its really weird watching this again, i remember when this came out two years ago, i was heavily medicated at the time for a 'thought disorder' i was diagnosed with, and you were not helping- with what my psychiatrist wanted for me, anyway. and to that I say thank you, azrienoch: hope things are going well right now with ya.
Was the rowboat (that rarely followed a straight line) also supposed to represent your meandering thought process on the subject? If so - major props!
I disagree that empirical claims like "the earth is round" are value statements, opinions, and non-scientific. You justified this by claiming that an extra-scientific principle was being used, namely "more of what we want is better." What science "wants" is reliable knowledge, so yes, more IS better - more knowledge, and more correct predictions rather than failed ones. More knowledge and better predictive/explanatory power are not "extra-scientific"; they are central to science's purpose.
Science is a human activity structured to produce reliable empirical knowledge. Science "doesn't agree with you" because science isn't a sentient entity, but its products are statements about the world, and so either do or do not match ("agree with") a person's parallel statements about the world.
I think you have one thing absolutely wrong. You should watch out for people who DON'T base their opinions on scientifically justified claims (when available).
Listen to the doctor who tells you that, given your type and stage of cancer, his proposed chemo treatment give you a 78% chance of survival. Do NOT listen to the fortune teller with her $20,000 candle "curse cures", or the homeopathist with his magic healing water.
". . .survival statistics tell you the percentage of people who survive a certain type of cancer for *a specific amount of time.*"
Without stating the specific amount of time a survival probability is meaningless at best (5 years is the most common period; and it should be contrasted against those who receive no treatment, otherwise it is meaningless in context).
Because, the fact of the matter is that the probability of your survival is 0.
The problem isn't with people using science's authority - that much is fine, if done correctly. The problem, I think, is sometimes when someone invokes that authority without understanding its extent and justification. By that I don't mean having read all the research papers, but rather understanding the justification of knowledge claims from the scientific process itself. People often get the content wrong too, of course. Were these your points?
Atheism isn't a worldview that supplants religion with science. You're arguing from a definition of atheism that you've arbitrarily constructed. You've with one broad sweep categorized and dismissed a tradition as colorful as theism. And that, sir, is irresponsible
I don't know, I don't... believe so, it's a defenition of atheism that suggests what just about every atheist suggests, cold hard 'see-able' facts. Facts that are in fact, not really fact... You seem to be refering to another side of atheist? The kind that is not theist and not for science either, which according to me, is pretty much the side that Azrienoch is on. The inbetween-there-is-no-truth kind, which sounds like you as well, good sir. :)
You claim that supporting your argument with science doesn't give you any innate authority. That is very much correct, unless both parties agree with the principles of science. In this case, asserting your personal ideas becomes much less an issue of proving your sources are higher and mightier than your friend's, but rather becomes an issue of pointing out a flaw in the other's thinking.
But I like your ideas on science, it's an interesting way of looking at the human element in our science.
Evolution (process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next) does not address Abiogenesis (the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules).
Please do not confuse the two.
Practical repeatable results can be considered 'better' when applying a more correct model as opposed to using a less correct model.
The map is not the territory, but a more accurate map is 'better' than a less accurate map.
However, if you take a game like baseball, even a socially constructed rule that a home run occurs when the ball goes beyond the outfield fence is based on the underlying physical reality that allows one to occur. Social constructions still have some basis in rhetorically-independent reality and the goal of academic science is to bring the social construction as close to the Truth (with a capital T) as possible through the use of paradigms.
Your argument seems to be that because the rules that govern science and the paradigms and conclusions that are drawn from experimental data are socially constructed and not grounded in deductive logic, science is in no way connected with the universe as it exists independently of context.
Science may be grounded in extra-scientific value judgments which create the social context for ascertaining "truth," but a problem only emerges with this if you assume that there is some deeper and more profound notion of truth that humans can access in some way. Otherwise, we can simply assume that by scientific truth we just mean conclusions drawn from data which meets the socially acceptable requirements of reliability. con't
I do not believe in God or Gods but I do not think that people who do are stupid. I just think that are good and bad reasons for believing in something.
A bad reson would be from authority or tradition. Believing without questioning.
A good reason would be "evidence", questioning and so on.
In ordinary language, when we say something is true we are agreeing in judgements about whether a rule falls under that concept or not. This doesn't seem to be a retorical process.
Well, you're obviously not a student in Chemistry or else you would know the critical role that graph isomorphisms play in chemical reactions of the type that you accidentally hit upon for your example.
As regards to the magical realms of "context", one may or may not use a word appropriately in the magical realm - however if one claims that something is true, it is true, (if in fact it is true), because the situation is as has been described.
Are you saying here that there is no one element that your varying senses of "true" have in common? In virtue of what, then, can they all be considered to be variations of truth?
I was on your train for awhile, but I must admit I didn't get this.
That water boils at the known rate of 212F is precisely an isomorphic (1 to 1 correlation between prediction and event)relation.
That can know that "Witt. died in 1951" is in fact an example that shows the limitation of a view that truth is presence, or presentational, a view exhaustively criticized by Derrida.
My point is that one can't know it by "looking" directly at the sheer presence of the fact (moment of death). Derrida shreds this presentational fallacy mercilessly.
However, the isomorphic character of scientific predictions (which did not die in 1951, or any other time) seems clear enough.
Well, bacteria and viruses can evolve on a human time scale. It's observable.
And what about the fossil record? Dating of fossil remains and/or the host rock within which they are found have been done by a variety of chemical methods. To deny the age of a given fossil, is to throw out chemical principals.
AO: Well, I certainly agree with you here, for sure. In this context "a millipede sex hump" would equal absolute truth, and there's no arguing about it. However, when Time is introduced(and thereby its evil twin: "Mass") we see how change becomes truth, and your contextual stance becomes something that I not only agree with, but would in fact argue for.
AO: I haven't much to say about this comment, however I wouldn't mind listening to your views about how the obviously metaphorical notion of "family resemblance" could be cashed out analytically. A family resemblance as intended by Witt. is obviously not a structural universal but a simile or (differently of course) metaphor, and I'm wondering what your views are on this "softening" of universals.
AO: So in this instance do you believe that the "senses of propositions" occupy a special realm that is independent of reality? And if that is the case can these "senses" nevertheless effect the outcomes of reality?
AO: Does the example only end with "Look"? If we are not going to think but look, can we also not think but taste, smell, hear, and feel without thinking? And if we only depend on our senses, then won't we surely be misgued by someone who also chooses to think during the "game"?
The discreet objects my have been constructed for our confusion by someone who was thinking in advance.
No, I'm saying that subjectivism is either correct or, yes, untenable. No, the extra-scientific principles are the ones we use to take science out of it's technological basis and into its rhetorical basis. The correspondence theory of meaning/truth are one of those extra-scientific principles -- it just so happens to be one that disagree with.
I already made the point you're trying to make, and you said that you were arguing for correspondence as a theory of truth, not meaning. Do you now think that I'm correct, or was I not being clear?
So you know where I'm talking about: "Obviously, (and I know this is private) certain meanings come up in my mind when certain words are said. That happens alongside the language game."
My God this site is just littered with a bunch of pseudo intellectual know-nothings. You really have no idea what it is you are talking about. Just cancel your account for your own sake!
Okay... but if that's the case, then what's the objection to subjectivism? If the way in which something is meant is somehow fundamentally different than the way in which something is true, then the old, "Saying truth is subjective is an objective statement," doesn't work.
You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. The correspondence theory of truth is subject to all the same problems as the correspondence theory of meaning. It's the correspondence that's the problem.
