If you want to discover the secrets of the universe, stop sitting around meditating and trying to "navigate the astral realm" and pick up a fucking physics textbook.
Man this was awesome! This is the first beat poem i have listen'ed to and i loved every bit of it! Nearly everything this guy said was so logical and concise. I would like to say that i agree with almost everything he says, and everyone else should to. I think the only difference between him and me though,, which he would probably disprove of, is that im a christian XD But, despite that i think we could get along lol
I need a bleeped version of this to show to my college class when I want to start a discussion on critical thinking. I think they'd like it, and it could start some great in-class debate. But I can't show it.
@cedarcember You mean you cannot use any material with swearing/offensive language in it? What about books like Huckleberry Finn or Catcher in the Rye? What kind of institute is this that would rather let their students miss valuable content than offend some morons? Talk about critical thinking, how ironic...
@cedarcember WTF??? You can't swear in College??? o.O It's not like he's using it in an offensive way really, like saying "Your a f**king c**t!" he's AWESOME and if your teachers or whatever are such bums that they can't see that, you should show it in class just to peeve them off!!! :) Sorry for my little rant
1. you could load the mp3 into something like audacity (open source, doiwnlaoadble from source forge i think) or any audio editing software record your bleeps saying "bleep" or "censored" and then play it.
2. I would also think of changing to another college if "critical thinking" and these lyrics can't coexist.
3. A third idea: become inspiring yourself - aim at reducing Tim's poem to poetry but be yourself the start of a good in-class debate on critical thinking :-)
@ChickityChoice It means it's not tightly "woven" and therefore not bound by strict rules. Of course, this is a metaphor referring to the weaving of a fabric.
"So i resist the urge to ask whether nothing is so loose weave, of a morning when deciding to leave he apartment by the front.. or the window on her second floor" XD
@Bogdan251 Hit up wikipedia - there's a whole stack of citations on the Homeopathy page that lead to perfectly good scientific reports on the subject of its effectiveness, or rather, lack thereof.
@Balphezar - Wikipedia isn't a great source for scientific evidence. The real information comes from mata-analyses. These compile the data from all the evidence to present an accurate overall view of a therapy.
In 2005 The Lancet did a comprehensive review of EVERY clinical investigation then published on homeopathy. The overwhelming conclusion was that homeopathy just doesn't work. The Cochrane Collaboration did the same more recently and came to the same conclusion. Homeopathy doesn't work
@TheCardinalFang - Wikipedia itself? No, of course not... but it is a good source for more credible sources, such as The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. (Footnote #2 on Wikipedia's Homeopathy page, fyi)
i agree with tim but it wont stop me goingto the big green and hangging around with hippy types....someones got to gently contest their craziness and theyre fun and accepting, theyre diverse in their philosophies and theyre generally good wellmeaning folk....
@Jeshopk yes, eclipses were proven to be correct, but not from medical standpoint. It was disproved as a medical alternative, therefore, he is completely right in that anything proven to work medically is considered medicine. The point this beat poem is making is exactly what you said in your 2nd half; although AM's don't work, people won't believe it and will insist on believing absolute crap and wasting money on it, hence the "Ten minutes back in time" comment.
Fan-fucking-tastic! With verbiage so plastic to confront the drastic and thereby reconcile my domicile with the infantile and profound on a planet round the magic of sound in words so trippy they dissolve the hippie now I need skippy peanut butter and jam.
@miltmerm No it isn't. It's an invitation to the moment before "he perchance offended", to give her an opportunity to change her mind, and all will be mended. It is the best thing in this song, if you are right then this song is nothing more than a punch line.
Actually science doesn't always change its views by what's observed. It should but doesn't. Just look at psychiatric 'science'. It supports a flawed 'chemical imbalance' theory that never had any evidence to support it. The pharma companies do support dependency. It's how they make money. Psychiatric drugs have not cured a single 'mental illness'.
As for no supernatural phenomena quantum theory (string theory and M-theory) suggest 10 or 11 dimensions. And look up China's super psychic children.
@Ragnarok187 Except, you're wrong. It's that simple.
String theory is not about supernatural phenomena, but about NATURAL phenomena. The extra dimensions are about parts of this universe, not somewhere else.
Drugs do work to change your mood, this has been shown by double-blind trials to eliminate the influence of placebos. If you doubt this, then you're doubting that alcohol makes people drunk. It's all the same laws of chemistry and biology. As for 'psychic' children.. just WTF?
@archapmangcmg Yes natural phenomena, but many see it as supernatural. Such as ghosts or spirits. They are naturally there we just don't see them normally. Our 5 senses are limited. Yes extra dimensions are part of this universe but it's more than just the material and physical part.
Those double blind studies aren't as perfect as you think. Trials are often paid for by pharma (bias), 'random trials' hand pick and exclude people and the articles are frequently ghost written or omit negative info
@Ragnarok187 No, the extra dimensions of string theory ARE material and physical, nothing supernatural about them. As for spirits and ghosts.. we don't see them, ever, because we don't have evidence for them. Prove me wrong that they exist, and I'll change my stance on that, but nothing supernatural has ever been supported with evidence.
Double blind studies means that the people taking the drugs don't know if they're getting real or placebo, sugar pills, etc, and nor do the people giving them.
@archapmangcmg You're a materialist eh? So radio waves are material and physical? Emotions? Thoughts? Our 5 bodily senses are limited. If you go by super string theory the 'foundation' is not physical matter, but vibrating strings of energy.
Prove to me spirits don't exist. Dreams aren't supported with evidence except subjective views, do they not exist?
Yes I know what a double blind study is. The placebo effect is around 50% while many (psych drug) studies only show a 60% efficacy.
@Ragnarok187 radio waves are yes, material and physical, wave/particle duality, etc. I am a Monist, until evidence indicates otherwise. And.. I don't HAVE to prove that spirits don't exist, because I'm not claiming the existence of something, I'm claiming we don't have evidence for their existence, something that should be easy to falsify if we do. I'm not claiming none of these exist, I'm saying we don't have evidence in their favour. The rational default position is not to accept a claim cont.
@archapmangcmg Particles act like physical matter. Waves act like waves, not particles. Hence the 2 different names. Look up the double slit experiment.
I can't prove or disprove spirits because I haven't looked into them to try and prove it. Nor do I personally see them. Possibly a bad example then. But I can't swim, doesn't mean nobody else can. What of mediums, clairvoyants, psychics, empaths? Sure there are many fakes, but some of these people do see or know things we'd consider impossible.
@Ragnarok187 Light acts as both particles and waves, when tested. String theory, mind you, extends this to the rest of matter, that the particles we see as protons, neutrons, etc, are like vibrating strings.
As for spirits, yeah bad example. For the psychics / swimming comparison, that would be good, IF we had evidence that they do these things.
To prove that they do, eg clairvoyants, they need to get things right *more often* than chance would allow. To my knowledge, none yet qualify on this.
@Ragnarok187 Let alone, the higher standard of getting things right most or all the time.
Until there are people that do pass this test of competence, we should reject their claims. Relying on these people when untested reduces our knowledge, since we are not using better that is, more successful methods.
@Ragnarok187 not to accept the validity of a claim without evidence, and to suspend judgement until evidence arrives, and LACK BELIEF in these things. While our eyes cannot see gravity, we can see the effects of it. Evidence is NOT limited purely to the 5 senses and purely to direct observation. Thus, believing spirits or ghosts or gods without evidence is irrational. The alternative requires you to believe EVERYTHING that hasn't been disproved, both impossible and harmful.
@archapmangcmg Right, evidence is not limited to the 5 senses. Again, super string or M-theory. I won't argue with quantum physicists about those theories, will you? Again, super string theory suggests tiny vibrating strings, not physical matter like the atom or protons and electrons.
You said we can see the effects of gravity. Yep we can. Gravity isn't physical. It affects physical matter yes, but in itself is not physical. If you strike a match in a dark room the light isn't physical.
@Ragnarok187 You're NOT using any definition of physical with which I am familiar, here. Light is physical, gravity is physical, electromagnetism is physical. They are all evident, and I'm not sure why you're saying they're not physical. I'm really confused as you've shifted the goalposts a few times here. String theory, unfortunately, isn't yet at the stage of accepted consensus, the physicists are still arguing that one a lot. M-theory's major problem is that we cannot test it, not yet science
@archapmangcmg Okay, can you define exactly where gravity is? Can you take a bit of space, and even at the atomic or subatomic level point out which bits of physical matter are gravity? Let's look at waves and particles again (radio waves). A physical particle, say an electron or proton, could not (to my knowledge, but I could be wrong) pass through something like a brick or stone. An antenna on top of a receiver (tv or radio inside) can pick up the wave through brick or stone of your house.
