Athiesm is illogical...look into it and use logical reasoning, contradicts itself...Say your agnostic, you don't know if god is real or not, you can't disprove anything, u can give hard core evidence, but u cant completely prove it wrong
Az, is it wrong that with all the well thought out philosophical points you presented in this video, I most enjoyed and am most amused by the "World full of Garys" comment?
Az: I certainly don't assume you are crazy, or theist, etc. BUT ... I've watched many of your videos now, and listening to you is like playing a hand of poker that never ends - you never seem put your cards on the table. If your position (whatever it is) is correct, then this is perhaps tolerable, but if you are wrong, then it's not so cool.
I can only assume that you assume you are right. I think this is an unfortunate and rather annoying assumption.
Athiesm isn't a fact, God isn't a fact, theories isn't fact. Stop debating and trying to prove one another wrong. There are explorers and Scientist and what have you that get paid to search for a truth. But sad to say we'll never know. Once we're dead .. that's it. Until GOD comes down and say " Hey fuckers, I'm real " That's about the only time anything going to get solved. So stop debating one way or another, Shut the fuck up and enjoy life, worship the sidewalk if you want, I DON"T CARE.
What? Did you say Richard Dawkins thinks "Intelligent Design" is science? I can't believe I heard that. If he said it, I'd like to be shown, please. Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory because there is no evidence to support it.
Yes, that's what you heard. And it's in The God Delusion, under The God Hypothesis. His idea is that if you consider ID to be science, which it is, then you can show it to be scientifically incorrect, which it is. Dawkins takes it a bit far when he extends ID to God-in-general, since God's existence is a philosophical and not scientific matter. But at any rate, yes, ID is science. And that's why it can and does fail.
Perhaps it is semantics, but it seems to me that ID cloaks itself and disguises itself as 'science'. It is indeed an 'explanation', but I have a hard time referring to it as 'Science'.
The classic Sidney Harris cartoon of the formula on the blackboard that has 'THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS' in the middle does not seem (to me) to be science. I put ID in the same 'Not Science' category.
Perhaps the existence of God can't be subjected to scientific scrutiny, but surely the purported interaction between God and the natural world can be? I think this is all Dawkins is saying: that we can look at the natural world and ask "what would we expect to see in the natural world if God created it and continues to interact with it?"
I really can't say I understand what you mean by the idea that the goal of science is to produce technology. The goal of science is to construct a framework of testable reality, to understand the actual laws of the universe. Technology is a happy side effect of that
Az, why can't you just accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Philosophy and Science are the ways of the Devil, to confuse you and stray you away from the Lord, I will pray for you, I'd hate to see someone with such a cool nose ring go to hell.
science is a social construction like basically every other idea and concept in the world. it functions to provide mythology for your everyday person as much as television or history.
YES! Science is helpful to build technology. As for how to use the technology, or how to live our lives... science says absolutely NOTHING. Science itself would be VERY different if the way we interacted with the world was different.
Those people who were raised worshipping science, like myself, tend to forget that. But I don't mind it really, I enjoy science. I enjoy studying it and thinking about it, but I try to be wary of how I incorporate that knowledge into my worldview.
inmendham isn't going to understand what you're talking about, ever. It's too simple of a concept. It doesn't take into account the things that he assumes as true (without ever thinking any more about it) The most brilliant people, do just as you do Az...They break reality and perception down to its lowest common denominators.
perception of reality is more in line of what I mean.
Someone like Gary doesn't have the intelligence to do this, and will most likely always be confused by your ideas. But instead of admitting that he's confused, He will attack the ideas.
It's all about tool making and has always been and always will be. As soon as man had the spark of consciousness he became fearful. Through this fear he created tools for survival. When darkness came he became even more fearful and through this his imagination took off.
If we all have to be Gary's do I also have to grow the trucker/handlebar 'stache? I don't think it would frame my face very well. I'll dumb myself down if necessary but it's important for dumb girls to still be pretty, you know ;p
Listening to your whole videos and not focusing on the sensation of being attacked can be very useful, and i wish some atheists would actually take the time to do that. I do have to disagree on one point. I don't think saying science is after new technology is particularly accurate. Science is based on experimentation, so fundamentally it is looking for consistency. Technology is the most useful byproduct, but fundamentally its all about predictive power.
3 -- Science is about finding truth (or probable truth), not just technology and medicine (which it finds as well). That is what a large part of cosmology, evolution, physics, and quantum physics is about. Finding answers to questions.
4 -- Logic is part of science. Though science should not incorporate philosophy...philosophy SHOULD incorporate science.
On the subject of mixing work with pleasure... err... I mean Science with philosophy... How do you feel about the movie, "What the bleep do we know?" I could tell you what I think as a scientist, but I'd like to hear what you have to say as a philosopher.
As a philosopher? Well, as an individual, I think it's ridiculous. I think it's a good (or is it just terrible?) example of the rhetorical abuses of science.
The technology that will eventually replace today's processor technology was not the purpose of the science (in this case, quantum mechanics) that led to it.
Had all science been driven by the need to refine existing technology or create new technology, most scientific breakthroughs would have never come about.
In 20 years, current processor technology will have come as far as it can go. The thinnest layer of today's processors is already only 5 atoms thick.
Though this technology will be at a dead end soon, there will be something new to replace it from the field of quantum mechanics, a science that has nothing to do with the science behind current processor technology.
azrienoch, science is not for creating technology. Technology is a byproduct of science, not the purpose of it. The purpose of science is to provide a better understanding of the physical world.
What drives science is curiosity; not the search for new technology. Darwin did not create the theory of evolution with medical technology in mind. Newton did not devise the universal laws of motion and gravitation for industry, nor did Einstein when he improved upon some of those laws.
Science is a practicing religion. Yes, I agree with your ideal of science. When anyone challenges a leading theory, you will discover how much the author of this leading theory will believe in his theory. The difference between belief and knowledge. Belief has no doubt. Knowledge is always questioned.