Az - you make an interesting point here as always. That correspondence is in fact THE problem imples that the picture is (has always been?) broken. Matching the pieces is the game, and sometimes some rather dramatic events occur when they are matched correctly (nuclear bombs, genetic engineering). Its hard for me to find "freedom" somewhere in all this ...
As I said in the other post, even a "weak" correspondence theory cannot operate as the mechanism by which language works, but rather a coincendental phenomenon.
Yes, of course, they're not exclusive. Obviously, (and I know this is private) certain meanings come up in my mind when certain words are said. That happens alongside the language game. But ultimately, it cannot be how words are meant, it cannot be the actual mechanism of language, and thus I argue it should not be taken as such. (BTW it moreso became a theory in the 50's, but he offered counterexamples to discredit it as one to be wholly relied upon.)
Okay, I'm working on the immutability of scientific results transforming into an immutable rhetorical truth. I'm not saying scientists don't use rhetoric, but that there is a difference between the two. Neither are objects of any sort, but actions that we do, even on a normal basis, outside of this discussion, distinguish between. (E.g. that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is not philosophical, and the meaning of life is not scientific.) (Cont.)
So, firstly, I begin the distinction by saying there is a difference between saying that if I carry out these actions, I get this result, and saying that this (let's say) causal relationship is a necessary feature of reality. That is, there is a difference between the hypothetical that maps a proof and the proof itself (Russell). This, as you say, brings up the correspondence theory of truth. If correct, it ultimately allows for the transformation of the hypothetical into the proof. (Cont.)
I will talk a bit about that here, but I've treated it at length in my book, and otherwise I would point you to both Wittgenstein's private language argument and to Derrida's aporia of sign and signified. Basically, any truth proposition can be doubted (allow me the leap here to the solipsist argument), and so, how do I know the difference between my thinking the proposition true and being wrong, and my thinking the proposition true and being right? (Cont.)
There is nothing public to appeal to whereby my thinking is irrefutable. Truth propositions are knowledge claims. As I'm sure you know, Wittgenstein proposes a mechanism of language that bypasses this problem of knowing the meaning of words, but at the expense of the correspondence theory of truth. This is now what we're working with. (Cont.)
Rhetoric is the lingual manipulation of factors in people's minds to arrive at a certain conclusion. The objective of these videos is to roughly determine where science, which doesn't require adherence for its experiments to work, ends and rhetoric begins, so that we'll have an idea of not only where we may defend our conclusions in opposition to someone else's, but also to know where we will have to do more work to persuade than just, "Because science says so." (Cont.)
And I think, in this examination, to describe what it is to do science as "making technology, or laying the groundwork for new technology," is rather apt. I don't at all see how it is reification to say what should be treated in what way, and to give that "what" a name. In fact, it's rather pedantic and useless to criticize the use of a grammar common to the people being addressed. (Cont.)
As far as subjectivism is concerned, well, that's just outright eliminated when the correspondence theory of truth is dropped. If it's ever necessary, for whatever reason (such as someone not understanding Wittgenstein's mechanism), to go back to the correspondence theory of truth, then yes, I'd assume the role of subjectivist. But my heart wouldn't be into it, really, so I feel no ambition to defend it here.
By "catch a phrase or two," I mean, "understand a phrase or two." And I still think that's all you've done here. I'm finished replying to you. You bore me and you've added nothing to the conversation.
I don't know how to address the objection. I do know what family resemblence is. I don't know why you insist on my thinking science is a concrete entity. I say that it has certain kinds of results, not necessary properties. So I'm pretty much saying you're pulling this objection out of your ass.
Because of your two posts, only the first half of the first was civil, relevant, and philosophical. And it's already treated in this video and elaborated on in follow-up videos, where the problem of introducing true/false to scientific propositions does not have anything to do with science. In other words, I kinda don't bother with what appears to be someone catching a phrase or two of what I say, and attempting ridicule the rest of the time.
Your premise is wrong. Evolution is not an opinion, it is not a matter of "more is better", all the evidence, i.e. the fossil record, DNA, all point to the theory of evolution as true. If the evidence pointed towards God, than the God hypothesis would become accepted science! You philosophers... you just don't seem to understand that scientific knowledge is not a thought experiment.
I like your videos and bought your book(your welcome)
Im curious, in reference to this video, have you read cs lewis' 'funeral of a great myth'. he makes a very similar point that evolution was popularized because people wanted it popularized. you say for greater scientific and technological advancement; lewis says it was a romantic view of humanity.
Maybe you could read it (its short, a chapter in one of his books) and analyze it on video for me. thanks
A)Hello, I thought earth round cause horizon effects, columbus/ peeps voyages, gravity effect constants,astronauts, sat pictures, lunar eclipses, etc. All verifiable scientific observation,test, replication. U play with words well. But respectfully, your eg/questions confuses/degrades science since its how stupid people would answer, not scientist. I know not mutually exclusive but just the stupid would give those answers to your examples to make your conclusions.
B)Scientist would say intell. design not have verifiable tested results like science/evolution. Science is "not more is better". Its testable. Not authority/arrogance & others stupid. Just using more rational principles? Were Galileo/copernicus arrogant using science vs. fights with the church? I see your point, but its a small subset to make a huge conclusions incorrectly, in my opinion? Will see other videos for clarity.
It would become virtually impossible to disprove science as a whole. Science is not a premise like religion, it is an argument, the premise of science is the empirical evidence, or the experiments that can be proven. Hence the theory is merely an argument, a form of rationale, you can come to a different explanation if it suits you. You are assuming science is a law, so to say science is some how wrong doesn't make sense, it never stated anything.
I suppose so, if that term makes things easier, but the historical context of subjectivism is a statement about truth, and we're dealing with acceptance and persuasion here.
(Theist) I do rhetorical stuff with science, I admit. I never speak in a fashion as to imply the result is doubtlessly true, nor do I think I am arrogant. I think it's good to twist different methods of truths to get people thinking abstractly and to propel them into a greater all-encompassing truth where all methods of truth-getting are in harmony, rather than having one method (usually science) be the master to which all other methods of truth-getting (like religion/ philosophy) must answer.
i love a good visual metaphor; without some humility, we'll all row in circles and never reach any shore:-)....5 stars and i heard redwing blackbird, thrush, and a mockingbird, i think:-)
This video is just beautiful! Not sure if that is due to the landscape, the soothing riparian sounds, the content or just the delivery of it, but it all made me think and have to go to the bathroom.
I'm confused about your inclusions of the word "authority" as well as those who "cash in" or "hope for it to carry their burden". An opinion that is aligned with thousands of hours of sophisticated and painstaking human-power SHOULD be able to extend its own bounds slightly, no?
Free protip: ADD SUBTITLES WHEN THERE'S BACKGROUND NOISE
Or, better yet, make these kinds of videos IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES NOT HAVE BACKGROUND NOISE. You know, *like the rest of the people on youtube do*
I have absolutely only the vaguest of ideas of what you were talking about, because i can scientifically prove that the volume level the video is at, combined with the background noise makes it impossible to hear below the #11 speaker volume setting.
About "agreeing with science" or "believing in science": Phil (FantasticBabblings) said it better in 3:30 (v=5qw8vNO6in4) than I could write it with 500 keystrokes.
As said below, science is a tool for understanding. It's not the ultimate authority or answer, but its the best we got to translate the mysteries of this universe. Attacking science makes no sense, neither does attacking theism (unless its trying to covert science for its own gain of course). There are bad apples in both 'classes', lets not make rash judgments based of those few.
Too many atheists try to use science as an authority, but the problem with that is that science is not authoritative by nature. Nothing in science is absolute, nor should it be as that would undermine science altogether.