@Ragnarok187 So tell me, are neutrinos not particles, simply because they do have a good chance to pass through your entire home, you, the earth, and then a lightyear of lead? Particles are a subset of what is physical, not the full set, with a wide variety of physical properties.
We talk of the physical universe, mass and energy and the space as well, that makes it up. Matter as such is far from being everything that is physical. That's the difference I believe. Energy is physical, too.
@Ragnarok187 Energy can even push you through the galaxy, without matter, if you use enough of it (we can't yet, obviously) as a source of reaction thrust.
I hope this clears up confusion. Until we use the word to mean the same thing, we cannot communicate effectively.
@archapmangcmg A particle acts like physical material matter. A wave does not. Yes I dunno what your definition of physical is but you're right, we do seem to have difference definitions. As for neutrinos, I don't know enough about them so I won't comment. Is thought physical? Can you pinpoint it? Locate it within physical space-time? Can it be located in a specific and exact part of the physical brain? Non-physical 'stuff' can affect physical 'stuff', eg, energy, gravity, thought, emotion, etc.
@Ragnarok187 Neutrinos are normally defined as particles, but they are very weakly interacting particles. As far as waves, well in many respects a lot of these subatomic phenomena have both particle and wave like properties. As you may know, we cannot exactly know a proton's location and direction, etc, the much-cited Uncertainty Principle, so while I do have uncertainty as to the exact location of a thought, it's general location is known, within human brains, ditto emotions. cont.
@archapmangcmg Agreed, much at the sub atomic level acts as both a particle (physical matter) and waves. They change between each depending on the situation. They act differently. Observation changes the behaviour of what's being observed.
Agreed on the uncertainty principle. However thought hasn't been linked purely to the physical brain. The brain and mind do interact, but they aren't 1 to 1. You should check out Heart Math Institute for some interesting info.
@Ragnarok187 Er, the IHM look to be dodgy, sorry. The BS detector's going off about their claims of heart-brain interactions between person A's heart and B's brain, for example. As for thought, it's practical to swap someone's heart out without reliably affecting their mental process, ditto for much of the body, and the heart just isn't that complex. As for brain/mind, you can have a brain without a detected mind, but can you have a mind without a detected brain? I see no evidence for dualism.
@Ragnarok187 And my definition of physical is relating to the sciences dealing with matter and energy; especially physics; "physical sciences"; "physical laws". thus gravity, inertia, velocity, are all physical. They don't have to have a separate existence from matter, however, some are simply properties or aspects of the physical universe. As for thought, emotion, I don't have all the answers, but I don't see why we should add 'supernatural' on the basis of no evidence. Just call it 'unknown'.
@archapmangcmg There's a lot more than physical matter. Materialism fails in many regards. A dream isn't physical (its 'not real', and you aren't physically/bodily there but you still experience it). Emotions and thought aren't physical, but they do affect the physical (that is, your physical body). Gravity isn't physical but it does affect physical matter. Agreed they aren't separate because they influence each other, but it's not all physical or material even though it can affect the material.
@Ragnarok187 If you'll note, I agree there's a lot more than matter in the universe, which I consider physical as it matches the definition I provided. Where does materialism fail? That I experience dreams, or delusions, doesn't make them real in any sense beyond operations or malfunctions in our brain's modelling of the universe. Emotions and thoughts have measurable effects on the body, we know this. Gravity is an aspect of the physical universe, why deny it being physical? Mind requires body.
@archapmangcmg Matter IS physical (or at least material). Materialism cannot explain thought, dreams, emotions, free will, consciousness, the soul, or many other concepts. Agreed it can explain a great deal of things but there is much it cannot.
I'm hoping the use of the term 'malfunction' of the brain to explain dreams was a bad example. If not, that would mean every single person is defective.
Emotions, thoughts, and gravity affect the physical, but they themselves aren't. They're immaterial.
@Ragnarok187 Except materialism can explain thought, dreams, emotions, the appearance of free will and consciousness. What it can't do is do so with evidence at this point. The soul? Who says they exist? I don't have any use for that concept, nor have I seen any evidence for it. As for malfunction, it was in regards to delusions, but brains aren't perfect so 'defective' may/may not apply at all. Gravity isn't separate from the physical but *part* of it.
@archapmangcmg Materialism can't explain those things. It can take a good guess, but fails miserably. If it can't explain it with evidence, why not call it 'unknown' instead of accept it as fact? Believing that with no evidence is much the same as me suggesting the existence of spirits with no proof. We're both allowed our beliefs and viewpoints, but we'll stick to the evidence. Without evidence we can't prove or disprove, at least not rationally or scientifically.
@Ragnarok187 Materialism, rather Monism, is philosophy rather than science because we have these unanswered questions about the brain. I'm not defending it as science, if that wasn't clear. I'm taking it as a default position due to the heuristic guideline known as Ockham's Razor, to me but Monism and Dualism have unanswered questions, but Monism is both simpler and has the less serious problems (as I see it). I'm not calling Monism fact, but my belief. cont.
@Ragnarok187 And I'm a Monist, rather than Dualist, which seems to be what you're arguing for. You called me materialist, I corrected that, you've kept using the other term. We don't have evidence for Dualism, for a separate mind or soul or spirit, so why invent one? If we don't add them to our model of reality, that leaves Monism as the default, with the explicit proviso that it's only the default and is to be altered by evidence.
@archapmangcmg There is much to support the opinions of dualism and monism both but in many respects both can explain aspects while they fail to explain others. Accepting something as default without proof for it doesn't make that the only option. If it were proven it would be the one accepted theory but it isn't, there are other theories. To say monism is the default with no evidence and can only be altered by evidence is like me claiming I'm superman as default. No proof I am, no proof I'm not
@Ragnarok187 I'm not saying it's proven, and I'm not saying it's the only possible one, neither. I'm only saying that for me it is the simplest of the two options, both of which have problems, neither of which are proven, and that I'm willing to change my stance as soon as we GET evidence. I'm not inventing spirits or supernatural to cover holes, I'm saying that I don't know what is in those holes, and that of the two, I'm taking the simpler one until we know better where the truth is.
@Ragnarok187 For the superman, that's a false analogy. Your claim to be superman is an extraordinary claim, and only merits belief if it matches evidence, otherwise it merits disbelief.
Here, however, we have 2 claims, neither of which are fully right, and by default we use one or the other unless you know of a way to use neither. In this case, I'm choosing Monism. It works for me, it matches the world as I see it with the evidence I've seen. Dualism is more complex and opens up to the unreal.
@archapmangcmg Agreed, monism is the simpler of the two (Ockham's Razor) . But monism, although it has it's uses still fails in many regards. In this case, one is not sufficient, but without further evidence I can understand why you (and many) adopt it.
What is extraordinary? What's ordinary? What's normal or abnormal? What is socially accepted? What the media says? What psychiatry says? The claim there's only one substance (materialism) is extraordinary in my view, where's that evidence?
@archapmangcmg I don't have a specific viewpoint but I do favor dualism over monism, although dualism has it's own problems and can't explain certain things. If you're looking from a philosophical perspective I'd probably now lean more towards Husserl's multiple essences model, which include the regions of Nature (physical body and brain), Consciousness (ego and experiences), and Spirit (human and social).
I'm sure you know of Socrates. Called the 'wisest man'. He spoke of more than material.
@Ragnarok187 Socrates was wise for his time, yes, but all of that time were ignorant of many things in the world around them. I don't worship anything, nor call it perfect or inerrant, without it matching the evidence.. and none does. As such, that one wise man, or a million, believe something, doesn't make it true. The truth makes them right, or not, as it were, rather than the other way around.
I just don't see any need for introducing spirits or souls into my mental model of the universe.
@archapmangcmg A lot of people in THIS time are ignorant of what's around them. Did you know ancient 'ignorant and savage' peoples knew things that only recently science has caught up with? The Egyptians did things we can't replicate today. The Dogon tribe knew about our solar system, the planets, colours etc, and they didn't have telescopes or our technology. Shamans could do amazing things too. We now call them 'primative'. Like you said, just because a million believe it doesn't make it true.
@Ragnarok187 I was originally going to referrence the modern marvels of science but i realized something simpler, you called them 'ignorant and savage' that is a stereotype and you are ignorant to believe that everybody assumes the same as you. you just use broad generalizations and that annoys me. But i will say this: archiac technology over the span of 3000 years would make sense to have died out in favor of better techniques, it isnt that they were so advanced, better methods arose.
@Tiboroun Did you not notice the ' ' around 'ignorant and savage' ? That means I wasn't calling them that, but was using a term many do use. I don't believe they were. And no, not everyone else will. But there are many that do call them that. But please, stick your nose into a convo you weren't part of and assume you know what I was saying.
So our technology is better now? Polluting power and industrial waste are better? Look at your environment. Our 'better' technology destroys it.