:D... I don't see strange philosophical creatures either I just don't think that necessarily means they don't exist... yes its unlikely but all things are possible....
And you are lucky not to ponder that possibility... its damn painful, outright irritating, highly depressing at times... but I am slowly finding comfort in the acceptance that I will never know anything for certain but I can at least work within the current framework of functional reality and knowledge.
Actually, it does matter which you believe. It matters to a jihadist that he believes in an afterlife--he might not kill himself if he did not believe in an afterlife. I agree with you that "truth" is not the issue. Rather, it is a war of concepts or conceptual systems. You don't have to say evolution is "more true," but you could say it is a richer, more compelling concept than creationism. This means it is "better" in some sense that is similar to "more true."
I'm sorry for being ignorant, but what is "truth". I'm new to philosophy, but I have great interest in it and I am fascinated by epistemology. Any references that anyone could provide, or suggested reading on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, pchannell
What does science have to do with "creating technologies"? That's not the intended goal of science. There is no intended goal beyond trying to understand. Creating technologies? I guess I just have no idea what you're talking about. I can't even guess, really....
Since it's not necessary for a theory to make common sense to be scientifically sound. When a theory needs only to fit the data . If when does a correction have to be made .All one can do is view knowledge/science as best known means.-Truth is a word,a thought set apart selfish valor.
you have the best facial expressions... you know in the first 10 seconds you look exactly like Chuck Norris? This is why i don't vlog. I want to, but I won't. I don't even have a camera, and I won't go out and buy one either. There is no point. :)
Aw, shit. I got caught up in stroking az's ego that I forgot to ask my question.... Intelligent Design is a science? Really? Is it the same as Creationism? I'm confused.
Creationism has a connotation as presumptuous and lacking in empirical evidences. Think of creationism as the thesis. The 'rational response squad' as Az as so put it before came along and tried to scientifically disprove this thesis. Not long after scientists with religious standpoints came and tried to debunk the scientists of the anti-creationism persuasion. This scientific antithesis to the nonexistence of God was Intelligent design. I got the ball rolling. Someone correct me if i'm wrong
Okay. Well, the RRS is an actual organization, though, I think. So does I.D. have anything going for it scientifically or is it just a big 'nuh-uh' to the RRS?
As I said in the original video, we can compare the utility of intelligent design to the utility of other explanations. Can't do that if it's not scientific. I suppose that description of a theory as scientific comes post hoc.
...Oooooh wow...O.o this Inmendham fellow, did not deserve the response. All the same - I still enjoyed this video. Even when you're simply responding to someone else's video you still manage to raise points that make me wonder if I know anything at all. Thanks!
Science is a method. You can trust the outcomes of the method because you have confidence that the method works. By true, when I talk about science I mean it is the most accurate explanation of reality so far in this particular area. I am not under the illusion I will every have a 100% accurate picture of everything or even close.
Leave it to imendham to twist the message to make it out into something its not so he can have an excuse to make a long winded drama video about how wrong everyone is.
"Maybe I'll be just like you...Wouldn't that be wonderful?" Only as long as we all get lifetime supplies of hair bleach to keep our incredible look consistent!!!
Very elegantly said. I too am sick of the overly black-and-white worldview of the type of atheists who think being an atheist is something to be proud of.
Are you saying that scientific models don't have to be true to be useful? If a theory fails to produce technology is it useless? If evolution occured and is occuring is it not a true statement to proclaim that evolution occured? Do you have an intellectual defintion of truth, or fact that cannot be applied to science? Scientist do not claim an absolute truth, which is why I'm asking. If you have a minute you can toss me a scrap or crumb. Thanks. If I'm in rut, I want to get past it.
rowing a boat is unproductive and inefficient. For us to progress we need strong atheists. Strong atheism is an objectively defined absolute truth that can be measured by non-phantasmagorical apparatus invented by scientistificists.
I have to disagree that science is there to create new technology. Indeed that coupling with technology is perhaps a very poorly understood link that we assign without question. I remember my advisor replying to a friend's question "What practical application does that research have?" The answer was, "None at all." Science at its core is about understanding through method, not the creation of new technology.
nice vid for the most part. But! You didnt actually answer his last point you just mocked him. Yes the world would be awesome if we all looked like captain feathersword aka Gary but it isn't a rebuttle to what he said.
You're still my favorite high minded brainiac though.
I think in a world of Garys they'd be all pissed off because they'd have nothing to be pissed off about. And would just walk around treating each other like shit.
You could have just as easily said that science is the pursuit of the understanding of the natural world.
If we both look at a wall which has been coated with a hydrocarbon substance which doesn't absorb photons with 450 nm wavelength one of us could say 'the wall is blue' another could say 'the paint on the wall is blue' still a third could say 'actually it's purple' or 'walls are just conceptual entities, what you see are just electrons, photons and quarks interacting' & they'd all be right.
Always knew inmenhm was a bad philosopher. His "philosophy" videos make so little sense that they hurt my brain. By contrst Ben and Az always teach me something.
I agree. They are the brain trust behind much of my recent intellectual growth. If you like Az and Ben, you might enjoy pyrrho314. He's prolific, but worth ever second.
Yes, I should. I suppose I'm using it in a slightly different way than its normal use. I'd say technology, as far as this discussion is concerned, is what is utilizable as a tool. When we explore something scientifically, we search for its utility. And when we make scientific discoveries, we are discovering potential utility.
I've actually noticed that you use many words in a "slightly different way than its normal use" You might want to start stating your definitions of the concepts you talk about BEFORE you start talking about them, otherwise you end up having people at each others' throats when they actually agree with each other(and with you) if they could just get past the semantics.
I used to do that more. People accused me of either pedanticism or resigning myself to language with no consideration for or application to the real world. I took that as an indication that they thought they were smart enough, and gave them the benefit of the doubt. In the end, those who simply want to disagree with you probably will, and I'd rather let them while getting something done, as opposed to clarifying all the time.