Alot of people have a warped notion of the purpose of science. It is not to find the truth or authoritative answers. It is to simply better understand the physical world around us. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who says or does otherwise is not d
Az, at the beginning of the video you say "science does not tell you that the earth is round" But what if to these people that you're referring to THAT'S their perception of reality, that science TELLS them that earth is round, who are YOU to argue their perception of reality?
Of course science has authority, I can't spend 5 years on the Galapagos and believe only my own senses, nor can I build a huge collider in my local park. How do you think scientists agree on so much? en bloc, that is authority.
This authority is forced to be an alibi of purity and truth because it is, as you suggest, broadly authorized by others: politicians, companies, foundations, as are its products, atom bombs and, for example, the ownership (patented) of mine and your genes!
ok, I watched this video like 3 times now, I think I understand now. You can ignore my previous comments. Science does not show us truth or reality, science is a tool that can 'help' us so that WE can create a reality.
hope you don't mind me contributing. i would say philosophy is a technology. logic, however, is a little less clear cut. i would say logic is the basic technology of our being. it is not a "created" technology. it is our modus operandi. it is our situation.
Technology is a byproduct of the need to make more accurate predictions of future events. I do think, though, that in the last 200 years or so a school of thought where the goal is only to make new technologies has emerged in science, however I don't think that science has completely embraced it(at least not yet)
If so, there are a couple of things I wonder if you're aware of: science as a subject has changed over the centuries, ie. from "Natural Philosophy" to more rigourous(maybe dogmatic lately?) ways of thinking. Although science has changed over time and started to have more than one or two objectives (like creating technology) one objective in science has remained the same over time(although I think it may be diminishing): to make predictions about future events.
hey AZ, I've been watching your videos for some time now, (great vids BTW!) never left a comment, though, because most of them are within my line of thinking and I don't feel the need to repeat something that's already been said. So here I will leave my first comment because I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "science is about making technologies and fertilizing the grounds for new technologies" Do you mean this is ALL that science is about?
Love you, AZ...But saying that intelligent design actually has anything to say about how we came to be as we are is just delusional. And have to disagree also that evolution doesn't "offer us more" but only offers us more of "what we want"....Understanding is hard work...BUT the the challenge is to UNDERSTAND and not to reduce the world to a worshiped object or to absolutely absurdity. Those "strategies" get us nowhere.
I'm posting a video to illustrate exactly the amount of ignorance we are really dealing with. I think you are underestimating the lack of factual knowledge the average or slightly below average American has.
"factual knowledge"? My reaction to that reminds me of that part in Hannibal Rising where Hannibal Lecter says "Guilty knowledge?". He was asked if he had any guilty knowledge about something and he responded with the question "Guilty knowledge?" to point out that the two of them probably aren't looking at the word "guilty" the same way.... analogy spanalogy.
You make strong arguments for persons to be very precise when forming their ultimate beliefs.
The strongest argument is to KNOW what you presume is unKNOWable and must first be believed. All proofs rely upon earlier proofs or unprovable axioms.
That is not my problem with this video.
Considering how clearly you word your monologue i must protest that there are not INFINITE arguments about anything. There may be numerous (# of people) or even countless (# of stars you see at night) - not inf.
Applied science and certain lines of scientific inquiry may be aimed towards technology, but science as a whole is much more complex than that. And much of what you say regarding truth makes no sense.
You know what I think? I think you're the only person left on here who makes me think. And I think that's good. Even if such an opinion is rhetorical, or doesn't go beyond me, or subjective, or...something.
The whole concept of truth, threw the looking glass of knowledge, might just leave you too busy thinking. Or maybe just as well the humbling experience of all that is, might be to profound to glance at.
After reading your book,"Perpetual Wound". I accept the statement, we can only accept or unaccept; Statements like "God never existed" are irrelevant. People who accept God will never convince people who unaccept God. It is based on nothing. It is absurd. Because I find God unacceptable, it is pointless for me to go on to say anything concerning God. This is absurd. Words do not define words, sentences do. Out of chaos comes order. Words are arbitrary, sentences produces truth.
Do you mean another kind? I have about ten of these. Makes life easier. I do wear other kinds of shirts now and again, but not often. Really only while I'm doing laundry.
Just because the cold hand of Newtonian science doesn't map out the mystic world doesn't mean that it isn't there. Don't fear science because one day it will understand if not command the "spiritual" realms. It is important that we grow in a positive direction to prepare our selfs for the day that we have control of such things.
But, to quote Harada Sekkei (a Zen master), "All of you here are deeply cultured and have considerable knowledge. I would like you to forget all your standards just once. Then you will be able to use them in a more meaningful way. My only wish is for you to throw away the standards you have had until now, and later you will be able to use them in a more vital way."
I do think the rhetorical power of science is a bit greater than religion, for the simple reason that religious authority comes either from a 2,000 year old book or a crusty old man in a nighty. Scientific authority, on the other hand, is always open to being questioned experimentally. You pointed this out, though: science is essentially a technological enterprise (if we can DO it, it must be right). Still, I am more persuaded by demonstration than dogma.
Right. And I'm not asking you to not be persuaded by science. I'm asking people to recognize that, really, "science" here could be anything. It could lead us anywhere.
I agree. Science is not an ideology, it is a method of building a perpetually unfinished worldview. Anyone who uses it to settle down into some comfortable view of reality has not studied the history of science.
One who claims to possess the truth and who uses science to back it up runs the risk of being proven incorrect. One who claims to possess the truth using only scripture as support runs no such risk, short of having misquoted.
One of my favorite scientists (J. Lovelock) said that what is so great about a scientific theory is not that it provides us with a sure route to truth, but that it can be proven wrong, and as such can be used as leverage for producing new theories.
Ah! Okay, Az seems to agree with Matt's interpretation -- and I finally get it! (Sorry for all the comments, Az, but the subjective/science concept has always been tricky for my ol' brain. ;)
This applies to me. I am arrogant. Science tells me what I can do, and what is possible. It helps me solve problems. Religion tells me what I cannot do, cannot think, cannot want, and uses fear as a motivator. Theism offers prayer and faith as a solution to lifes problems and suffering, and heaven in case prayers are ignored. I can pray for a headache to go away, or I can take Tylenol. I'm not deep. Science is our best guess of what reality is. I'm no philosopher, but I like listening.
The thing is, Brainmold, that's fine. We can't avoid having authorities. What I'm after here is to get you to feel a sense of, "Even though it feels like this is what science is telling me to do, this is actually a conclusion of my own making. Scientific facts, theories, etc. but my construction."
Any worldview, whether in religion or science, is somehow constructed by language, maps, internal talk, imagination, memory, etc. "All that we are is the result of all that we have thought." And worldviews are fine. We can value them for their cultural, technological, or even entertainment values and uses. But the problem is we become stuck in worldviews and become dogmatic. Furthermore often in postmodernism many worldviews are explored and exploited. Good. But what if all of it disappeared?
I bet from the shore of this pond you looked absolutely crazy out on a tiny row boat talking into your camera. once again though, great video. although you could discuss something a little newer dude, you've already said how making the argument that theist are stupid just because of the soul fact that they believe in god isn't a valid point in an earlier video..