@Ragnarok187 Like I said every coin has two sides,The technology we USE isn't the cleanest, but there is clean technology available this is fact, once again your generalizations skip over a major fact. Solar, Wind, Biological. Few examples of clean technology in the energy department. As far as the environment is concerned, humans will die or leave this planet, and this planet will recover. We are but a moment in the planet's life. I but in because you pass off YOUR brand of right as THE brand.
@Tiboroun Yes there is clean power technology, so why isn't it being used? The answer is because of how much power and profit comes from oil and coal. If we have the better cleaner technology we should use it. Not using it is not a marvel of modern science, it's a failure. Saying we have better doesn't mean much unless it's actually used.
So you butt in and suggest that YOUR brand is right and mine isn't? Isn't that what you were just attacking me about? That sounds a little double standards.
@Ragnarok187 Actually I never said mine was right, I merely presented counterpoints and constantly reiterated the fact that there are two sides to an argument, I'm just filling in the blanks you leave that is all....and taking the piss out of you for a little personal fun ^_^
@archapmangcmg As for ignorance, how many people today are aware of what's going on? Of the media bias and manipulation, advertising heuristics, fluoride in our drinking water, chemtrails in US, GMO's containing in their DNA pesticides and other nasties, the fact that whatever government (left or right) group you vote for it's the same puppet masters at the top pulling the strings. People don't question anymore. They nod and do. Yes sir, three bags full sir. Sheeple are more ignorant today.
@Ragnarok187 Umm...drinking water does have fluoride in it but it is fluorine ions which are EXTREMELY reactive and they harmlessly bind to all the little pieces of dirt and impurities.. Guess what? There is chlorine in salt omg run for cover, that cigarette has cyanide in it you're gonna die! and genetically modified crops contain in their genes the ability to PRODUCE pesticides, which are washed off. Every coin has two sides though, ill admit it The government portion is sound though.
@Tiboroun rofl. You might wanna check your facts dude. You been buying into the govt propaganda too much. The fluoride in our drinking water is not harmless. You might wanna search that one up. Unless of course you're in a country that doesn't do it much, in which case lucky you.
And the pesticides that are produced by GMO crops do NOT get washed off. It's part of their genes. Spraying pesticides on top of them can be washed off, but when the crop produces its own, its IN the food, not on it.
@Ragnarok187 And there's a search for gravitons, particles that mediate gravity, effectively they ARE gravity, if that theory's right. Now, energy IS physical, as are space and time. Matter is a subset of the physical, not the same. If not, what are black holes? They have apparent mass without any form of matter that we know, with their singularities having ridiculous densities. Photons have mass, too, without being matter. Physics doesn't agree with your characterisation of it thus far.
@Ragnarok187 If some of your neurons were replaced with nanobots, in same arrangements, producing what appear to everyone else the same thoughts and emotions, would it really be different from you without any replaced neurons? If all of them were replaced, wouldn't that still be you? How would it be different if it weren't 'you', beyond that the atoms are different Your atoms today aren't the same as a decade ago, or a decade from now, so are past-you and now-you the same person or not? Proof?
@archapmangcmg I don't know about nanotechnology so my response will be somewhat lacking. To my knowledge robots and machines can't feel emotion, nor do they experience or express consciousness. They can be programmed to respond in certain ways but they can't think or feel. Artificial Intelligence has progressed, but it's nowhere near to replicating human functioning.
Our atoms do change all the time, we constantly discard old cells and produce new ones. Though I dunno how that supports my case.
@Ragnarok187 Okay, at base our brain cells are arrangements of atoms into numerous types of molecules, passing on electrical and chemical changes. In theory this job can be performed by other things, similar size, thus they'd be nano-scale machines (since they'd be built/made for that purpose). In simpler terms, question: If part of your brain was replaced by something that does the same job at the micro level, would you still be you? If yes, at what point are you not you, as more is replaced?
@archapmangcmg Just because chemical changes and electrical signals are related to thought and emotions, doesn't mean they cause them. Relationship does not imply causality. Do chemical changes produce emotion, or does emotion produce the chemical changes? Since robots and machines don't have (true) thought, emotions, or consciousness, they may be able to behave like brain cells but they can't replicate human mind qualities. At what point are you not you? Dunno. Has it been tested yet?
@Ragnarok187 Correlation does not equal causality, no, but causality does require correlation and relationship.
In essence, it's been tested in billions of humans, since the atoms that make up our brain are switched out over the years for new ones, in mostly the same arrangements, like the rest of our bodies. The micro-scale objects I'm talking about would be the same in biological and chemical function to the parts of our neurons. To me, you can replace my entire brain this way, I'm still me.
@Ragnarok187 For you, however, what's your answer. If parts of your brain are swapped over, performing the exact same biological and chemical functions, are you still you? I believe that it is the arrangement and relationships and patterns of activity in our brain that make us who we are. Do you believe the same, or something else, if so, what? You've attacked 'materialism' but I haven't heard what you DO believe.
@Ragnarok187 "Just because chemical changes and electrical signals are related to thought and emotions, doesn't mean they cause them. Relationship does not imply causality. "
Except that we fucking know that, in this case, it fucking does.
@Ragnarok187 A 60% change is NOT the same as a 50% change. This should be obvious. This does show an improvement. Unless you're arguing that we should ignore the 10% of people that you're implicitly condemning with your position, which I doubt, then the improvement is still significant enough to be worth our time.
@archapmangcmg A 10% change isn't all that effective. Why go for something that may have a 10% better effect of nothing when that 10% comes with a whole list of side-effects, withdrawals, and other potential dangers (again, my drug reference is to psych drugs). The placebo is nothing. A sugar pill. Only 10% better than nothing? What of other non-drug treatments? Exercise is more effective than antidepressant drugs and better at preventing relapse and comes with less side-effects or withdrawal.
@Ragnarok187 Where are the studies that show this? Where is the evidence? Are those studies paid for by the fitness industry? At some level, everyone has their own preferences, that's my point, and science works best when it's tested by people with different preferences and the outcomes are measured. If you're saying the science hasn't been done, or been done poorly, then you have a moral duty to do it well, yourself, in order to promote the public well-being. Now, where are the references?
@archapmangcmg Exercise was one example for one 'mental illness', there are other non-drug treatments for other 'mental illnesses' that show similar results. More effective than drugs, with less nasty effects. Could those have had fitness industry funding? It's possible, I haven't looked into the funding for those.
Yes, agreed, science works best when tested by ppl with different preferences. So why are the vast majority around drug treatments? That's the same preference.
@Ragnarok187 Why are the majority that type? Maybe due to it being the most successful in the past. It's why we don't bother pursuing demons as a cause for disease any more, rather looking for viruses, bacteria, and cellular damage, for example. These answers work. They've continued to work as a source of further answers. It'd be stupid to ignore the successful source of answers in order to check a source that's never worked before, if the successful source is available and remains successful.
@MrSpuderdle I'd type more, and more rigorously, were there room, however there is not here on youtube. It's a recurrent source of frustration for me, actually. Anyway, I try to be clear, to remove ambiguity from my writing, but I don't find it easy when I also have to deal with an irritatingly short character limit. It's almost impossible to put in an entire argument, and impossible to put the argument and references, as shown by Ragnarok below. He put in an abbreviated shortcut.
@archapmangcmg As for evidence for ghost-writing, bias, and drug efficacy:
Healy (2002; 2001) reported 50% of journals may be ghost-written, and reported later up to 75% may be (Healy, 2004). Lacasse & Leo (2010) also examined ghost-writing practices. 21 of 72 published reports about celecoxib were admittedly fabricated (Lenzer, 2009). Boren & Leventhal (2009) reported antidepressant drugs weren't effective at treating depression with only 108 of 3,671 people not relapsing or dropping out.
@Ragnarok187 Was Healy's work well received on this point in terms of his conclusions being justified, and did he examine enough samples for a statistical universe to be obtained? Were his samples biased at all? Given that his work is criticism of practised science (a necessary, essential part of science) was his own work as rigorous as it should be? Ditto for the others? Have they been examined by others testing their work? People need to self-check, but no excuse for sloppy checking.
@archapmangcmg I dunno how those authors works were received, but check out the articles and look at the other sources of information they reference. There's plenty around to support what they're saying it's just overlooked because the most cited sources are (at least reportedly), ghost-written ones. Psychiatry isn't science. It's pseudoscience. This too has been explored by many. But when you have a powerful and profitable group, the info is skewed. Look at the tobacco industry 20-30 years ago.
@Ragnarok187 Tobacco 30 years ago was already widely known in medicine to be addictive and very harmful, the time you're looking for is well before then, but I take your point that interest groups do temporarily skew beliefs. Look at the very biggest one, the Catholic Church.
How about neuroscience, rather than psychiatry, have you any knowledge there?