Just saw the other guy's video. I think 'someone' needs certitude to feel secure^^
One can construct a belief system from out of anything...science, religion, myth, humanism, etc. Some may be more useful than others within some given context(i.e., biological naturalism in explaining the relationship between the brain and consciousness). But such usefulness is different from truth. All belief systems are constructs. How absurd to seek certitude, truth, security in constructs.
AZ, I don't think Gary can actually be disagreeing with you because I don't think he actually understands some of what you've said. He's only disagreeing with what HE thinks you have said. This world of language is a mess isn't it? If we could only communicate telepathically...
AZ...What am I going to do? I went to university to study the philosophy and history of science. And now I found out that there is no such thing as the philosophy of science? =) BUT I do agree with you that aspects of evolution (especially natural selection) have bleed into ethical theory where it doesn't belong. . Quoting what Inmendham says about you by actually playing his words, is seems a very effective strategy. A world of Gary(s) would self-destruct fairly quickly - That's my bet anyway.
No no no, philosophy of science is just fine. I mean, hell, we're talking about what is and is not science, how we should and should not do science. We're under no illusion that we are doing science here.
This sounds naive, science uninformed by philosophy and vice-versa would exhaust themselves in tedium on the one hand, and in whacky idealism on the other.
Here's a rough metaphor: Say existence is a Rorschach ink blot. We zoom in on a teeny tiny part of it, a curved line, and that's one belief system. But we are always zooming in on different parts. So some people take their little piece, and say that covers it all. Other's take multiple pieces, saying each is useful in a particular context. But none of them are the final, absolute view. Perhaps slowly our view is enlarging, taking in more. It's all different contexts.
Listening to you, I realize how much sometime religion and science are in many way's identical in practice. Yea we don't mix philosophy with science (old philosopher sounded like retards when they talked about the physical world lol!)But could we say that most people have a blind faith in Science?
When we look at people taking pills as they would recite Rosaries for calming their mind, in the end it's the same. Yea science or religion are means to seek answers, but not the "Answer". Merci!
Salut bwhahrhr, It does if we take how the general population perceive and submit to science in blind Faith. The last sixtie years are a good example of scientific blind faith,as ex: DDT, BPC, are the result of scientific research (well they didn't try hard!)and everybody was using them and saying, it's scientific, it must be good!
Science is great, blind faith to it ain't. Though I have to admit that the scientific competitions doesn't help science people in doing a good research job. Salut!
you're mixing science with thechnology and I think you should nock it off, I think everyone should nock it off... I think anybody who dares to mix science with thechnology... should nock it off.. Because it's annoying, it's actually hurting the progress we could be making. ;)
Good thing atheism is defined as a lack of belief (specifically in gods). Most atheists seem to be prone to rationalism and adhere to natural philosophy, but they do not necessarily have to do so.
Good defense! Your grin at the beginning was the best! We all know you're at least trying to 'open up' a 'kind' of 'door,' just not the one Gary is describing.
What's atrocious is how he holds three completely different, antagonizing views to be equivocal and then reduces them to 'phantasmagorical.' Anything that deviates from his objective gaze is abjected and ruled out on 'face value.'
Science, according to the The Organon - EASG Dictionary, is grouped under the "coordinate concepts" of information and philosophy. Bacon identified science as the treating nature as an "original of instrument" ie. using nature as a tool: a tool for the discovery of principles in natural philosophy, for the establishment of a prediction based on natural observations, and technology. Your identification of science with a mere framework for the creation of technology is too simplistic- and wrong.
Actually, science as a framework for the creation of technology was precisely Bacon's dictum.
Science was not a "tool for discovery", for Bacon. Rather, science is a tool for the advancement of human ends and goals. This is where the "knowledge is power" language comes from. If you know something, then you will be able to show you know it by some concrete effect in the world.
You make Bacon sounds more like Aristotle. He would not have appreciated that.
Az is more fond of the idea that concepts and understanding should be from experience and not guesses of the matrix. Science is fond of the same idea. It doesn't claim absolute truth, it just has the same viewpoint as Az has.
Pragmatism, my friend. The meaning of truth is no more than "what works". You are making sophisticated philosophical observations with an outdated (and literally meaningless) conception of "truth," thereby coming to the mistaken conclusion that truth is something to which we have no access. This is Kant's meaningless Ding an sich, not truth.
Oh, I don't think so. I think plenty of people are stuck with the old notion of truth (at least for now), and it would be a mistake to stop identifying where it pops up just yet. Kant is right there with Descartes in his perversion for demonstration. So many others are too. If we use "truth" in an updated manner, we're inviting misunderstanding.
But there is no understanding to be lost in the first place. It's not as if the "old" notion of truth was even meaningful to begin with.
It is a confusion of the third person perspective as being the unconditioned narrator of reality. You see a snake; oh but the narrator knows that it is "really" just a garden hose!
But this 3rd-person narrator is nowhere to be found. We only have one another's perceptions to account for. Thus, "true" is always conditioned by "from the perspective of...".
True, but I'm not about to dismiss what people indicate they think just because I don't think it'll lead them anywhere. People speak in certain ways, and we'd be foolish to speak as if they automatically recognize that we speak differently.
ominous silencee follows. please, i can't live with the suspence. this thread needs some closure. somebody die? get pwned... something? even child knows science proves there is no god. if we only indoctrinated them faster. no, must resist pedosofia...
The ending is (H)ilarious.
Shoemagic 3 years ago
Athiesm is illogical...look into it and use logical reasoning, contradicts itself...Say your agnostic, you don't know if god is real or not, you can't disprove anything, u can give hard core evidence, but u cant completely prove it wrong
dominator7593 3 years ago
2:22-2:26 Amazing. Sometimes points get across better without any words.
xjosephoenix 3 years ago
Az, is it wrong that with all the well thought out philosophical points you presented in this video, I most enjoyed and am most amused by the "World full of Garys" comment?