If the listener knew a bit about history of science they'd probably understand what it means, I suppose it depends on who your intended audience is. Then again I don't think most people on YT take the time to learn about history in general, let alone science.
it's good to see most of your "rawing" flew past the authority of the audience, hah. i could agree that 10 min is not enough, but then again for most of the audience this is not first of your videos.
i may understand what you mean az, but most people will misconstrue what you're saying. you have to gradually lead people to your conclusions by building your arguments from the ground up. for example: a)how do we know *anything* about the world? b)what *methods* do use to put data together to arrive at conclusions? c)how can we *test* these conclusions to see if they are true or false? d)what *criteria* need to be met for a proposition to be true or false? etc etc
Theists hold back progressive thought with their theistic restrictions that they try to make fit into any argument. I'm not saying that there aren't great religious philosophers and scientists but I am saying that they have very little place when it comes to establishing more interesting ideas. It can all be a bit "what about god what about god?". Who cares about god, we're not talking about god any more. The problem is with a theistic standpoint is that you assume god first, then you start.
And of course scientific endeavour doesn't rest upon any assumptions right? How about the assumption that the universe operates rationally or that human beings have the mental capacity to understand the all the yet to be discovered intricacies of the universe?
I for one trust science and it is an authority that can change my viewpoint. It seems that all people trust science somewhat in that way. But you cannot trust science because the Bible doesn't say anything on the matter, when the Bible is an authority on truth. That is only a reason to not know if science got it right or wrong. So there's gotta be another reason why creationists trust 80% of all scientific work.
"I for one trust science and it is an authority that can change my viewpoint."
You say this like science is telling you something. No, people tell you things. People construct history out of what's around them. If science is an authority that can change your viewpoint, is that to anything? Can anyone come along and just because they're using proper science, they can change your mind? Suddenly you adopt "the values of science," which is really the values of the person telling you things?
I have been convinced to trust science by people, but the same people that convinced me science is trustworthy can change their minds about science without me doing the same thing. What is it in a person that can "tell" me things while a society or a methodology can't have convincing impact?
Neither societies nor methodologies speak, unless I suppose in a society every individual member stands up and recites the exact same thing. Does that convince you more than single people?
A flower communicate and my brain interpret a meaning. It is no different than words from a human in its elementary essence. Society speaks just like a flower speaks. People of the same society don't say the same thing. The fact that they don't is also a statement.
Yes. It's all constructed by us. We create culture, philosophy, science, technology, religion, etc. Should we not then try disengaging from our creations for a while? Try throwing off our convictions for a while? Try not believing in anything rather than believing. Of course Nietzsche himself was accused of being a nihilist when he advocated throwing out your convictions. But..
I keep skimming over this and stopping here. Why? I think to myself, "I'm not baiting a hook, I'm not opposing science at all, and yet he swims by." Neither of those really bother me. Your choice. What bothers me is the smile. Why are you grinning like that? What's so funny? Does he think I'm wrong? Does he think he's clever for not taking the bait? Do I have something in my teeth? You bastard!
its really weird watching this again, i remember when this came out two years ago, i was heavily medicated at the time for a 'thought disorder' i was diagnosed with, and you were not helping- with what my psychiatrist wanted for me, anyway. and to that I say thank you, azrienoch: hope things are going well right now with ya.
la07zu 1 year ago
Was the rowboat (that rarely followed a straight line) also supposed to represent your meandering thought process on the subject? If so - major props!
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
I disagree that empirical claims like "the earth is round" are value statements, opinions, and non-scientific. You justified this by claiming that an extra-scientific principle was being used, namely "more of what we want is better." What science "wants" is reliable knowledge, so yes, more IS better - more knowledge, and more correct predictions rather than failed ones. More knowledge and better predictive/explanatory power are not "extra-scientific"; they are central to science's purpose.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
Science is a human activity structured to produce reliable empirical knowledge. Science "doesn't agree with you" because science isn't a sentient entity, but its products are statements about the world, and so either do or do not match ("agree with") a person's parallel statements about the world.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
I think you have one thing absolutely wrong. You should watch out for people who DON'T base their opinions on scientifically justified claims (when available).
Listen to the doctor who tells you that, given your type and stage of cancer, his proposed chemo treatment give you a 78% chance of survival. Do NOT listen to the fortune teller with her $20,000 candle "curse cures", or the homeopathist with his magic healing water.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
"Listen to the doctor who tells you that, given your type and stage of cancer, his proposed chemo treatment give you a 78% chance of survival."
As a scientist if a doctor told me that, I'd know he didn't know what he was talking about and go try to find a research scientist who did.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 3 years ago
I'm no expert, but I think my statement was justified.
From "Cancer survival rate: A tool to understand your prognosis" on the Mayo Clinic's website:
"Cancer survival rates or survival statistics tell you the percentage of people who survive a certain type of cancer for a specific amount of time."
and
"Statistics can also show how people with your same cancer type and stage respond to treatment."
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
". . .survival statistics tell you the percentage of people who survive a certain type of cancer for *a specific amount of time.*"
Without stating the specific amount of time a survival probability is meaningless at best (5 years is the most common period; and it should be contrasted against those who receive no treatment, otherwise it is meaningless in context).
Because, the fact of the matter is that the probability of your survival is 0.
IsaacBickerstaffEsq 3 years ago
The problem isn't with people using science's authority - that much is fine, if done correctly. The problem, I think, is sometimes when someone invokes that authority without understanding its extent and justification. By that I don't mean having read all the research papers, but rather understanding the justification of knowledge claims from the scientific process itself. People often get the content wrong too, of course. Were these your points?
VeryEvilPettingZoo 3 years ago
...you have...convinced me. Dammit.
BoozyBeggar 3 years ago
Ah! The sophist naysayer. An idiot's genius.
Atheism isn't a worldview that supplants religion with science. You're arguing from a definition of atheism that you've arbitrarily constructed. You've with one broad sweep categorized and dismissed a tradition as colorful as theism. And that, sir, is irresponsible
jbrown1182 3 years ago
I don't know, I don't... believe so, it's a defenition of atheism that suggests what just about every atheist suggests, cold hard 'see-able' facts. Facts that are in fact, not really fact... You seem to be refering to another side of atheist? The kind that is not theist and not for science either, which according to me, is pretty much the side that Azrienoch is on. The inbetween-there-is-no-truth kind, which sounds like you as well, good sir. :)
exDeathex 3 years ago
You claim that supporting your argument with science doesn't give you any innate authority. That is very much correct, unless both parties agree with the principles of science. In this case, asserting your personal ideas becomes much less an issue of proving your sources are higher and mightier than your friend's, but rather becomes an issue of pointing out a flaw in the other's thinking.
But I like your ideas on science, it's an interesting way of looking at the human element in our science.
TheEggBeast 3 years ago
It's all very smart an' all but does it get you laid? ;)
Knapweed 3 years ago
Evolution (process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next) does not address Abiogenesis (the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules).
Please do not confuse the two.
Practical repeatable results can be considered 'better' when applying a more correct model as opposed to using a less correct model.
The map is not the territory, but a more accurate map is 'better' than a less accurate map.
PlayHanghang 3 years ago
However, if you take a game like baseball, even a socially constructed rule that a home run occurs when the ball goes beyond the outfield fence is based on the underlying physical reality that allows one to occur. Social constructions still have some basis in rhetorically-independent reality and the goal of academic science is to bring the social construction as close to the Truth (with a capital T) as possible through the use of paradigms.
MacTruck16 3 years ago
But dude, that's just like, you're opinion.
exDeathex 3 years ago
Your argument seems to be that because the rules that govern science and the paradigms and conclusions that are drawn from experimental data are socially constructed and not grounded in deductive logic, science is in no way connected with the universe as it exists independently of context.
MacTruck16 3 years ago
Science may be grounded in extra-scientific value judgments which create the social context for ascertaining "truth," but a problem only emerges with this if you assume that there is some deeper and more profound notion of truth that humans can access in some way. Otherwise, we can simply assume that by scientific truth we just mean conclusions drawn from data which meets the socially acceptable requirements of reliability. con't
MacTruck16 3 years ago
Ehh some of that made sense and the rest only would make sense if you believed reality to be subjective.
