it. Or, are they forced?
tommy605 7 months ago
@Lightrider4444 I think you'd find few people that think the current system is working or is just. No one on the planet should be starving or not have fresh water available to them while 1% of the worlds population has more than enough to feed every last one of them.
But I don't think abandoning one bad system for another one is the best answer. TZM and Venus may lead to something better, but on it's own, I'm sorry, it's not workable at all.
tommy605 7 months ago
@tommy605 You have data to support your assertions?
Lightrider4444 6 months ago
@Lightrider4444 Yes. What I have is 10's of thousands of years of human behavior craving power and riches. Putting it bluntly, as long as there are products, things to own and eat, there will always be greed and ways to acquire it. ie, money. (And yes, I know they said eliminate money but they don't know the dif. between money and currency)
They never talk about incentive to do anything, to be an active participant of society. If everyone gets somethng whether they work or not. No motivation.
tommy605 6 months ago
@tommy605 I doubt that everything you do is motivated purely for money. I doubt that all of the important historical figures who made great advancements did so for money. We live as a society in spite of money, not because of it.
Lightrider4444 6 months ago
@Lightrider4444 Not everyone is motivated by money. Many are motivated by power. Some aren't motivated at all. But the point is, once a group of people start to use something as money (ie, "I'll trade you this for that" type of thing) then you start to put a demand on some items, giving them a monetary value. Now that things start to have a value to them, you get people that start to collect and hoard those items, creating a short supply, increasing the value, making the holder wealthier.
tommy605 6 months ago
@tommy605 Collecting and hoarding things is due to environmental and social pressure. Attaching imaginary and artificial value to things does not change the physical reality of the item. Money is a system of control, not "freedom" or democracy. Primitive systems such as barter or money are no longer necessary given the unprecedented technical capability and scientific knowledge we have attained.
Lightrider4444 6 months ago
@Lightrider4444 "Attaching imaginary and artificial value to things does not change the physical reality of the item" If by this you mean value, then I disagree with you 100%.
Money is a system of control, no doubt. And the current system may not be necessary, but that doesn't have a lot to do with reality. In the proposed RBE model, currency will be replaced by resources for money. It is in man's nature to lead, to obtain power. RBE does not address that at all.
tommy605 6 months ago
@tommy605 There is no "human nature". Human behavior emerges from his needs and his environment. Our current dominant societal and cultural values create competitive, acquisitive, violent and barbaric people. We can choose to have a better life for all people if we begin transitioning into a resource based economy, based on reality, cooperation, sustainability and valuing life over property.
Lightrider4444 6 months ago
@Lightrider4444 I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There IS human nature. And sure, it's the result of the environment that humans (and all pre human stages from approx 5 mil yrs ago) have been in and created, but there is human nature. You can't just "educate" people and expect them to change. It's a process. It's a long process.
Jacque Fresco hasn't worked with experts in human behavior to see what the possible problems and solutions would be. He's trying to push forward.
tommy605 6 months ago
@Lightrider4444 The world and society really aren't that bad. With living standards steadily raising almost all across the globe in the past couple centuries, all thanks to people cooperating and sharing ideas and resources, there is not much evidence for that kind of hostile reality. Sure, there is ugliness in society but that is a part of human nature and the good far outweighs the bad; hence our prosperity. Eliminating everything one may consider ugly in society would be a false ideal.
dudepal187 6 months ago
@dudepal187 Things are worse than you are lead to believe. Unfortunately, we are not shown reality in our general exposure to corporate controlled media. People die needlessly every minute from undue suffering caused by the structural violence caused by the monetary system. Just because any particular individual's life is more comfortable than most does not equate to a better world for all people.
Lightrider4444 6 months ago
@Lightrider4444 Any statistics to back that up? Yes, the world has problems that are unacceptable. Look our history, however, and we see nothing but improvement with a few hiccups. Living standards everywhere have gotten better thanks to the advancement of technology and progression in agriculture. Corporations actually play a big part in making things more efficient and cheaper too. Per GDP, the world is getting better. Humans are good at solving problems. Careless resentment won't help.
dudepal187 6 months ago
@dudepal187 unfortunatly blind optimism isn't helping either, one must remember that for the well off to continue their living standards, there needs to be a large proportion of the poor to sustain it. With the wealth divide ever increasing, the living standard of the average folk will only decrease.
plllll0 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@plllll0 Blind anything doesn't help, but optimism isn't blind when its supported by facts. When I talk about living standards I am talking about a better life for all, not equal wealth for all. If living standards for the middle class goes up then life gets better for the lower class. For example, if the price of an iPhone drops to a price affordable to anyone on a salary because advancements create an iPhone 4, then the quality of life improves and opportunities open up.
dudepal187 6 months ago
Scientist are so funny,they chase their tails but never catch it.Monkey fish folly strikes again.Get right with the man!Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt!
willmo777 7 months ago
Scientist are so funny,they chase their tails but never catch it.Monkey fish folly strikes again.Get right with the man!
willmo777 7 months ago
haha.... TED speeches. Damn....Americans really want to act like the wise peoples from value schools ? It's so dump and funny at once. In EU lessons in high school are on higher level that this...
kurtXhecticXpl 7 months ago
Ooops. He said "God" and "Evolution" in the same video. BINGO! 48 "Dislikes".