@archapmangcmg Okay you got me, my history sucks. Agreed on the Catholic church. Many such industries, organizations, religious and governmental groups have their own agenda which doesn't always match up to whats good for the people but whats good for the group. The control of information (which includes science) means the control of those who receive the information (and in some cases those who the information examines, such as the 'mentally ill' or 'witches'). No neuroscience knowledge sorry.
@Ragnarok187 I agree with all of what you said here, but my point is that eventually, truth has an overall advantage as it produces results that the lies can't match forever, despite funding and bias. As for neuroscience, it's the question at hand, here, really, the area of science that's trying to measure thoughts, emotions, consciousness, and it's developing results. To me it's promising, but far from mature area of study. It sounds like something you may want to study yourself.
@archapmangcmg cont. Meta-analyses have shown antidepressants to be no better than placebo (Kirsh, Moore, Scoboria, & Nicholls, 2002; Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2005). On neuroleptics for schizophrenia there has been a zero increase in recovery rate from before and after the introduction of these drugs (33% recovery before drugs, 33% after the introduction of the drugs: Coleman, 2001; Warner, 1985). Randomized trial studies are skewed towards reporting favorable results (Rising et al., 2008)
@Ragnarok187 As for payments, er who the hell else SHOULD pay for the trials, when governments simply don't fund scientific research to the levels needed, why shouldn't the companies looking to produce them fund it when they're the ones who'll profit? The accusation of bias is ridiculous. As for the sample selections, sure some aren't great, but most are. For your last accusation, I'm rejecting that one based on... lack of evidence! :) Provide evidence that in an INCREDIBLY competitive field, ..
@archapmangcmg Yes the drug companies will profit (bias). They stand to profit more if the drug looks more effective. That's logical. They are selling a product. Any consumer advertising (please note, we aren't seen as humans we are called CONSUMERS) is a means to make that product look as good as possible to maximize profits. That's logic. As for the ghost written or omitted info, yes there is evidence. A LOT. If you have access to psych databases for journals I'll give the full references.
@Ragnarok187 As for the references, please send them in PM. My point about the bias, is that you're looking at *competing* companies each wanting to sell their own solution, who have a financial interest in disproving the claims of their competitors and defending their own claims. I don't give 2 shits about the consumer advertising, I'm talking about peer reviewed papers. If you can show a widespread pattern of falsified data, then you can make your claim, without it, it's just the system workin
@archapmangcmg Yes it is flawed but the system overlooks it because they control most of it. The companies profit if the drug looks good. Studies are frequently ghost-written and omit negative info so less chance to get caught out unless there's a court issue (you should look up THAT info that completely contradicts the released info). The FDA only needs 2 trials to pass a drug and the companies that ran the study get to pick which 2. 30 studies could fail but all they need is 2 positive to pass
absolutely awesome, so many great things to appreciate, from the artist, to this person's video who added the text for all to follow for a greater audience to enjoy...
@gmaulrocks "Inner North London" is in fact correct rather than "In a North London", as it has been pointed out on the official blog for the animated movie: stormmovie(dot)net/blog/2010/01/top-floor-flat/ --- also in the lyrics booklet for Tim Minchin's DVD "Ready for This?", which I own. Oh, and by Tim himself through the webmistress on his official message board at tinyurl(dot)com/4x6d86g
I never post lyrics corrections unless I have my sources. ;)
I want to point out, according to nature/god I am already dead from an infection or fallen into depression from my chronic illness long ago, and my dad would probably not live to this day because he has diabetes.
Medical advances have made loads of lives possible or bearable to natural god given ilnesses, and we're only starting one day we could be able to stop aging or at the very least ensure most people live to 100.
Also why do horrible people live long, and good hearted people suffer?
@Timelord001 maybe horrible people are the offspring of conquerers and crusaders which where genetically purified through battle. There's no such thing as true genetic purity, but that's a possible answer. Maybe people with rough upbringings are less susceptible to the risks of age. These are questions and solutions that you could verify, disprove, or answer.
@papatommy02 ....won't science forever be the only way to actually explain the world reliably, cus religion is bollocks and star signs will never tell you anything
@papatommy02 Science IS the explaining the world around us. No matter how we try to explain things around us (at least in a way that makes sense) it will be science.
@sodlaserx Well not quite. It's explaining things by careful observation,the forming of hypothesis, the testing of that hypothesis and then forming a theory, not the lazy thinking often attempting to credit unknown intelligences.
Exactly. That's what science is about, learning. That's all science is about. Science doesn't care about pride or hope, about faith or hurting someone's cherished beliefs. Science is about getting it right. You can ask a witchdoctor when the next Solar Eclipse will be, or you can ask a scientist. You will do much better with the scientist, as he will tell you exactly when, down to the very minute, where on Earth you need to be, and whether or not it will be a partial or total eclipse
@papatommy02 although that's wrong; faith can only be attained after ample investigation. it's something that lives as one strives towards not only making observations, but also being able to act in a way as we ought to, namely to live for truth and for the greater good. Rationality is only one side of the coin; the real challenge is how do we utilize our rational capacities properly.
dude ... im trying to do my homework and its a rationalism 10 lines ... ya i need that poem right now!! and thats what ive got ... gosh! .... help plzz =)
If you want to discover the secrets of the universe, stop sitting around meditating and trying to "navigate the astral realm" and pick up a fucking physics textbook.
captainjailbait 2 weeks ago
Amazing Tim Minchin!! :)
TheANGELwannaBe 4 months ago in playlist Tim Minchin Playlist
Man this was awesome! This is the first beat poem i have listen'ed to and i loved every bit of it! Nearly everything this guy said was so logical and concise. I would like to say that i agree with almost everything he says, and everyone else should to. I think the only difference between him and me though,, which he would probably disprove of, is that im a christian XD But, despite that i think we could get along lol
jchapman1994 4 months ago
I need a bleeped version of this to show to my college class when I want to start a discussion on critical thinking. I think they'd like it, and it could start some great in-class debate. But I can't show it.
cedarcember 5 months ago
@cedarcember You could cough loudly when he swears, or download the video and edit the audio in some sort of video editing program.
sekushinonyanko 4 months ago
@cedarcember You mean you cannot use any material with swearing/offensive language in it? What about books like Huckleberry Finn or Catcher in the Rye? What kind of institute is this that would rather let their students miss valuable content than offend some morons? Talk about critical thinking, how ironic...
seriouskano2 3 months ago
@cedarcember WTF??? You can't swear in College??? o.O It's not like he's using it in an offensive way really, like saying "Your a f**king c**t!" he's AWESOME and if your teachers or whatever are such bums that they can't see that, you should show it in class just to peeve them off!!! :) Sorry for my little rant
izzyGO52 2 months ago in playlist Tim Minchin!!!!!!!!!
@cedarcember
1. you could load the mp3 into something like audacity (open source, doiwnlaoadble from source forge i think) or any audio editing software record your bleeps saying "bleep" or "censored" and then play it.
2. I would also think of changing to another college if "critical thinking" and these lyrics can't coexist.
3. A third idea: become inspiring yourself - aim at reducing Tim's poem to poetry but be yourself the start of a good in-class debate on critical thinking :-)
andressen 2 months ago
What does "loose weave" mean? it's at 1:49
ChickityChoice 5 months ago
@ChickityChoice It means it's not tightly "woven" and therefore not bound by strict rules. Of course, this is a metaphor referring to the weaving of a fabric.
Tokcat 4 months ago
5:42 ♥
KennyGJE 5 months ago
"So i resist the urge to ask whether nothing is so loose weave, of a morning when deciding to leave he apartment by the front.. or the window on her second floor" XD
TLB95Switchblade 6 months ago
Read Kuhn. Anglo-American scientism will fall like every other historical paradigm.
popintellectfanboy12 6 months ago
EPIC !!!! Brilliant!
VasoKleo 7 months ago
Great job! Wish I could've seen the expression of "Storm" while you ranted.
chronoflect 7 months ago
Brilliant and hilarious!
manemav 7 months ago
That's a beautiful way of looking at it. What girl could turn down such an invitation?
MaislaK 7 months ago
This was amazing! Why isn't this man more famous?
kamarrabaksh 8 months ago
i love the use of shakespeare in this, tim minchin is a true genius
xlxsarah 8 months ago
im so proud of my sister kei phillips for her animation work on this video especially the fairy tattoo you must be so chuffed love you x
camille8578 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
im so proud of my sister kei phillips for her animation work on this video especially the fairy tattoo you must be so chuffed love you x
camille8578 9 months ago
*snaps fingers*
MrCabose7 9 months ago
storm darling try listening to charlieissocoollikes song 'chemical love if you want love explained
RiceTigerr 9 months ago 5
@Bogdan251 By which you mean proven to have no greater efficacy than placebo.
shamelesshussy 9 months ago 2
It's funny because homeopathy has been proven
Bogdan251 9 months ago
@Bogdan251 Yes, homeopathy has been proven...as fraudulant
DJCrowe501 9 months ago 4
@DJCrowe501 Please show me the results where it has been proven to be fraud.