Roenazarrek 3 years ago
I do not believe in God or Gods but I do not think that people who do are stupid. I just think that are good and bad reasons for believing in something.
A bad reson would be from authority or tradition. Believing without questioning.
A good reason would be "evidence", questioning and so on.
silvacdsbr 3 years ago
hey Az, shoudn't this video be titled The Rhetorical Authority of our Value Judgements?
lookagain77 3 years ago
In ordinary language, when we say something is true we are agreeing in judgements about whether a rule falls under that concept or not. This doesn't seem to be a retorical process.
oceaninthedrop 3 years ago
I totally dig it!
dayglowdave 3 years ago
I'm a BELIEVER in Evolution.
I feel your points are well made to a point.
I don't think that Evolution seeks to explain the ultimate origin of "Life".
Rather, Evolution is an accepted theory to explain the DIVERSITY of species.
An explanation of the primal process that led to the original jumbling of matter into an anti-entropic force is wanting.
A common argument from creationists is "why no new species?" Ans: Add more time.
But in a lab someone zapped life-like materials from sterility.
morelshaman 3 years ago
Lovely point. Truth is Rhetorical.
303image 3 years ago 2
You persuaded me... ;)
gygess 3 years ago
Well, you're obviously not a student in Chemistry or else you would know the critical role that graph isomorphisms play in chemical reactions of the type that you accidentally hit upon for your example.
As regards to the magical realms of "context", one may or may not use a word appropriately in the magical realm - however if one claims that something is true, it is true, (if in fact it is true), because the situation is as has been described.
Trollschool 3 years ago
to quote John Lennon " I DONT BELIEVE IN MAGIC"
LimpLoser 3 years ago
Are you saying here that there is no one element that your varying senses of "true" have in common? In virtue of what, then, can they all be considered to be variations of truth?
Trollschool 3 years ago
I was on your train for awhile, but I must admit I didn't get this.
That water boils at the known rate of 212F is precisely an isomorphic (1 to 1 correlation between prediction and event)relation.
That can know that "Witt. died in 1951" is in fact an example that shows the limitation of a view that truth is presence, or presentational, a view exhaustively criticized by Derrida.
Trollschool 3 years ago
Should read "That one can't know that ...".
My point is that one can't know it by "looking" directly at the sheer presence of the fact (moment of death). Derrida shreds this presentational fallacy mercilessly.
However, the isomorphic character of scientific predictions (which did not die in 1951, or any other time) seems clear enough.
Trollschool 3 years ago
Well, bacteria and viruses can evolve on a human time scale. It's observable.
And what about the fossil record? Dating of fossil remains and/or the host rock within which they are found have been done by a variety of chemical methods. To deny the age of a given fossil, is to throw out chemical principals.
bapyou 3 years ago
Correcta-fucking-mundo! If there's ont thing that pisses me off about the new atheists, it's that they turn science into a dogma in and of itself.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
AO: Well, I certainly agree with you here, for sure. In this context "a millipede sex hump" would equal absolute truth, and there's no arguing about it. However, when Time is introduced(and thereby its evil twin: "Mass") we see how change becomes truth, and your contextual stance becomes something that I not only agree with, but would in fact argue for.
Trollschool 3 years ago
AO: I haven't much to say about this comment, however I wouldn't mind listening to your views about how the obviously metaphorical notion of "family resemblance" could be cashed out analytically. A family resemblance as intended by Witt. is obviously not a structural universal but a simile or (differently of course) metaphor, and I'm wondering what your views are on this "softening" of universals.
Trollschool 3 years ago
AO: So in this instance do you believe that the "senses of propositions" occupy a special realm that is independent of reality? And if that is the case can these "senses" nevertheless effect the outcomes of reality?
Trollschool 3 years ago
AO: Does the example only end with "Look"? If we are not going to think but look, can we also not think but taste, smell, hear, and feel without thinking? And if we only depend on our senses, then won't we surely be misgued by someone who also chooses to think during the "game"?
The discreet objects my have been constructed for our confusion by someone who was thinking in advance.
Trollschool 3 years ago
No, I'm saying that subjectivism is either correct or, yes, untenable. No, the extra-scientific principles are the ones we use to take science out of it's technological basis and into its rhetorical basis. The correspondence theory of meaning/truth are one of those extra-scientific principles -- it just so happens to be one that disagree with.
Likewise. Have a good one.
azrienoch 3 years ago
really good video. you've put into words exactly how uneasy i feel about atheists who put it too simply: "oh, those theists are so stupid!"
wilburnforce 3 years ago
I already addressed it. It's the mode of valuation people use to judge which scientific models they want to call true or not.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I already made the point you're trying to make, and you said that you were arguing for correspondence as a theory of truth, not meaning. Do you now think that I'm correct, or was I not being clear?
azrienoch 3 years ago
So you know where I'm talking about: "Obviously, (and I know this is private) certain meanings come up in my mind when certain words are said. That happens alongside the language game."
azrienoch 3 years ago
To your first point, you're almost right. He gave an entire alternative, which, I'd say, is as good a reason as any of abandoning correspondence.
azrienoch 3 years ago
My God this site is just littered with a bunch of pseudo intellectual know-nothings. You really have no idea what it is you are talking about. Just cancel your account for your own sake!
crackillsobegood 3 years ago
I must say, I agree.
provocations123 3 years ago
I love how you get absolutely no where.
provocations123 3 years ago
Okay... but if that's the case, then what's the objection to subjectivism? If the way in which something is meant is somehow fundamentally different than the way in which something is true, then the old, "Saying truth is subjective is an objective statement," doesn't work.
You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. The correspondence theory of truth is subject to all the same problems as the correspondence theory of meaning. It's the correspondence that's the problem.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Az - you make an interesting point here as always. That correspondence is in fact THE problem imples that the picture is (has always been?) broken. Matching the pieces is the game, and sometimes some rather dramatic events occur when they are matched correctly (nuclear bombs, genetic engineering). Its hard for me to find "freedom" somewhere in all this ...
Trollschool 3 years ago
As I said in the other post, even a "weak" correspondence theory cannot operate as the mechanism by which language works, but rather a coincendental phenomenon.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Yes, of course, they're not exclusive. Obviously, (and I know this is private) certain meanings come up in my mind when certain words are said. That happens alongside the language game. But ultimately, it cannot be how words are meant, it cannot be the actual mechanism of language, and thus I argue it should not be taken as such. (BTW it moreso became a theory in the 50's, but he offered counterexamples to discredit it as one to be wholly relied upon.)
azrienoch 3 years ago
Okay, I'm working on the immutability of scientific results transforming into an immutable rhetorical truth. I'm not saying scientists don't use rhetoric, but that there is a difference between the two. Neither are objects of any sort, but actions that we do, even on a normal basis, outside of this discussion, distinguish between. (E.g. that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is not philosophical, and the meaning of life is not scientific.) (Cont.)
azrienoch 3 years ago
So, firstly, I begin the distinction by saying there is a difference between saying that if I carry out these actions, I get this result, and saying that this (let's say) causal relationship is a necessary feature of reality. That is, there is a difference between the hypothetical that maps a proof and the proof itself (Russell). This, as you say, brings up the correspondence theory of truth. If correct, it ultimately allows for the transformation of the hypothetical into the proof. (Cont.)