JasperAvi 3 years ago
Az: I certainly don't assume you are crazy, or theist, etc. BUT ... I've watched many of your videos now, and listening to you is like playing a hand of poker that never ends - you never seem put your cards on the table. If your position (whatever it is) is correct, then this is perhaps tolerable, but if you are wrong, then it's not so cool.
I can only assume that you assume you are right. I think this is an unfortunate and rather annoying assumption.
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago
/mock you saying its fairly safe to assume.
XeoBlade 3 years ago
inmedham is shit. best? he just dug his hole deeper (that wasnt a smart move inmedham)
Boldtrash 3 years ago
Athiesm isn't a fact, God isn't a fact, theories isn't fact. Stop debating and trying to prove one another wrong. There are explorers and Scientist and what have you that get paid to search for a truth. But sad to say we'll never know. Once we're dead .. that's it. Until GOD comes down and say " Hey fuckers, I'm real " That's about the only time anything going to get solved. So stop debating one way or another, Shut the fuck up and enjoy life, worship the sidewalk if you want, I DON"T CARE.
ilovealf 3 years ago
Atheism cannot be entitled to its beliefs. Atheism has no beliefs, so how can they be entitled to something they don't have.
Turtleboi491 3 years ago
I'm extremely curious.
Why did you even respond to him?
Mephistophilus 3 years ago
the brain is a super atom
cardellacole1 3 years ago
What? Did you say Richard Dawkins thinks "Intelligent Design" is science? I can't believe I heard that. If he said it, I'd like to be shown, please. Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory because there is no evidence to support it.
RegressLess 3 years ago
Yes, that's what you heard. And it's in The God Delusion, under The God Hypothesis. His idea is that if you consider ID to be science, which it is, then you can show it to be scientifically incorrect, which it is. Dawkins takes it a bit far when he extends ID to God-in-general, since God's existence is a philosophical and not scientific matter. But at any rate, yes, ID is science. And that's why it can and does fail.
azrienoch 3 years ago
As long as we agree it's bad science.
RegressLess 3 years ago 2
Perhaps it is semantics, but it seems to me that ID cloaks itself and disguises itself as 'science'. It is indeed an 'explanation', but I have a hard time referring to it as 'Science'.
The classic Sidney Harris cartoon of the formula on the blackboard that has 'THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS' in the middle does not seem (to me) to be science. I put ID in the same 'Not Science' category.
PlayHanghang 3 years ago
Perhaps the existence of God can't be subjected to scientific scrutiny, but surely the purported interaction between God and the natural world can be? I think this is all Dawkins is saying: that we can look at the natural world and ask "what would we expect to see in the natural world if God created it and continues to interact with it?"
LeafInTheStream 3 years ago
Philosophers have always made assholes of themselves when they tried to tell us what the natural world was about. Nothing changes.
2yng2di 3 years ago
I don't know how you can even manage to talk with Immendham without pulling your hair out. He is almost as annoying as VFX if not more so.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
Whoops I apologize, I mistaken Immendham for someone else. :D I take that back.
Jaikkanen 3 years ago
I really can't say I understand what you mean by the idea that the goal of science is to produce technology. The goal of science is to construct a framework of testable reality, to understand the actual laws of the universe. Technology is a happy side effect of that
simchamo 3 years ago
I love how Az is able to sufficiently argue his points without getting angry while Immendham must resort to all kinds of verbal attacks...
dantaeos 3 years ago 3
I tip my hat to you sir.
dayglowdave 3 years ago
Postulation is the same as assumption, don't be a hypocrite.
kittycorpsevildead 3 years ago
You still look goofy with that thing in your nose.
bapyou 3 years ago
I get the same feeling while watching Gary's videos. I simply want to say to him this:
Darwin published a scientific treatise titled "On the Origin of the Species". He did not publish a book titled "The Meaning of Life on Earth".
Darwin's work merely demonstrates a mechanism for the appearance of difference/variation in organisms in nature.
Gary has taken it to the bank and pretends like he knows the meaning of Life and that anyone who does not see it that way deserves a CHARCOUNT.
otonanoC 3 years ago
Az
Would I trust the study of language in your hands rather than in Inmendham's; yes.
Are you sure you don't skew the line between fact and truth every bit as much as he does?
zenguin13 3 years ago
cool zeng,
are you proposing that az has skewed the line between fact and truth. If so, do you have any examples that you would like to share with us?
istheretruth 3 years ago
it's a question isthere. nothing more.
zenguin13 3 years ago
so if the answer from Az, was "no" that he has not skewed the line, this would be satisfactory to you?
istheretruth 3 years ago
I'm positive that I skew the line. But 1) everyone does, we have no other option, and 2) I know about it.
azrienoch 3 years ago
amen to that brother!!!
istheretruth 3 years ago
Az, why can't you just accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior? Philosophy and Science are the ways of the Devil, to confuse you and stray you away from the Lord, I will pray for you, I'd hate to see someone with such a cool nose ring go to hell.
lookagain77 3 years ago
science is a social construction like basically every other idea and concept in the world. it functions to provide mythology for your everyday person as much as television or history.
BozNow 3 years ago
Science is a map representing the world.
Value judgements are ways in which we create an itinerary to go from one place to another. Did the map tell us where to go? NO.
loneskeptic 3 years ago
intelligent design is not science because it lacks a limiting scope. but ur right science is not a search for truth, since theories cant be true.
sec0f111 3 years ago
YES! Science is helpful to build technology. As for how to use the technology, or how to live our lives... science says absolutely NOTHING. Science itself would be VERY different if the way we interacted with the world was different.
Those people who were raised worshipping science, like myself, tend to forget that. But I don't mind it really, I enjoy science. I enjoy studying it and thinking about it, but I try to be wary of how I incorporate that knowledge into my worldview.
bickleschmickle 3 years ago
Inmendham is way out of his league when he takes on Az.