Bogdan251 9 months ago
@Bogdan251 Hit up wikipedia - there's a whole stack of citations on the Homeopathy page that lead to perfectly good scientific reports on the subject of its effectiveness, or rather, lack thereof.
Balphezar 9 months ago
@Balphezar - Wikipedia isn't a great source for scientific evidence. The real information comes from mata-analyses. These compile the data from all the evidence to present an accurate overall view of a therapy.
In 2005 The Lancet did a comprehensive review of EVERY clinical investigation then published on homeopathy. The overwhelming conclusion was that homeopathy just doesn't work. The Cochrane Collaboration did the same more recently and came to the same conclusion. Homeopathy doesn't work
TheCardinalFang 8 months ago
@TheCardinalFang - Wikipedia itself? No, of course not... but it is a good source for more credible sources, such as The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. (Footnote #2 on Wikipedia's Homeopathy page, fyi)
Balphezar 8 months ago
@Bogdan251 Just as easily as you can show me where it's worked
DJCrowe501 9 months ago
won't carving nething with a compass on ur penis hurt like crazyy?
violet101 9 months ago
@violet101 which is why it'll never happen ;)
Sarahsomayah 9 months ago
showed this to my hippy friend...she hasnt talked to me for a week...
alloydpratt 10 months ago 41
@alloydpratt Sounds like you've solved a major problem.
Saik0Shinigami 2 months ago
i agree with tim but it wont stop me goingto the big green and hangging around with hippy types....someones got to gently contest their craziness and theyre fun and accepting, theyre diverse in their philosophies and theyre generally good wellmeaning folk....
ezmereldagreen 10 months ago
This is by far the best thing I've ever heard, and I'm very picky.
Compakted 10 months ago
66 people read tealeaves and think they have a bright aura :)
Aerochicklet 10 months ago 6
so is beat poetry slow-mo rap kinda sorta?
zack9577 10 months ago
Comment removed
Hailstonedpikachu 5 months ago
Comment removed
Hailstonedpikachu 5 months ago
@Jeshopk yes, eclipses were proven to be correct, but not from medical standpoint. It was disproved as a medical alternative, therefore, he is completely right in that anything proven to work medically is considered medicine. The point this beat poem is making is exactly what you said in your 2nd half; although AM's don't work, people won't believe it and will insist on believing absolute crap and wasting money on it, hence the "Ten minutes back in time" comment.
ninjabreadman1993r 10 months ago
OldSchoolSkill 11 months ago 4
Science WORKS, bitches!
JuryDutySummons 11 months ago
the fucking janitor
or guy that ran the water slide!
AndresUppsala1 11 months ago 3
hahaha nice dude and I like the relaxing music in the background
TheDeni993 11 months ago
you know what they call 'Alternative Medicine' that has been proved to work?... Medicine.
that was awesome
57stewie 11 months ago 4
I don't like this, I LOVE this! This is GREAT. Ever wondered what a great beat poem might be like? HERE'S ONE RIGHT HERE. Just so you know.
lancethrustworthy 11 months ago
My favourite line is "like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition"...makes me crack up every time :)
littlejlovesnoel 1 year ago 5
65 people has fairies on their spines
midnightpuss 1 year ago 2
One of the most brilliant things I've ever heard.
TeabagTyrant 1 year ago 2
I love that moment when the music cuts out at "Isn't this enough?" Perfect moment.
nedlum 1 year ago
Comment removed
nedlum 1 year ago
Could someone please explain to me the last sentence, "We'd as well be ten minutes back in time, for all the chance you'd change your mind" Thanks
krazea 1 year ago 5
@krazea It means the chance of you changing your mind is so low, that I needn't have bothered saying anything for the past 10 minutes.
miltmerm 1 year ago 95
@miltmerm Sorry, I didn't see your comment. You said exactly what I was thinking. Thanks!
billecorgan 1 year ago
@miltmerm lol i definatley knew that before you explained...
jakasmalakas 9 months ago
@miltmerm No it isn't. It's an invitation to the moment before "he perchance offended", to give her an opportunity to change her mind, and all will be mended. It is the best thing in this song, if you are right then this song is nothing more than a punch line.
johag86 8 months ago
@krazea I think he means that he might as well not have said what he did because he isn't going to change her mind.
billecorgan 1 year ago
@krazea
he is making reference to a speech made by puck in a midsummer night's dream and that nothing that he said would have any effect on the hippie girl.
UnusVita 10 months ago 2
@krazea Also notice that this beat poem is about 10 minutes long.
twistedH3L1X 10 months ago
@krazea , Well, at least he got you to think...
trainjustleft 9 months ago
@krazea I had to think on that one too :)
charliesmakinme 7 months ago
He who possesses art and science has religion; he who does not possess them, needs religion.
Michaeldair 1 year ago
"Well that's a good point, let me think for a bit... Oh wait my mistake, that's absolute bullshit." LOL :L Tim Minchin - You genius.
SuperBwen 1 year ago
Holy shit this was amazing O_O
MikeoWar 1 year ago
Succinct.
yeshuahfullofit 1 year ago
Actually science doesn't always change its views by what's observed. It should but doesn't. Just look at psychiatric 'science'. It supports a flawed 'chemical imbalance' theory that never had any evidence to support it. The pharma companies do support dependency. It's how they make money. Psychiatric drugs have not cured a single 'mental illness'.
As for no supernatural phenomena quantum theory (string theory and M-theory) suggest 10 or 11 dimensions. And look up China's super psychic children.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Except, you're wrong. It's that simple.
String theory is not about supernatural phenomena, but about NATURAL phenomena. The extra dimensions are about parts of this universe, not somewhere else.
Drugs do work to change your mood, this has been shown by double-blind trials to eliminate the influence of placebos. If you doubt this, then you're doubting that alcohol makes people drunk. It's all the same laws of chemistry and biology. As for 'psychic' children.. just WTF?
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Yes natural phenomena, but many see it as supernatural. Such as ghosts or spirits. They are naturally there we just don't see them normally. Our 5 senses are limited. Yes extra dimensions are part of this universe but it's more than just the material and physical part.
Those double blind studies aren't as perfect as you think. Trials are often paid for by pharma (bias), 'random trials' hand pick and exclude people and the articles are frequently ghost written or omit negative info
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 No, the extra dimensions of string theory ARE material and physical, nothing supernatural about them. As for spirits and ghosts.. we don't see them, ever, because we don't have evidence for them. Prove me wrong that they exist, and I'll change my stance on that, but nothing supernatural has ever been supported with evidence.
Double blind studies means that the people taking the drugs don't know if they're getting real or placebo, sugar pills, etc, and nor do the people giving them.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg You're a materialist eh? So radio waves are material and physical? Emotions? Thoughts? Our 5 bodily senses are limited. If you go by super string theory the 'foundation' is not physical matter, but vibrating strings of energy.
Prove to me spirits don't exist. Dreams aren't supported with evidence except subjective views, do they not exist?
Yes I know what a double blind study is. The placebo effect is around 50% while many (psych drug) studies only show a 60% efficacy.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 radio waves are yes, material and physical, wave/particle duality, etc. I am a Monist, until evidence indicates otherwise. And.. I don't HAVE to prove that spirits don't exist, because I'm not claiming the existence of something, I'm claiming we don't have evidence for their existence, something that should be easy to falsify if we do. I'm not claiming none of these exist, I'm saying we don't have evidence in their favour. The rational default position is not to accept a claim cont.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Particles act like physical matter. Waves act like waves, not particles. Hence the 2 different names. Look up the double slit experiment.
I can't prove or disprove spirits because I haven't looked into them to try and prove it. Nor do I personally see them. Possibly a bad example then. But I can't swim, doesn't mean nobody else can. What of mediums, clairvoyants, psychics, empaths? Sure there are many fakes, but some of these people do see or know things we'd consider impossible.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Light acts as both particles and waves, when tested. String theory, mind you, extends this to the rest of matter, that the particles we see as protons, neutrons, etc, are like vibrating strings.
As for spirits, yeah bad example. For the psychics / swimming comparison, that would be good, IF we had evidence that they do these things.
To prove that they do, eg clairvoyants, they need to get things right *more often* than chance would allow. To my knowledge, none yet qualify on this.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Let alone, the higher standard of getting things right most or all the time.