azrienoch 3 years ago
I will talk a bit about that here, but I've treated it at length in my book, and otherwise I would point you to both Wittgenstein's private language argument and to Derrida's aporia of sign and signified. Basically, any truth proposition can be doubted (allow me the leap here to the solipsist argument), and so, how do I know the difference between my thinking the proposition true and being wrong, and my thinking the proposition true and being right? (Cont.)
azrienoch 3 years ago
There is nothing public to appeal to whereby my thinking is irrefutable. Truth propositions are knowledge claims. As I'm sure you know, Wittgenstein proposes a mechanism of language that bypasses this problem of knowing the meaning of words, but at the expense of the correspondence theory of truth. This is now what we're working with. (Cont.)
azrienoch 3 years ago
Rhetoric is the lingual manipulation of factors in people's minds to arrive at a certain conclusion. The objective of these videos is to roughly determine where science, which doesn't require adherence for its experiments to work, ends and rhetoric begins, so that we'll have an idea of not only where we may defend our conclusions in opposition to someone else's, but also to know where we will have to do more work to persuade than just, "Because science says so." (Cont.)
azrienoch 3 years ago
And I think, in this examination, to describe what it is to do science as "making technology, or laying the groundwork for new technology," is rather apt. I don't at all see how it is reification to say what should be treated in what way, and to give that "what" a name. In fact, it's rather pedantic and useless to criticize the use of a grammar common to the people being addressed. (Cont.)
azrienoch 3 years ago
As far as subjectivism is concerned, well, that's just outright eliminated when the correspondence theory of truth is dropped. If it's ever necessary, for whatever reason (such as someone not understanding Wittgenstein's mechanism), to go back to the correspondence theory of truth, then yes, I'd assume the role of subjectivist. But my heart wouldn't be into it, really, so I feel no ambition to defend it here.
azrienoch 3 years ago
By "catch a phrase or two," I mean, "understand a phrase or two." And I still think that's all you've done here. I'm finished replying to you. You bore me and you've added nothing to the conversation.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I don't know how to address the objection. I do know what family resemblence is. I don't know why you insist on my thinking science is a concrete entity. I say that it has certain kinds of results, not necessary properties. So I'm pretty much saying you're pulling this objection out of your ass.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Because of your two posts, only the first half of the first was civil, relevant, and philosophical. And it's already treated in this video and elaborated on in follow-up videos, where the problem of introducing true/false to scientific propositions does not have anything to do with science. In other words, I kinda don't bother with what appears to be someone catching a phrase or two of what I say, and attempting ridicule the rest of the time.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Your premise is wrong. Evolution is not an opinion, it is not a matter of "more is better", all the evidence, i.e. the fossil record, DNA, all point to the theory of evolution as true. If the evidence pointed towards God, than the God hypothesis would become accepted science! You philosophers... you just don't seem to understand that scientific knowledge is not a thought experiment.
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
I don't think you really listened to what I said.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I don't think you really have a penis
TimeWarp66 3 years ago
Okay.
azrienoch 3 years ago
(not a theist, a christian)
I like your videos and bought your book(your welcome)
Im curious, in reference to this video, have you read cs lewis' 'funeral of a great myth'. he makes a very similar point that evolution was popularized because people wanted it popularized. you say for greater scientific and technological advancement; lewis says it was a romantic view of humanity.
Maybe you could read it (its short, a chapter in one of his books) and analyze it on video for me. thanks
nathanjonessr 3 years ago
A)Hello, I thought earth round cause horizon effects, columbus/ peeps voyages, gravity effect constants,astronauts, sat pictures, lunar eclipses, etc. All verifiable scientific observation,test, replication. U play with words well. But respectfully, your eg/questions confuses/degrades science since its how stupid people would answer, not scientist. I know not mutually exclusive but just the stupid would give those answers to your examples to make your conclusions.
HumanTruth0000 3 years ago
B)Scientist would say intell. design not have verifiable tested results like science/evolution. Science is "not more is better". Its testable. Not authority/arrogance & others stupid. Just using more rational principles? Were Galileo/copernicus arrogant using science vs. fights with the church? I see your point, but its a small subset to make a huge conclusions incorrectly, in my opinion? Will see other videos for clarity.
HumanTruth0000 3 years ago
spot on!
TJMutton 3 years ago
It would become virtually impossible to disprove science as a whole. Science is not a premise like religion, it is an argument, the premise of science is the empirical evidence, or the experiments that can be proven. Hence the theory is merely an argument, a form of rationale, you can come to a different explanation if it suits you. You are assuming science is a law, so to say science is some how wrong doesn't make sense, it never stated anything.
P.S. nice video.
estewz 3 years ago
I suppose so, if that term makes things easier, but the historical context of subjectivism is a statement about truth, and we're dealing with acceptance and persuasion here.
azrienoch 3 years ago
just kidding.
dogredrum66 3 years ago
bull shit! science is a lee. every body knows that Human beings were created (that is, invented)
via genetic experiments that were conducted by
reptilian aliens. These reptilian aliens, also known
as the "Anunnaki" or the "Reptilians," still rule the
Earth to this day.
dogredrum66 3 years ago
(Theist) I do rhetorical stuff with science, I admit. I never speak in a fashion as to imply the result is doubtlessly true, nor do I think I am arrogant. I think it's good to twist different methods of truths to get people thinking abstractly and to propel them into a greater all-encompassing truth where all methods of truth-getting are in harmony, rather than having one method (usually science) be the master to which all other methods of truth-getting (like religion/ philosophy) must answer.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
i love a good visual metaphor; without some humility, we'll all row in circles and never reach any shore:-)....5 stars and i heard redwing blackbird, thrush, and a mockingbird, i think:-)
9macrina9 3 years ago
It seems simply and obviously trustworthy mental economics to be persuaded albeit indirectly by a practice that has been so useful and successful.
Maybe I just haven't run into the kind of people your video addresses enough to know what you mean.
CelphaFiael 3 years ago
This video is just beautiful! Not sure if that is due to the landscape, the soothing riparian sounds, the content or just the delivery of it, but it all made me think and have to go to the bathroom.
I'm confused about your inclusions of the word "authority" as well as those who "cash in" or "hope for it to carry their burden". An opinion that is aligned with thousands of hours of sophisticated and painstaking human-power SHOULD be able to extend its own bounds slightly, no?
CelphaFiael 3 years ago
Free protip: ADD SUBTITLES WHEN THERE'S BACKGROUND NOISE
Or, better yet, make these kinds of videos IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT DOES NOT HAVE BACKGROUND NOISE. You know, *like the rest of the people on youtube do*
I have absolutely only the vaguest of ideas of what you were talking about, because i can scientifically prove that the volume level the video is at, combined with the background noise makes it impossible to hear below the #11 speaker volume setting.
Dnaem 3 years ago
oookaaayyy sure
Dieselp0wer 3 years ago
About "agreeing with science" or "believing in science": Phil (FantasticBabblings) said it better in 3:30 (v=5qw8vNO6in4) than I could write it with 500 keystrokes.
leporidus 3 years ago
As said below, science is a tool for understanding. It's not the ultimate authority or answer, but its the best we got to translate the mysteries of this universe. Attacking science makes no sense, neither does attacking theism (unless its trying to covert science for its own gain of course). There are bad apples in both 'classes', lets not make rash judgments based of those few.
username1066 3 years ago
This was a very boring decent into nihlism
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
for the most part...
Dieselp0wer 3 years ago
Great vid, azrienoch.
Too many atheists try to use science as an authority, but the problem with that is that science is not authoritative by nature. Nothing in science is absolute, nor should it be as that would undermine science altogether.