ImmortalBits 3 years ago
inmendham isn't going to understand what you're talking about, ever. It's too simple of a concept. It doesn't take into account the things that he assumes as true (without ever thinking any more about it) The most brilliant people, do just as you do Az...They break reality and perception down to its lowest common denominators.
istheretruth 3 years ago
perception of reality is more in line of what I mean.
Someone like Gary doesn't have the intelligence to do this, and will most likely always be confused by your ideas. But instead of admitting that he's confused, He will attack the ideas.
istheretruth 3 years ago
Looks like I picked a bad time to stop dropping acid.
premed411 3 years ago
It's all about tool making and has always been and always will be. As soon as man had the spark of consciousness he became fearful. Through this fear he created tools for survival. When darkness came he became even more fearful and through this his imagination took off.
VisionQuest2012 3 years ago
very good video.
TheChrisPass 3 years ago
A world of gary's...where nothing gets done!!!
tantalusmcdaddy 3 years ago
If we all have to be Gary's do I also have to grow the trucker/handlebar 'stache? I don't think it would frame my face very well. I'll dumb myself down if necessary but it's important for dumb girls to still be pretty, you know ;p
missdivinestalls 3 years ago
Listening to your whole videos and not focusing on the sensation of being attacked can be very useful, and i wish some atheists would actually take the time to do that. I do have to disagree on one point. I don't think saying science is after new technology is particularly accurate. Science is based on experimentation, so fundamentally it is looking for consistency. Technology is the most useful byproduct, but fundamentally its all about predictive power.
Sin116 3 years ago
Just a few points:
1 - Atheism is not a belief; it is a lack of one.
2 -- Intelligent Design is not science and Richard Dawkins does NOT agree that it is. He believes it is pseudo-science.
(more...)
trick0171 3 years ago
3 -- Science is about finding truth (or probable truth), not just technology and medicine (which it finds as well). That is what a large part of cosmology, evolution, physics, and quantum physics is about. Finding answers to questions.
4 -- Logic is part of science. Though science should not incorporate philosophy...philosophy SHOULD incorporate science.
5 - Very funny ending :)
trick0171 3 years ago
"the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct"
so if science comes up with a way for you to have an extra body in the basement, for spare parts, philosophy has no influence?
I don't know how science and philosophy can't touch each other and mix now and again.
the fact that man exists and developed both philosophy and science makes it impossible to separate the two, there's really no escape.
marniespeaks 3 years ago
Don't mix philosophy and science?
hum ok, I will knock it off.
If it worked for PB and chocolate, I figured... oh well.
NihilistZealot 3 years ago
On the subject of mixing work with pleasure... err... I mean Science with philosophy... How do you feel about the movie, "What the bleep do we know?" I could tell you what I think as a scientist, but I'd like to hear what you have to say as a philosopher.
ailboles 3 years ago
As a philosopher? Well, as an individual, I think it's ridiculous. I think it's a good (or is it just terrible?) example of the rhetorical abuses of science.
azrienoch 3 years ago
The technology that will eventually replace today's processor technology was not the purpose of the science (in this case, quantum mechanics) that led to it.
Had all science been driven by the need to refine existing technology or create new technology, most scientific breakthroughs would have never come about.
sexyloser 3 years ago
In 20 years, current processor technology will have come as far as it can go. The thinnest layer of today's processors is already only 5 atoms thick.
Though this technology will be at a dead end soon, there will be something new to replace it from the field of quantum mechanics, a science that has nothing to do with the science behind current processor technology.
sexyloser 3 years ago
azrienoch, science is not for creating technology. Technology is a byproduct of science, not the purpose of it. The purpose of science is to provide a better understanding of the physical world.
What drives science is curiosity; not the search for new technology. Darwin did not create the theory of evolution with medical technology in mind. Newton did not devise the universal laws of motion and gravitation for industry, nor did Einstein when he improved upon some of those laws.
sexyloser 3 years ago 2
Science is a practicing religion. Yes, I agree with your ideal of science. When anyone challenges a leading theory, you will discover how much the author of this leading theory will believe in his theory. The difference between belief and knowledge. Belief has no doubt. Knowledge is always questioned.
ZullGostnu 3 years ago
:D... I don't see strange philosophical creatures either I just don't think that necessarily means they don't exist... yes its unlikely but all things are possible....
And you are lucky not to ponder that possibility... its damn painful, outright irritating, highly depressing at times... but I am slowly finding comfort in the acceptance that I will never know anything for certain but I can at least work within the current framework of functional reality and knowledge.
thequestionmarkofGod 3 years ago
All questions beyond the answers we already have, that is what is next, that is what will be real and always has been real.
PriestAscetic 3 years ago
Actually, it does matter which you believe. It matters to a jihadist that he believes in an afterlife--he might not kill himself if he did not believe in an afterlife. I agree with you that "truth" is not the issue. Rather, it is a war of concepts or conceptual systems. You don't have to say evolution is "more true," but you could say it is a richer, more compelling concept than creationism. This means it is "better" in some sense that is similar to "more true."
carnalphilosopher 3 years ago
we are all just garys doing our best lol
grenangle 3 years ago
I'm sorry for being ignorant, but what is "truth". I'm new to philosophy, but I have great interest in it and I am fascinated by epistemology. Any references that anyone could provide, or suggested reading on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, pchannell
pchannell 3 years ago
Search truth in wikipedia. They should have a good article on it.
mistaspot1 3 years ago
I disagree. I think science is the search for understanding. Technology is a byproduct of science.
igodstheoryi 3 years ago
Hey, Az. I've kinda missed you, buddy.
TheGrammarian 3 years ago
I love this video. Favorite.