Until there are people that do pass this test of competence, we should reject their claims. Relying on these people when untested reduces our knowledge, since we are not using better that is, more successful methods.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 not to accept the validity of a claim without evidence, and to suspend judgement until evidence arrives, and LACK BELIEF in these things. While our eyes cannot see gravity, we can see the effects of it. Evidence is NOT limited purely to the 5 senses and purely to direct observation. Thus, believing spirits or ghosts or gods without evidence is irrational. The alternative requires you to believe EVERYTHING that hasn't been disproved, both impossible and harmful.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Right, evidence is not limited to the 5 senses. Again, super string or M-theory. I won't argue with quantum physicists about those theories, will you? Again, super string theory suggests tiny vibrating strings, not physical matter like the atom or protons and electrons.
You said we can see the effects of gravity. Yep we can. Gravity isn't physical. It affects physical matter yes, but in itself is not physical. If you strike a match in a dark room the light isn't physical.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 You're NOT using any definition of physical with which I am familiar, here. Light is physical, gravity is physical, electromagnetism is physical. They are all evident, and I'm not sure why you're saying they're not physical. I'm really confused as you've shifted the goalposts a few times here. String theory, unfortunately, isn't yet at the stage of accepted consensus, the physicists are still arguing that one a lot. M-theory's major problem is that we cannot test it, not yet science
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Okay, can you define exactly where gravity is? Can you take a bit of space, and even at the atomic or subatomic level point out which bits of physical matter are gravity? Let's look at waves and particles again (radio waves). A physical particle, say an electron or proton, could not (to my knowledge, but I could be wrong) pass through something like a brick or stone. An antenna on top of a receiver (tv or radio inside) can pick up the wave through brick or stone of your house.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 So tell me, are neutrinos not particles, simply because they do have a good chance to pass through your entire home, you, the earth, and then a lightyear of lead? Particles are a subset of what is physical, not the full set, with a wide variety of physical properties.
We talk of the physical universe, mass and energy and the space as well, that makes it up. Matter as such is far from being everything that is physical. That's the difference I believe. Energy is physical, too.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Energy can even push you through the galaxy, without matter, if you use enough of it (we can't yet, obviously) as a source of reaction thrust.
I hope this clears up confusion. Until we use the word to mean the same thing, we cannot communicate effectively.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg A particle acts like physical material matter. A wave does not. Yes I dunno what your definition of physical is but you're right, we do seem to have difference definitions. As for neutrinos, I don't know enough about them so I won't comment. Is thought physical? Can you pinpoint it? Locate it within physical space-time? Can it be located in a specific and exact part of the physical brain? Non-physical 'stuff' can affect physical 'stuff', eg, energy, gravity, thought, emotion, etc.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Neutrinos are normally defined as particles, but they are very weakly interacting particles. As far as waves, well in many respects a lot of these subatomic phenomena have both particle and wave like properties. As you may know, we cannot exactly know a proton's location and direction, etc, the much-cited Uncertainty Principle, so while I do have uncertainty as to the exact location of a thought, it's general location is known, within human brains, ditto emotions. cont.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Agreed, much at the sub atomic level acts as both a particle (physical matter) and waves. They change between each depending on the situation. They act differently. Observation changes the behaviour of what's being observed.
Agreed on the uncertainty principle. However thought hasn't been linked purely to the physical brain. The brain and mind do interact, but they aren't 1 to 1. You should check out Heart Math Institute for some interesting info.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Er, the IHM look to be dodgy, sorry. The BS detector's going off about their claims of heart-brain interactions between person A's heart and B's brain, for example. As for thought, it's practical to swap someone's heart out without reliably affecting their mental process, ditto for much of the body, and the heart just isn't that complex. As for brain/mind, you can have a brain without a detected mind, but can you have a mind without a detected brain? I see no evidence for dualism.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 And my definition of physical is relating to the sciences dealing with matter and energy; especially physics; "physical sciences"; "physical laws". thus gravity, inertia, velocity, are all physical. They don't have to have a separate existence from matter, however, some are simply properties or aspects of the physical universe. As for thought, emotion, I don't have all the answers, but I don't see why we should add 'supernatural' on the basis of no evidence. Just call it 'unknown'.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg There's a lot more than physical matter. Materialism fails in many regards. A dream isn't physical (its 'not real', and you aren't physically/bodily there but you still experience it). Emotions and thought aren't physical, but they do affect the physical (that is, your physical body). Gravity isn't physical but it does affect physical matter. Agreed they aren't separate because they influence each other, but it's not all physical or material even though it can affect the material.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 If you'll note, I agree there's a lot more than matter in the universe, which I consider physical as it matches the definition I provided. Where does materialism fail? That I experience dreams, or delusions, doesn't make them real in any sense beyond operations or malfunctions in our brain's modelling of the universe. Emotions and thoughts have measurable effects on the body, we know this. Gravity is an aspect of the physical universe, why deny it being physical? Mind requires body.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Matter IS physical (or at least material). Materialism cannot explain thought, dreams, emotions, free will, consciousness, the soul, or many other concepts. Agreed it can explain a great deal of things but there is much it cannot.
I'm hoping the use of the term 'malfunction' of the brain to explain dreams was a bad example. If not, that would mean every single person is defective.
Emotions, thoughts, and gravity affect the physical, but they themselves aren't. They're immaterial.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Except materialism can explain thought, dreams, emotions, the appearance of free will and consciousness. What it can't do is do so with evidence at this point. The soul? Who says they exist? I don't have any use for that concept, nor have I seen any evidence for it. As for malfunction, it was in regards to delusions, but brains aren't perfect so 'defective' may/may not apply at all. Gravity isn't separate from the physical but *part* of it.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Materialism can't explain those things. It can take a good guess, but fails miserably. If it can't explain it with evidence, why not call it 'unknown' instead of accept it as fact? Believing that with no evidence is much the same as me suggesting the existence of spirits with no proof. We're both allowed our beliefs and viewpoints, but we'll stick to the evidence. Without evidence we can't prove or disprove, at least not rationally or scientifically.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Materialism, rather Monism, is philosophy rather than science because we have these unanswered questions about the brain. I'm not defending it as science, if that wasn't clear. I'm taking it as a default position due to the heuristic guideline known as Ockham's Razor, to me but Monism and Dualism have unanswered questions, but Monism is both simpler and has the less serious problems (as I see it). I'm not calling Monism fact, but my belief. cont.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 And I'm a Monist, rather than Dualist, which seems to be what you're arguing for. You called me materialist, I corrected that, you've kept using the other term. We don't have evidence for Dualism, for a separate mind or soul or spirit, so why invent one? If we don't add them to our model of reality, that leaves Monism as the default, with the explicit proviso that it's only the default and is to be altered by evidence.
Where's the problem with that?
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg There is much to support the opinions of dualism and monism both but in many respects both can explain aspects while they fail to explain others. Accepting something as default without proof for it doesn't make that the only option. If it were proven it would be the one accepted theory but it isn't, there are other theories. To say monism is the default with no evidence and can only be altered by evidence is like me claiming I'm superman as default. No proof I am, no proof I'm not
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 I'm not saying it's proven, and I'm not saying it's the only possible one, neither. I'm only saying that for me it is the simplest of the two options, both of which have problems, neither of which are proven, and that I'm willing to change my stance as soon as we GET evidence. I'm not inventing spirits or supernatural to cover holes, I'm saying that I don't know what is in those holes, and that of the two, I'm taking the simpler one until we know better where the truth is.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 For the superman, that's a false analogy. Your claim to be superman is an extraordinary claim, and only merits belief if it matches evidence, otherwise it merits disbelief.
Here, however, we have 2 claims, neither of which are fully right, and by default we use one or the other unless you know of a way to use neither. In this case, I'm choosing Monism. It works for me, it matches the world as I see it with the evidence I've seen. Dualism is more complex and opens up to the unreal.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Agreed, monism is the simpler of the two (Ockham's Razor) . But monism, although it has it's uses still fails in many regards. In this case, one is not sufficient, but without further evidence I can understand why you (and many) adopt it.
What is extraordinary? What's ordinary? What's normal or abnormal? What is socially accepted? What the media says? What psychiatry says? The claim there's only one substance (materialism) is extraordinary in my view, where's that evidence?
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg I don't have a specific viewpoint but I do favor dualism over monism, although dualism has it's own problems and can't explain certain things. If you're looking from a philosophical perspective I'd probably now lean more towards Husserl's multiple essences model, which include the regions of Nature (physical body and brain), Consciousness (ego and experiences), and Spirit (human and social).
I'm sure you know of Socrates. Called the 'wisest man'. He spoke of more than material.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Socrates was wise for his time, yes, but all of that time were ignorant of many things in the world around them. I don't worship anything, nor call it perfect or inerrant, without it matching the evidence.. and none does. As such, that one wise man, or a million, believe something, doesn't make it true. The truth makes them right, or not, as it were, rather than the other way around.