Alot of people have a warped notion of the purpose of science. It is not to find the truth or authoritative answers. It is to simply better understand the physical world around us. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who says or does otherwise is not d
sexyloser 3 years ago
Az, at the beginning of the video you say "science does not tell you that the earth is round" But what if to these people that you're referring to THAT'S their perception of reality, that science TELLS them that earth is round, who are YOU to argue their perception of reality?
lookagain77 3 years ago
Of course science has authority, I can't spend 5 years on the Galapagos and believe only my own senses, nor can I build a huge collider in my local park. How do you think scientists agree on so much? en bloc, that is authority.
This authority is forced to be an alibi of purity and truth because it is, as you suggest, broadly authorized by others: politicians, companies, foundations, as are its products, atom bombs and, for example, the ownership (patented) of mine and your genes!
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
ok, I watched this video like 3 times now, I think I understand now. You can ignore my previous comments. Science does not show us truth or reality, science is a tool that can 'help' us so that WE can create a reality.
lookagain77 3 years ago
If Prediction is a form of technology, I wonder, could we say that Philosophy and Logic are also forms of technology?
lookagain77 3 years ago
hope you don't mind me contributing. i would say philosophy is a technology. logic, however, is a little less clear cut. i would say logic is the basic technology of our being. it is not a "created" technology. it is our modus operandi. it is our situation.
smotviddy 3 years ago
Technology is a byproduct of the need to make more accurate predictions of future events. I do think, though, that in the last 200 years or so a school of thought where the goal is only to make new technologies has emerged in science, however I don't think that science has completely embraced it(at least not yet)
lookagain77 3 years ago
If so, there are a couple of things I wonder if you're aware of: science as a subject has changed over the centuries, ie. from "Natural Philosophy" to more rigourous(maybe dogmatic lately?) ways of thinking. Although science has changed over time and started to have more than one or two objectives (like creating technology) one objective in science has remained the same over time(although I think it may be diminishing): to make predictions about future events.
lookagain77 3 years ago
Ah, yes, I'd lump prediction in with technology, for the most part.
azrienoch 3 years ago
hey AZ, I've been watching your videos for some time now, (great vids BTW!) never left a comment, though, because most of them are within my line of thinking and I don't feel the need to repeat something that's already been said. So here I will leave my first comment because I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "science is about making technologies and fertilizing the grounds for new technologies" Do you mean this is ALL that science is about?
lookagain77 3 years ago
Yes. No doubt science has its usefulness in argumentation, but that's argumentation.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Love you, AZ...But saying that intelligent design actually has anything to say about how we came to be as we are is just delusional. And have to disagree also that evolution doesn't "offer us more" but only offers us more of "what we want"....Understanding is hard work...BUT the the challenge is to UNDERSTAND and not to reduce the world to a worshiped object or to absolutely absurdity. Those "strategies" get us nowhere.
2bsirius 3 years ago
Cool vid Az. Very reflective.
ryanisfootdrums 3 years ago
Are you losing your hair on top? Do you have any gray hair?
Nice vid. Some good points. Thanks.
stuart250 3 years ago
Nah, it's just a sunny day.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Classic denial ;)
ballyboneman 3 years ago
I'm posting a video to illustrate exactly the amount of ignorance we are really dealing with. I think you are underestimating the lack of factual knowledge the average or slightly below average American has.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago
"factual knowledge"? My reaction to that reminds me of that part in Hannibal Rising where Hannibal Lecter says "Guilty knowledge?". He was asked if he had any guilty knowledge about something and he responded with the question "Guilty knowledge?" to point out that the two of them probably aren't looking at the word "guilty" the same way.... analogy spanalogy.
thinkeatingmachine 3 years ago
You make strong arguments for persons to be very precise when forming their ultimate beliefs.
The strongest argument is to KNOW what you presume is unKNOWable and must first be believed. All proofs rely upon earlier proofs or unprovable axioms.
That is not my problem with this video.
Considering how clearly you word your monologue i must protest that there are not INFINITE arguments about anything. There may be numerous (# of people) or even countless (# of stars you see at night) - not inf.
morelshaman 3 years ago
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)
It's better to be in the search of than be there.
PFTECHMETAL 3 years ago
Applied science and certain lines of scientific inquiry may be aimed towards technology, but science as a whole is much more complex than that. And much of what you say regarding truth makes no sense.
sec0f111 3 years ago
Interesting video.
CapeandCowl 3 years ago
You know what I think? I think you're the only person left on here who makes me think. And I think that's good. Even if such an opinion is rhetorical, or doesn't go beyond me, or subjective, or...something.
missdivinestalls 3 years ago
Az, could you explain your, "Science isn't a search for truth, but for better technology."
I don't quite follow.
StevenErnest 3 years ago
Heheh, yes, I know -- that's your whole point here! "Science isn't a search for truth, but for better technology."
So do you mean there are subjective assumptions in science, which are taken as objective truths?
Such as, say, the pursuit of nuclear technology, nuclear power plants, radiation therapy -- putting a value on a "dangerous" technology?
Or, say, the massive prescribing of antidepressants -- implies the acceptance of the mind needing medication? Biological intervention?
StevenErnest 3 years ago
The whole concept of truth, threw the looking glass of knowledge, might just leave you too busy thinking. Or maybe just as well the humbling experience of all that is, might be to profound to glance at.
axisapex 3 years ago
You just don't like science is all. You, like the religionists, want an artsy metaphysical explanation for the natural world.
3rdWorldCrusader 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No, not really.
azrienoch 3 years ago
After reading your book,"Perpetual Wound". I accept the statement, we can only accept or unaccept; Statements like "God never existed" are irrelevant. People who accept God will never convince people who unaccept God. It is based on nothing. It is absurd. Because I find God unacceptable, it is pointless for me to go on to say anything concerning God. This is absurd. Words do not define words, sentences do. Out of chaos comes order. Words are arbitrary, sentences produces truth.
ZullGostnu 3 years ago
don't you ever wear another shirt?
palmtreez101 3 years ago
Do you mean another kind? I have about ten of these. Makes life easier. I do wear other kinds of shirts now and again, but not often. Really only while I'm doing laundry.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Einstein had muliple suits of the same style, saved his mental energy for other thinking.
StevenErnest 3 years ago
Az is in a race to the left.....not able to move forward...or backwards, depending upon which direction you are facing.
tantalusmcdaddy 3 years ago
Science is a method.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Keep you fucking boat out of my backyard pond.This is the last time I'm going to warn you.....
worldlystone 3 years ago
That's the spirit!
azrienoch 3 years ago
(sound of shotgun loading)
worldlystone 3 years ago
Awesome Vid
LaoTzu13 3 years ago
science does not tell us the earth is round. Why does anyone listen to you?
qxdc 3 years ago
Since that's apparently all you heard, I'd argue you don't listen to me.
azrienoch 3 years ago
lmao
az is much to far over your head to watch.
do yourself a favor and watch 4 times, and think hard before responding!! ;-)
istheretruth 3 years ago
Definately liking these vacation vids
TheDevilsAdvocate55 3 years ago
Interesting video... Going in circles in what looks like an artificial lake.
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago
Just because the cold hand of Newtonian science doesn't map out the mystic world doesn't mean that it isn't there. Don't fear science because one day it will understand if not command the "spiritual" realms. It is important that we grow in a positive direction to prepare our selfs for the day that we have control of such things.
Sorry if that sounds to post-modern.