LOL
warren52nz 7 months ago 33
@warren52nz
LOL... yeah, some of them were expecting this to be a video about God. I did too. glad I actually listened to it.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
Basically outling the scientific method here. Wouldn't call it trial and error myself. Should be more scientists in government office instead of politicians who don't have a clue on such methods.
realeoin 7 months ago
I like this guy.
Grishnackolyte 7 months ago
Genetic algorithms ftw :)
6006133 7 months ago
@6006133 maybe
sokseb 7 months ago
Wow. So, if you work by trial and error your chances of big suces are larger but still small? And you should be prepared to hate your life so much that you want to commit suicide?
blasel33 7 months ago
@blasel33 the basis here is to not care about error and see it as a means to an end because that is what it actually is, unless one just gives up halfway.
icped 7 months ago
If you have a REALLY strong, one-sided opinion of this (or anything else)... ...you might just have a God complex. You might just be a red-neck, too, but these two things are not necessarily mutually inclusive.
maggiejusiel 7 months ago
@FmMan33 I think EmmaTheAtheist summed it up for me, telling people that trial and error are useful is similar to saying exercise can be good for you.
"Sometimes trying something and failing can be a good learning mechanism" -WOW REALLY......
shandcunt 7 months ago
@FmMan33 Maybe your right, but this isnt anything new or interesting its part of the sceintific method which everyone learns at school. maybe american schools are different and maybe this is relevant to americans but....
they teach kids trial and error in New Zealand schools so to me this just sounds like "Reasearch, falsifiable hypothesis and the God Complex"
where if he went on for 20minutes about why we need to research things rather than just say this is the answer.....yeah.....no shit?
shandcunt 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FmMan33 LOL that reminds me of that Laurie and Fry sketch where both of em think they are psychologists and are diagnosing each other.
I might just respond with;
Looks like you have a case of "I'm right and you're wrong."
shandcunt 7 months ago
Trial and error is too expensive now a days, because of the current complexity.
studioXforum 7 months ago 2
This guy is a bit of a dick, stating the obvious is not insight, my school taught trial and error, its a problem solving technique but not one to be used in english, math, some areas have objective answers.
"The reason the american economy is strong is because 10% of business go bankrupt" - No, No no no no, you fkn dickhead, sure that correlates to your argument but its not correct.
shandcunt 7 months ago
@shandcunt Looks like you have a case of "I'm right and you're wrong."
FmMan33 7 months ago 2
..aand by getting and education as say, a doctor or mathmatician, you become sort of a "mini-god" to society.
makro80 7 months ago
is EGO the universe expressing itself through us.? Heaven help us if we see ourselves as cosmic in nature and divine by design me? I don't make mistakes. . I make choicess. some I learn from more than others. Each time I have a fresh idea come to mind I am showered with memories putting it in context., providing me with the BIG Picture. Which has each of us being a unique expression of the universe, with each give a different take on life to enrich one another's sense of reality with.
HamOnCan 7 months ago
0:12 to save your ears...
dzntms144 7 months ago 2
We have a better term for the problem solving technique of trial and error: the scientific method.
KemaTheAtheist 7 months ago 81
@KemaTheAtheist You clearly did not get the point of this talk. Its humility not that people are meant to use trial and error for everything.
TheDiscoMole 7 months ago 2
@TheDiscoMole
"You clearly did not get the point of this talk. Its humility not that people are meant to use trial and error for everything."
First, I was mearly stating he could just say "use science" because that is the process he describes. Second, the point of the talk is that you can't use trial & error (science) unless you can admit you're wrong or that a better solution exists because you won't change the status quo. It looks like you were the one that actually missed the point...
KemaTheAtheist 7 months ago 2
@KemaTheAtheist You're right about science being trial and error, but it would be difficult to convince anyone that any biological organism alive today was produced by science even though they are all clearly the product of (blind) trial and error. The speaker's choice of words is appropriate. :)
TritonAlias 7 months ago
@TritonAlias
" would be difficult to convince anyone that any biological organism alive today was produced by science"
Mycoplasma laboratorium
As a less snarky response, he's talking about a process humans can use, not the process biology uses, though they're much the same thing as they based on trial & error. But a trial & error process humans can use? That is the scientific method.
KemaTheAtheist 7 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist He's clearly talking about the efficacy of trial and error not drawing lines between humans and other processes (say, to win an argument). You do realize we're on the same side here, yes? Your bias toward the word "science" is apparent. Let it go. A rose by any other name...
TritonAlias 6 months ago
@KemaTheAtheist
However, the kind of T&E he seems to talk about is more of the genetic kind, selection and variation. And with the nozzle example, "we have no idea how or why it works". As with the scientific method those two questions are the questions we try to answer.
niekvdbogert 7 months ago
@niekvdbogert
"However, the kind of T&E he seems to talk about is more of the genetic kind, selection and variation. And with the nozzle example..."
But we do know the why it works... The algorithm was built using a genetic algorithm to produce the result