I just don't see any need for introducing spirits or souls into my mental model of the universe.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago 2
@archapmangcmg A lot of people in THIS time are ignorant of what's around them. Did you know ancient 'ignorant and savage' peoples knew things that only recently science has caught up with? The Egyptians did things we can't replicate today. The Dogon tribe knew about our solar system, the planets, colours etc, and they didn't have telescopes or our technology. Shamans could do amazing things too. We now call them 'primative'. Like you said, just because a million believe it doesn't make it true.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 I was originally going to referrence the modern marvels of science but i realized something simpler, you called them 'ignorant and savage' that is a stereotype and you are ignorant to believe that everybody assumes the same as you. you just use broad generalizations and that annoys me. But i will say this: archiac technology over the span of 3000 years would make sense to have died out in favor of better techniques, it isnt that they were so advanced, better methods arose.
Tiboroun 1 year ago
@Tiboroun Did you not notice the ' ' around 'ignorant and savage' ? That means I wasn't calling them that, but was using a term many do use. I don't believe they were. And no, not everyone else will. But there are many that do call them that. But please, stick your nose into a convo you weren't part of and assume you know what I was saying.
So our technology is better now? Polluting power and industrial waste are better? Look at your environment. Our 'better' technology destroys it.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Like I said every coin has two sides,The technology we USE isn't the cleanest, but there is clean technology available this is fact, once again your generalizations skip over a major fact. Solar, Wind, Biological. Few examples of clean technology in the energy department. As far as the environment is concerned, humans will die or leave this planet, and this planet will recover. We are but a moment in the planet's life. I but in because you pass off YOUR brand of right as THE brand.
Tiboroun 1 year ago
@Tiboroun Yes there is clean power technology, so why isn't it being used? The answer is because of how much power and profit comes from oil and coal. If we have the better cleaner technology we should use it. Not using it is not a marvel of modern science, it's a failure. Saying we have better doesn't mean much unless it's actually used.
So you butt in and suggest that YOUR brand is right and mine isn't? Isn't that what you were just attacking me about? That sounds a little double standards.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Actually I never said mine was right, I merely presented counterpoints and constantly reiterated the fact that there are two sides to an argument, I'm just filling in the blanks you leave that is all....and taking the piss out of you for a little personal fun ^_^
Tiboroun 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg As for ignorance, how many people today are aware of what's going on? Of the media bias and manipulation, advertising heuristics, fluoride in our drinking water, chemtrails in US, GMO's containing in their DNA pesticides and other nasties, the fact that whatever government (left or right) group you vote for it's the same puppet masters at the top pulling the strings. People don't question anymore. They nod and do. Yes sir, three bags full sir. Sheeple are more ignorant today.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Umm...drinking water does have fluoride in it but it is fluorine ions which are EXTREMELY reactive and they harmlessly bind to all the little pieces of dirt and impurities.. Guess what? There is chlorine in salt omg run for cover, that cigarette has cyanide in it you're gonna die! and genetically modified crops contain in their genes the ability to PRODUCE pesticides, which are washed off. Every coin has two sides though, ill admit it The government portion is sound though.
Tiboroun 1 year ago
@Tiboroun rofl. You might wanna check your facts dude. You been buying into the govt propaganda too much. The fluoride in our drinking water is not harmless. You might wanna search that one up. Unless of course you're in a country that doesn't do it much, in which case lucky you.
And the pesticides that are produced by GMO crops do NOT get washed off. It's part of their genes. Spraying pesticides on top of them can be washed off, but when the crop produces its own, its IN the food, not on it.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Socrates himself swore he wasn't wise.
FreePlay 5 months ago
@Ragnarok187 And there's a search for gravitons, particles that mediate gravity, effectively they ARE gravity, if that theory's right. Now, energy IS physical, as are space and time. Matter is a subset of the physical, not the same. If not, what are black holes? They have apparent mass without any form of matter that we know, with their singularities having ridiculous densities. Photons have mass, too, without being matter. Physics doesn't agree with your characterisation of it thus far.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 If some of your neurons were replaced with nanobots, in same arrangements, producing what appear to everyone else the same thoughts and emotions, would it really be different from you without any replaced neurons? If all of them were replaced, wouldn't that still be you? How would it be different if it weren't 'you', beyond that the atoms are different Your atoms today aren't the same as a decade ago, or a decade from now, so are past-you and now-you the same person or not? Proof?
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg I don't know about nanotechnology so my response will be somewhat lacking. To my knowledge robots and machines can't feel emotion, nor do they experience or express consciousness. They can be programmed to respond in certain ways but they can't think or feel. Artificial Intelligence has progressed, but it's nowhere near to replicating human functioning.
Our atoms do change all the time, we constantly discard old cells and produce new ones. Though I dunno how that supports my case.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Okay, at base our brain cells are arrangements of atoms into numerous types of molecules, passing on electrical and chemical changes. In theory this job can be performed by other things, similar size, thus they'd be nano-scale machines (since they'd be built/made for that purpose). In simpler terms, question: If part of your brain was replaced by something that does the same job at the micro level, would you still be you? If yes, at what point are you not you, as more is replaced?
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Just because chemical changes and electrical signals are related to thought and emotions, doesn't mean they cause them. Relationship does not imply causality. Do chemical changes produce emotion, or does emotion produce the chemical changes? Since robots and machines don't have (true) thought, emotions, or consciousness, they may be able to behave like brain cells but they can't replicate human mind qualities. At what point are you not you? Dunno. Has it been tested yet?
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Correlation does not equal causality, no, but causality does require correlation and relationship.
In essence, it's been tested in billions of humans, since the atoms that make up our brain are switched out over the years for new ones, in mostly the same arrangements, like the rest of our bodies. The micro-scale objects I'm talking about would be the same in biological and chemical function to the parts of our neurons. To me, you can replace my entire brain this way, I'm still me.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 For you, however, what's your answer. If parts of your brain are swapped over, performing the exact same biological and chemical functions, are you still you? I believe that it is the arrangement and relationships and patterns of activity in our brain that make us who we are. Do you believe the same, or something else, if so, what? You've attacked 'materialism' but I haven't heard what you DO believe.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 "Just because chemical changes and electrical signals are related to thought and emotions, doesn't mean they cause them. Relationship does not imply causality. "
Except that we fucking know that, in this case, it fucking does.
FreePlay 5 months ago
@Ragnarok187 A 60% change is NOT the same as a 50% change. This should be obvious. This does show an improvement. Unless you're arguing that we should ignore the 10% of people that you're implicitly condemning with your position, which I doubt, then the improvement is still significant enough to be worth our time.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg A 10% change isn't all that effective. Why go for something that may have a 10% better effect of nothing when that 10% comes with a whole list of side-effects, withdrawals, and other potential dangers (again, my drug reference is to psych drugs). The placebo is nothing. A sugar pill. Only 10% better than nothing? What of other non-drug treatments? Exercise is more effective than antidepressant drugs and better at preventing relapse and comes with less side-effects or withdrawal.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Where are the studies that show this? Where is the evidence? Are those studies paid for by the fitness industry? At some level, everyone has their own preferences, that's my point, and science works best when it's tested by people with different preferences and the outcomes are measured. If you're saying the science hasn't been done, or been done poorly, then you have a moral duty to do it well, yourself, in order to promote the public well-being. Now, where are the references?
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Exercise was one example for one 'mental illness', there are other non-drug treatments for other 'mental illnesses' that show similar results. More effective than drugs, with less nasty effects. Could those have had fitness industry funding? It's possible, I haven't looked into the funding for those.
Yes, agreed, science works best when tested by ppl with different preferences. So why are the vast majority around drug treatments? That's the same preference.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Why are the majority that type? Maybe due to it being the most successful in the past. It's why we don't bother pursuing demons as a cause for disease any more, rather looking for viruses, bacteria, and cellular damage, for example. These answers work. They've continued to work as a source of further answers. It'd be stupid to ignore the successful source of answers in order to check a source that's never worked before, if the successful source is available and remains successful.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Holy fuck you type alot. ^.-
MrSpuderdle 1 year ago
@MrSpuderdle I'd type more, and more rigorously, were there room, however there is not here on youtube. It's a recurrent source of frustration for me, actually. Anyway, I try to be clear, to remove ambiguity from my writing, but I don't find it easy when I also have to deal with an irritatingly short character limit. It's almost impossible to put in an entire argument, and impossible to put the argument and references, as shown by Ragnarok below. He put in an abbreviated shortcut.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg As for evidence for ghost-writing, bias, and drug efficacy:
Healy (2002; 2001) reported 50% of journals may be ghost-written, and reported later up to 75% may be (Healy, 2004). Lacasse & Leo (2010) also examined ghost-writing practices. 21 of 72 published reports about celecoxib were admittedly fabricated (Lenzer, 2009). Boren & Leventhal (2009) reported antidepressant drugs weren't effective at treating depression with only 108 of 3,671 people not relapsing or dropping out.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Was Healy's work well received on this point in terms of his conclusions being justified, and did he examine enough samples for a statistical universe to be obtained? Were his samples biased at all? Given that his work is criticism of practised science (a necessary, essential part of science) was his own work as rigorous as it should be? Ditto for the others? Have they been examined by others testing their work? People need to self-check, but no excuse for sloppy checking.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg I dunno how those authors works were received, but check out the articles and look at the other sources of information they reference. There's plenty around to support what they're saying it's just overlooked because the most cited sources are (at least reportedly), ghost-written ones. Psychiatry isn't science. It's pseudoscience. This too has been explored by many. But when you have a powerful and profitable group, the info is skewed. Look at the tobacco industry 20-30 years ago.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 Tobacco 30 years ago was already widely known in medicine to be addictive and very harmful, the time you're looking for is well before then, but I take your point that interest groups do temporarily skew beliefs. Look at the very biggest one, the Catholic Church.