PFTECHMETAL 3 years ago
Yeehaaa, I think I'm beginning to understand Azrienoch. :-)
koenichfuerst 3 years ago
Az, you liberate my mind. Topple that boat of Scientism right over!
lirpa69 3 years ago
good video, but ya kinda rambled on a bit too much :)
ndjarnag 3 years ago
you're using both oars, but still seem to be going round in circles. intentionally, i presume!
gratex 3 years ago
But, to quote Harada Sekkei (a Zen master), "All of you here are deeply cultured and have considerable knowledge. I would like you to forget all your standards just once. Then you will be able to use them in a more meaningful way. My only wish is for you to throw away the standards you have had until now, and later you will be able to use them in a more vital way."
demonfelix 3 years ago
Nice quote! Thanks. (I love Zen quotes) :-)
koenichfuerst 3 years ago
everyone is selling something.
aresvalles 3 years ago
Booya
azrienoch 3 years ago
I do think the rhetorical power of science is a bit greater than religion, for the simple reason that religious authority comes either from a 2,000 year old book or a crusty old man in a nighty. Scientific authority, on the other hand, is always open to being questioned experimentally. You pointed this out, though: science is essentially a technological enterprise (if we can DO it, it must be right). Still, I am more persuaded by demonstration than dogma.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago 2
Right. And I'm not asking you to not be persuaded by science. I'm asking people to recognize that, really, "science" here could be anything. It could lead us anywhere.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I agree. Science is not an ideology, it is a method of building a perpetually unfinished worldview. Anyone who uses it to settle down into some comfortable view of reality has not studied the history of science.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
One who claims to possess the truth and who uses science to back it up runs the risk of being proven incorrect. One who claims to possess the truth using only scripture as support runs no such risk, short of having misquoted.
One of my favorite scientists (J. Lovelock) said that what is so great about a scientific theory is not that it provides us with a sure route to truth, but that it can be proven wrong, and as such can be used as leverage for producing new theories.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Again, I'm not attacking the scientific method.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I gotchya. You're attacking scientism: science used rhetorically as the sole arbiter of truth. Yes?
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Yes.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Ah! Okay, Az seems to agree with Matt's interpretation -- and I finally get it! (Sorry for all the comments, Az, but the subjective/science concept has always been tricky for my ol' brain. ;)
StevenErnest 3 years ago
This applies to me. I am arrogant. Science tells me what I can do, and what is possible. It helps me solve problems. Religion tells me what I cannot do, cannot think, cannot want, and uses fear as a motivator. Theism offers prayer and faith as a solution to lifes problems and suffering, and heaven in case prayers are ignored. I can pray for a headache to go away, or I can take Tylenol. I'm not deep. Science is our best guess of what reality is. I'm no philosopher, but I like listening.
Brainmold 3 years ago
The thing is, Brainmold, that's fine. We can't avoid having authorities. What I'm after here is to get you to feel a sense of, "Even though it feels like this is what science is telling me to do, this is actually a conclusion of my own making. Scientific facts, theories, etc. but my construction."
azrienoch 3 years ago
Any worldview, whether in religion or science, is somehow constructed by language, maps, internal talk, imagination, memory, etc. "All that we are is the result of all that we have thought." And worldviews are fine. We can value them for their cultural, technological, or even entertainment values and uses. But the problem is we become stuck in worldviews and become dogmatic. Furthermore often in postmodernism many worldviews are explored and exploited. Good. But what if all of it disappeared?
demonfelix 3 years ago
I bet from the shore of this pond you looked absolutely crazy out on a tiny row boat talking into your camera. once again though, great video. although you could discuss something a little newer dude, you've already said how making the argument that theist are stupid just because of the soul fact that they believe in god isn't a valid point in an earlier video..
czorbin 3 years ago
Which one?
azrienoch 3 years ago
You could have just said that the foundations of science is laid on the philosophy of naturalism, and saved yourself about 3 minutes.
studio7manga 3 years ago
I don't think what that means is very clear at all.
azrienoch 3 years ago
If the listener knew a bit about history of science they'd probably understand what it means, I suppose it depends on who your intended audience is. Then again I don't think most people on YT take the time to learn about history in general, let alone science.
studio7manga 3 years ago
mo! mor! more! persuatives!
it's good to see most of your "rawing" flew past the authority of the audience, hah. i could agree that 10 min is not enough, but then again for most of the audience this is not first of your videos.
jogayot 3 years ago
In a mind of fear, ignorance thrives. Cheers, Az.
jericomovie 3 years ago
You said what I have had on my mind for awhile, thanks for this video.
mald0m 3 years ago
i may understand what you mean az, but most people will misconstrue what you're saying. you have to gradually lead people to your conclusions by building your arguments from the ground up. for example: a)how do we know *anything* about the world? b)what *methods* do use to put data together to arrive at conclusions? c)how can we *test* these conclusions to see if they are true or false? d)what *criteria* need to be met for a proposition to be true or false? etc etc
you can't do that in 10 min!!
eternalundylnglove 3 years ago
I've been doing that for the last year and a half.
Bah. You know, we're all still waiting for you to come on cam... you come and do it yourself! ;)
azrienoch 3 years ago
Theists hold back progressive thought with their theistic restrictions that they try to make fit into any argument. I'm not saying that there aren't great religious philosophers and scientists but I am saying that they have very little place when it comes to establishing more interesting ideas. It can all be a bit "what about god what about god?". Who cares about god, we're not talking about god any more. The problem is with a theistic standpoint is that you assume god first, then you start.
d4dan 3 years ago
And of course scientific endeavour doesn't rest upon any assumptions right? How about the assumption that the universe operates rationally or that human beings have the mental capacity to understand the all the yet to be discovered intricacies of the universe?
ballyboneman 3 years ago
I for one trust science and it is an authority that can change my viewpoint. It seems that all people trust science somewhat in that way. But you cannot trust science because the Bible doesn't say anything on the matter, when the Bible is an authority on truth. That is only a reason to not know if science got it right or wrong. So there's gotta be another reason why creationists trust 80% of all scientific work.
Censeo 3 years ago
"I for one trust science and it is an authority that can change my viewpoint."
You say this like science is telling you something. No, people tell you things. People construct history out of what's around them. If science is an authority that can change your viewpoint, is that to anything? Can anyone come along and just because they're using proper science, they can change your mind? Suddenly you adopt "the values of science," which is really the values of the person telling you things?
azrienoch 3 years ago
I have been convinced to trust science by people, but the same people that convinced me science is trustworthy can change their minds about science without me doing the same thing. What is it in a person that can "tell" me things while a society or a methodology can't have convincing impact?
Censeo 3 years ago
Neither societies nor methodologies speak, unless I suppose in a society every individual member stands up and recites the exact same thing. Does that convince you more than single people?
azrienoch 3 years ago
A flower communicate and my brain interpret a meaning. It is no different than words from a human in its elementary essence. Society speaks just like a flower speaks. People of the same society don't say the same thing. The fact that they don't is also a statement.
Censeo 3 years ago
Have you done any analysis of trust in any of your videos? If not, I'd be interested in seeing that from you.
Censeo 3 years ago
Yes. It's all constructed by us. We create culture, philosophy, science, technology, religion, etc. Should we not then try disengaging from our creations for a while? Try throwing off our convictions for a while? Try not believing in anything rather than believing. Of course Nietzsche himself was accused of being a nihilist when he advocated throwing out your convictions. But..
demonfelix 3 years ago
I see the bait and swim by with a smile. :)
philhellenes 3 years ago
I keep skimming over this and stopping here. Why? I think to myself, "I'm not baiting a hook, I'm not opposing science at all, and yet he swims by." Neither of those really bother me. Your choice. What bothers me is the smile. Why are you grinning like that? What's so funny? Does he think I'm wrong? Does he think he's clever for not taking the bait? Do I have something in my teeth? You bastard!
azrienoch 3 years ago
hummm...i must say.....cat lol
jualez 3 years ago