MADAMSsays 3 years ago
What does science have to do with "creating technologies"? That's not the intended goal of science. There is no intended goal beyond trying to understand. Creating technologies? I guess I just have no idea what you're talking about. I can't even guess, really....
mistaspot1 3 years ago
Also, I want to add that people don't believe IN science. They just believe science.
mistaspot1 3 years ago
but science believes in natural world... whatever its technology might turn out to be.
jogayot 3 years ago
Fallin off my chair funny.
wanman0813 3 years ago
Since it's not necessary for a theory to make common sense to be scientifically sound. When a theory needs only to fit the data . If when does a correction have to be made .All one can do is view knowledge/science as best known means.-Truth is a word,a thought set apart selfish valor.
axisapex 3 years ago
The last was a response to reflectionist by the way
Radivoi 3 years ago
So by this definition of science you pose, would the purpose of studies in evolution in be to create new technologies in transhumanism?
Person009 3 years ago
*studies in evolution to be
*technologies for tranhumanism
Person009 3 years ago
you have the best facial expressions... you know in the first 10 seconds you look exactly like Chuck Norris? This is why i don't vlog. I want to, but I won't. I don't even have a camera, and I won't go out and buy one either. There is no point. :)
reflectionist 3 years ago
Aw, shit. I got caught up in stroking az's ego that I forgot to ask my question.... Intelligent Design is a science? Really? Is it the same as Creationism? I'm confused.
reflectionist 3 years ago
Creationism has a connotation as presumptuous and lacking in empirical evidences. Think of creationism as the thesis. The 'rational response squad' as Az as so put it before came along and tried to scientifically disprove this thesis. Not long after scientists with religious standpoints came and tried to debunk the scientists of the anti-creationism persuasion. This scientific antithesis to the nonexistence of God was Intelligent design. I got the ball rolling. Someone correct me if i'm wrong
Radivoi 3 years ago
Okay. Well, the RRS is an actual organization, though, I think. So does I.D. have anything going for it scientifically or is it just a big 'nuh-uh' to the RRS?
reflectionist 3 years ago
it's a hypothesis made by stupid people if I'm getting my words right.
Dadalama 3 years ago
You're not. :) (to dadalama)
reflectionist 3 years ago
so what criteria does it have to be before it's a hypothesis... I know "intelligent design" literally cannot be a theory.
or maybe I'm missing something here
Dadalama 3 years ago
Az says it's science; take it up with him.
reflectionist 3 years ago
As I said in the original video, we can compare the utility of intelligent design to the utility of other explanations. Can't do that if it's not scientific. I suppose that description of a theory as scientific comes post hoc.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Ok, then. Just because it's taken scientifically by certain people doesn't make it scientific at all..?
reflectionist 3 years ago
Never mind. "Richard Dawkins and I agree: Intelligent Design is science."
So what does THAT mean, I guess is what I'm trying to say...?
reflectionist 3 years ago
...Oooooh wow...O.o this Inmendham fellow, did not deserve the response. All the same - I still enjoyed this video. Even when you're simply responding to someone else's video you still manage to raise points that make me wonder if I know anything at all. Thanks!
caitfromcanada 3 years ago
Two cups science, a tablespoon of philosophy; mix well and cook for 30 minutes at 350degF. Now eat it, Az! :-P
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
451degF... it gets rid of all those pesky paper messages ;-P
jogayot 3 years ago
A world of Gary's?
If they have too think like him can they at least look like Scarlett Johansson?
Mjhavok 3 years ago
What is a belief of atheism?
Science is a method. You can trust the outcomes of the method because you have confidence that the method works. By true, when I talk about science I mean it is the most accurate explanation of reality so far in this particular area. I am not under the illusion I will every have a 100% accurate picture of everything or even close.
Science is what scientists do.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
I love the sound of a new asshole being torn, as if Gary needed another!
busheybushdawg 3 years ago
Didn't you also say that you used to play for the LA Lakers? I just thought I'd throw that in, since people are making stuff up.
SomeBSUTubeName 3 years ago
why are people so offended by mastery of language?
PFTECHMETAL 3 years ago
The flame thrower of logic(with a dash of sarcasm) is the best way to deal with Gary's elite straw man commandos.
cehbeach 3 years ago
YOU ARE FUCKING AMAZING. You should make music.
NWOisSCHITT 3 years ago
You don't see magical philosophical entities?
andrewrberkshire 3 years ago
Fnord!
koenichfuerst 3 years ago
I feel dizzy...
TheDevilsAdvocate55 3 years ago
Philosophy is a science so is logic.
mikecampochiaro 3 years ago
The ending was great!
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
So wouldn't you say the study of history, music, art, literature and so on is science?
DaVinci85 3 years ago
Leave it to imendham to twist the message to make it out into something its not so he can have an excuse to make a long winded drama video about how wrong everyone is.
TheDevilsAdvocate55 3 years ago 4
keep it up azrienoch, your responses were eloquent and thorough.
another1shortdaymore 3 years ago
Long-lasting explanations, whether "scientific" or "not" reflect social conditions - the most satisfying science changes the most.
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
Some of these dogmatists of scientism are so belligerent that I can imagine a new inquisition being led by them ha ha
demonfelix 3 years ago
A world of gays is just one r away from a world of garys... so don't be hatin on the garys, or the garys will march on your streets in protest!
baseballgeek 3 years ago
"Maybe I'll be just like you...Wouldn't that be wonderful?" Only as long as we all get lifetime supplies of hair bleach to keep our incredible look consistent!!!
goldengun85 3 years ago
i told you that you'd be misunderstood!
i just didn't expect the "opposition" to counter your arguments with such a plethora of straw-men!
eternalundylnglove 3 years ago 2
Thank You. You are consistent.
exit7sleaf 3 years ago
YAY for technology and advancement !
BOOOH for religion and stagnation !