How about neuroscience, rather than psychiatry, have you any knowledge there?
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Okay you got me, my history sucks. Agreed on the Catholic church. Many such industries, organizations, religious and governmental groups have their own agenda which doesn't always match up to whats good for the people but whats good for the group. The control of information (which includes science) means the control of those who receive the information (and in some cases those who the information examines, such as the 'mentally ill' or 'witches'). No neuroscience knowledge sorry.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 I agree with all of what you said here, but my point is that eventually, truth has an overall advantage as it produces results that the lies can't match forever, despite funding and bias. As for neuroscience, it's the question at hand, here, really, the area of science that's trying to measure thoughts, emotions, consciousness, and it's developing results. To me it's promising, but far from mature area of study. It sounds like something you may want to study yourself.
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg cont. Meta-analyses have shown antidepressants to be no better than placebo (Kirsh, Moore, Scoboria, & Nicholls, 2002; Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2005). On neuroleptics for schizophrenia there has been a zero increase in recovery rate from before and after the introduction of these drugs (33% recovery before drugs, 33% after the introduction of the drugs: Coleman, 2001; Warner, 1985). Randomized trial studies are skewed towards reporting favorable results (Rising et al., 2008)
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 As for payments, er who the hell else SHOULD pay for the trials, when governments simply don't fund scientific research to the levels needed, why shouldn't the companies looking to produce them fund it when they're the ones who'll profit? The accusation of bias is ridiculous. As for the sample selections, sure some aren't great, but most are. For your last accusation, I'm rejecting that one based on... lack of evidence! :) Provide evidence that in an INCREDIBLY competitive field, ..
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Yes the drug companies will profit (bias). They stand to profit more if the drug looks more effective. That's logical. They are selling a product. Any consumer advertising (please note, we aren't seen as humans we are called CONSUMERS) is a means to make that product look as good as possible to maximize profits. That's logic. As for the ghost written or omitted info, yes there is evidence. A LOT. If you have access to psych databases for journals I'll give the full references.
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 As for the references, please send them in PM. My point about the bias, is that you're looking at *competing* companies each wanting to sell their own solution, who have a financial interest in disproving the claims of their competitors and defending their own claims. I don't give 2 shits about the consumer advertising, I'm talking about peer reviewed papers. If you can show a widespread pattern of falsified data, then you can make your claim, without it, it's just the system workin
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@Ragnarok187 that AGAINST their own interests these researchers and companies are going to be so badly flawed?
archapmangcmg 1 year ago
@archapmangcmg Yes it is flawed but the system overlooks it because they control most of it. The companies profit if the drug looks good. Studies are frequently ghost-written and omit negative info so less chance to get caught out unless there's a court issue (you should look up THAT info that completely contradicts the released info). The FDA only needs 2 trials to pass a drug and the companies that ran the study get to pick which 2. 30 studies could fail but all they need is 2 positive to pass
Ragnarok187 1 year ago
I love that you stuck in a "Fucking Pope" in there (6:42)
lizardizzle 1 year ago
I applaueded even if no one heard it :D
xamanto 1 year ago
At the end he said "ten minutes back in time," and I looked down, and holy shit, that held my attention for ten minutes. Fucking brilliant.
RollTehSuidice 1 year ago
what the fuck wrong video
chesterngiamzhenghao 1 year ago
HE'S VOICE :O SO SEXY :O :O
itsvaniafernandes 1 year ago
'oprah interview depak chopra', that was good
fr3d420 1 year ago 2
absolutely awesome, so many great things to appreciate, from the artist, to this person's video who added the text for all to follow for a greater audience to enjoy...
thank you, both.
p3ngwin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
7:26 - 7:55 is the most awesome quote in the universe... <3 <3 <3
RageMinkStorm 1 year ago
7:26 onward is the most awesome quote in the universe... <3 <3 <3
RageMinkStorm 1 year ago
interesting that comedy provokes all of these complex arguments (and some less so..) interesting and fantastic :)
go tim
StrewnAsunder 1 year ago
So sorry if this has been said before, but the correct lyrics should start out as "Inner North London ..." not "In a North London". ;)
Also: masterpiece.
tanderullum 1 year ago 6
Comment removed
caboodles24 1 year ago
@tanderullum No "In a North London" is correct its reffering to a apartment in the northern area of London.
gmaulrocks 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gmaulrocks "Inner North London" is in fact correct rather than "In a North London", as it has been pointed out on the official blog for the animated movie: stormmovie(dot)net/blog/2010/01/top-floor-flat/ --- also in the lyrics booklet for Tim Minchin's DVD "Ready for This?", which I own. Oh, and by Tim himself through the webmistress on his official message board at tinyurl(dot)com/4x6d86g
I never post lyrics corrections unless I have my sources. ;)
tanderullum 5 months ago
@miltmerm Jaso speaks the truth, these am the interwebs, never has there been a more wretched hive of scum and villainy!
CrotchConfidence 1 year ago
I want to point out, according to nature/god I am already dead from an infection or fallen into depression from my chronic illness long ago, and my dad would probably not live to this day because he has diabetes.
Medical advances have made loads of lives possible or bearable to natural god given ilnesses, and we're only starting one day we could be able to stop aging or at the very least ensure most people live to 100.
Also why do horrible people live long, and good hearted people suffer?
Timelord001 1 year ago
@Timelord001 maybe horrible people are the offspring of conquerers and crusaders which where genetically purified through battle. There's no such thing as true genetic purity, but that's a possible answer. Maybe people with rough upbringings are less susceptible to the risks of age. These are questions and solutions that you could verify, disprove, or answer.
ubentu 1 year ago
@Timelord001 Because God's a dick.
fatkat444 1 year ago
Love this part: "Science adjusts its views based on what is observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so the belief can be preserved."
Science is the best method we have as humans (up to date) for explaining the world around us.
papatommy02 1 year ago 24
@papatommy02 ....won't science forever be the only way to actually explain the world reliably, cus religion is bollocks and star signs will never tell you anything
theangrysmurf12 1 year ago 3
@papatommy02 Science IS the explaining the world around us. No matter how we try to explain things around us (at least in a way that makes sense) it will be science.
sodlaserx 1 year ago 52
@sodlaserx Well not quite. It's explaining things by careful observation,the forming of hypothesis, the testing of that hypothesis and then forming a theory, not the lazy thinking often attempting to credit unknown intelligences.
lancethrustworthy 11 months ago
@sodlaserx
Exactly. That's what science is about, learning. That's all science is about. Science doesn't care about pride or hope, about faith or hurting someone's cherished beliefs. Science is about getting it right. You can ask a witchdoctor when the next Solar Eclipse will be, or you can ask a scientist. You will do much better with the scientist, as he will tell you exactly when, down to the very minute, where on Earth you need to be, and whether or not it will be a partial or total eclipse
KikiTottori 11 months ago 4
@sodlaserx well said!
kamarrabaksh 8 months ago
@papatommy02 although that's wrong; faith can only be attained after ample investigation. it's something that lives as one strives towards not only making observations, but also being able to act in a way as we ought to, namely to live for truth and for the greater good. Rationality is only one side of the coin; the real challenge is how do we utilize our rational capacities properly.
hockeybum90n5 1 year ago
Comment removed
hockeybum90n5 1 year ago
But.... Horton DID hear a Who..... He wasnt crazy you know
MidnightCardinal 1 year ago
Awesome! Tim's the best.
kohno214 1 year ago
IMO quite possibly one of the finest commentaries on being alive. Clever b'stard Tim is.
BLUFISH61 1 year ago
dude ... im trying to do my homework and its a rationalism 10 lines ... ya i need that poem right now!! and thats what ive got ... gosh! .... help plzz =)
Gabby4you 1 year ago
Beyond outstanding that!
v2keener 1 year ago
that was funny a few years back
frenk1973 1 year ago