Peace \/
The1stArtist 3 years ago
Very elegantly said. I too am sick of the overly black-and-white worldview of the type of atheists who think being an atheist is something to be proud of.
celsius233 3 years ago
A world of Garys? EW.
rowsdowersavesus 3 years ago
Are you saying that scientific models don't have to be true to be useful? If a theory fails to produce technology is it useless? If evolution occured and is occuring is it not a true statement to proclaim that evolution occured? Do you have an intellectual defintion of truth, or fact that cannot be applied to science? Scientist do not claim an absolute truth, which is why I'm asking. If you have a minute you can toss me a scrap or crumb. Thanks. If I'm in rut, I want to get past it.
Brainmold 3 years ago
rowing a boat is unproductive and inefficient. For us to progress we need strong atheists. Strong atheism is an objectively defined absolute truth that can be measured by non-phantasmagorical apparatus invented by scientistificists.
gratex 3 years ago 3
"objectively defined absolute truth"
Wow the name sounds great, but what does that mean?
What is "objectively defined" in a language of idiolects?
What is an "absolute truth"? you probably mean true in your definition of truth.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
I think the word you are looking for is scientician. lol.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
I have to disagree that science is there to create new technology. Indeed that coupling with technology is perhaps a very poorly understood link that we assign without question. I remember my advisor replying to a friend's question "What practical application does that research have?" The answer was, "None at all." Science at its core is about understanding through method, not the creation of new technology.
RoadRrunner 3 years ago
nice vid for the most part. But! You didnt actually answer his last point you just mocked him. Yes the world would be awesome if we all looked like captain feathersword aka Gary but it isn't a rebuttle to what he said.
You're still my favorite high minded brainiac though.
psycropticunt 3 years ago
No conflicts in a "A world of Garys"? I don't think so :D
tmafkap 3 years ago 2
I think in a world of Garys they'd be all pissed off because they'd have nothing to be pissed off about. And would just walk around treating each other like shit.
Dadalama 3 years ago
You could have just as easily said that science is the pursuit of the understanding of the natural world.
If we both look at a wall which has been coated with a hydrocarbon substance which doesn't absorb photons with 450 nm wavelength one of us could say 'the wall is blue' another could say 'the paint on the wall is blue' still a third could say 'actually it's purple' or 'walls are just conceptual entities, what you see are just electrons, photons and quarks interacting' & they'd all be right.
studio7manga 3 years ago
a world of garys... hmmmm
IChoseTheRedPill 3 years ago
Az, stop trifling with lunatics and write me some fiction! =)
lirpa69 3 years ago
Doh! You're right. Damn it. I just can't seem to shake these kicks. I'll do it though. Keep hounding me.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Of course I am! =D
Can't wait to edit you again. I'll ping you lots!
lirpa69 3 years ago
Always knew inmenhm was a bad philosopher. His "philosophy" videos make so little sense that they hurt my brain. By contrst Ben and Az always teach me something.
joness105639 3 years ago
I agree. They are the brain trust behind much of my recent intellectual growth. If you like Az and Ben, you might enjoy pyrrho314. He's prolific, but worth ever second.
lirpa69 3 years ago
argh, every!
lirpa69 3 years ago
Inmendham is a freak. I'm not sure why you're wasting your time.
kublakhan1816 3 years ago
Az, can you provide a definition for technology?
Newton1692 3 years ago
Yes, I should. I suppose I'm using it in a slightly different way than its normal use. I'd say technology, as far as this discussion is concerned, is what is utilizable as a tool. When we explore something scientifically, we search for its utility. And when we make scientific discoveries, we are discovering potential utility.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I've actually noticed that you use many words in a "slightly different way than its normal use" You might want to start stating your definitions of the concepts you talk about BEFORE you start talking about them, otherwise you end up having people at each others' throats when they actually agree with each other(and with you) if they could just get past the semantics.
lookagain77 3 years ago
I used to do that more. People accused me of either pedanticism or resigning myself to language with no consideration for or application to the real world. I took that as an indication that they thought they were smart enough, and gave them the benefit of the doubt. In the end, those who simply want to disagree with you probably will, and I'd rather let them while getting something done, as opposed to clarifying all the time.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Please clarify this comment further.
lookagain77 3 years ago
I could spend an eternity setting myself up for what I want to say, or I can just say it.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I like eternity
lookagain77 3 years ago
wait, I think I need to clarify my last comment...shit!
lookagain77 3 years ago
You're my most favoritest high-minded brainiac.
lirpa69 3 years ago
You look so much more handsome without your glasses.
TheHornyChihuahua 3 years ago
Just saw the other guy's video. I think 'someone' needs certitude to feel secure^^
One can construct a belief system from out of anything...science, religion, myth, humanism, etc. Some may be more useful than others within some given context(i.e., biological naturalism in explaining the relationship between the brain and consciousness). But such usefulness is different from truth. All belief systems are constructs. How absurd to seek certitude, truth, security in constructs.
demonfelix 3 years ago
AZ, I don't think Gary can actually be disagreeing with you because I don't think he actually understands some of what you've said. He's only disagreeing with what HE thinks you have said. This world of language is a mess isn't it? If we could only communicate telepathically...
lookagain77 3 years ago 4
Inmendham is the shining example of the Harmonium (if you've ever played the odder expansions of DnD).
Dadalama 3 years ago
Lol! Planescape!
touchingstoves 3 years ago
AZ...What am I going to do? I went to university to study the philosophy and history of science. And now I found out that there is no such thing as the philosophy of science? =) BUT I do agree with you that aspects of evolution (especially natural selection) have bleed into ethical theory where it doesn't belong. . Quoting what Inmendham says about you by actually playing his words, is seems a very effective strategy. A world of Gary(s) would self-destruct fairly quickly - That's my bet anyway.
2bsirius 3 years ago
No no no, philosophy of science is just fine. I mean, hell, we're talking about what is and is not science, how we should and should not do science. We're under no illusion that we are doing science here.
azrienoch 3 years ago
It is annoying to mix philosophy with science?
This sounds naive, science uninformed by philosophy and vice-versa would exhaust themselves in tedium on the one hand, and in whacky idealism on the other.
By the way, as to truth are you a relativist?
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
"It doesn't matter that science is true or not" what a strange statement:
that a medicine is believed to be true or not does affect its healing powers, hence the placebo effect.
"Best" is subjective, it appears to mean for you that it has fetile applications regardless of its truth.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
Great response, Az!
Here's a rough metaphor: Say existence is a Rorschach ink blot. We zoom in on a teeny tiny part of it, a curved line, and that's one belief system. But we are always zooming in on different parts. So some people take their little piece, and say that covers it all. Other's take multiple pieces, saying each is useful in a particular context. But none of them are the final, absolute view. Perhaps slowly our view is enlarging, taking in more. It's all different contexts.
StevenErnest 3 years ago
Listening to you, I realize how much sometime religion and science are in many way's identical in practice. Yea we don't mix philosophy with science (old philosopher sounded like retards when they talked about the physical world lol!)But could we say that most people have a blind faith in Science?
When we look at people taking pills as they would recite Rosaries for calming their mind, in the end it's the same. Yea science or religion are means to seek answers, but not the "Answer". Merci!
Boucrate 3 years ago 2
I am not sure if blind faith in science would be so fitting, as at least science should theoreticaly adjust itself if it is wrong.
On the other hand I have seen and heard many people that try to come to ethical or moral conclusions through science wich is kind of odd to me.
bwhahrhr 3 years ago
Salut bwhahrhr, It does if we take how the general population perceive and submit to science in blind Faith. The last sixtie years are a good example of scientific blind faith,as ex: DDT, BPC, are the result of scientific research (well they didn't try hard!)and everybody was using them and saying, it's scientific, it must be good!
Science is great, blind faith to it ain't. Though I have to admit that the scientific competitions doesn't help science people in doing a good research job. Salut!
Boucrate 3 years ago
good vid but, I have to say;
you're mixing science with thechnology and I think you should nock it off, I think everyone should nock it off... I think anybody who dares to mix science with thechnology... should nock it off.. Because it's annoying, it's actually hurting the progress we could be making. ;)
Platypus2048 3 years ago
doh.. that's embarrassing... misspelled technology :/
Platypus2048 3 years ago
and knock
angryislander56 3 years ago
"Atheism is not entitled to its beliefs."
Good thing atheism is defined as a lack of belief (specifically in gods). Most atheists seem to be prone to rationalism and adhere to natural philosophy, but they do not necessarily have to do so.
CadicusTheDamned 3 years ago 2
The word "stupid" when used by Garry means "Not in agreement with my worldview!", thats stupid - according to my worldview.
bwhahrhr 3 years ago 4
You should pursue a career as a college professor, Azrienoch.
MissionExploreUranus 3 years ago
Good defense! Your grin at the beginning was the best! We all know you're at least trying to 'open up' a 'kind' of 'door,' just not the one Gary is describing.
What's atrocious is how he holds three completely different, antagonizing views to be equivocal and then reduces them to 'phantasmagorical.' Anything that deviates from his objective gaze is abjected and ruled out on 'face value.'
eyemran 3 years ago
Science, according to the The Organon - EASG Dictionary, is grouped under the "coordinate concepts" of information and philosophy. Bacon identified science as the treating nature as an "original of instrument" ie. using nature as a tool: a tool for the discovery of principles in natural philosophy, for the establishment of a prediction based on natural observations, and technology. Your identification of science with a mere framework for the creation of technology is too simplistic- and wrong.
monsterhash33 3 years ago
Actually, science as a framework for the creation of technology was precisely Bacon's dictum.
Science was not a "tool for discovery", for Bacon. Rather, science is a tool for the advancement of human ends and goals. This is where the "knowledge is power" language comes from. If you know something, then you will be able to show you know it by some concrete effect in the world.
You make Bacon sounds more like Aristotle. He would not have appreciated that.
mavaddat 3 years ago
Az is more fond of the idea that concepts and understanding should be from experience and not guesses of the matrix. Science is fond of the same idea. It doesn't claim absolute truth, it just has the same viewpoint as Az has.
Censeo 3 years ago 2
Nice comeback in the end, some people just dont get it.
Rowdyeh 3 years ago
Pragmatism, my friend. The meaning of truth is no more than "what works". You are making sophisticated philosophical observations with an outdated (and literally meaningless) conception of "truth," thereby coming to the mistaken conclusion that truth is something to which we have no access. This is Kant's meaningless Ding an sich, not truth.
mavaddat 3 years ago
Oh, I don't think so. I think plenty of people are stuck with the old notion of truth (at least for now), and it would be a mistake to stop identifying where it pops up just yet. Kant is right there with Descartes in his perversion for demonstration. So many others are too. If we use "truth" in an updated manner, we're inviting misunderstanding.
azrienoch 3 years ago
But there is no understanding to be lost in the first place. It's not as if the "old" notion of truth was even meaningful to begin with.
It is a confusion of the third person perspective as being the unconditioned narrator of reality. You see a snake; oh but the narrator knows that it is "really" just a garden hose!
But this 3rd-person narrator is nowhere to be found. We only have one another's perceptions to account for. Thus, "true" is always conditioned by "from the perspective of...".
mavaddat 3 years ago
True, but I'm not about to dismiss what people indicate they think just because I don't think it'll lead them anywhere. People speak in certain ways, and we'd be foolish to speak as if they automatically recognize that we speak differently.
azrienoch 3 years ago
So you are a relativist! Caught you.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
It's strange when postmodernists attack science's scope or metaphysical realism and they think we deny the existence of the world...
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
ominous silencee follows. please, i can't live with the suspence. this thread needs some closure. somebody die? get pwned... something? even child knows science proves there is no god. if we only indoctrinated them faster. no, must resist pedosofia...
jogayot 3 years ago
He can't help himself Az, he's jealous of you, of your mind, your education your popularity here, your looks, your logic.
Just an observation, an impression-
Either that or he is quite attracted to you.
Nice job.
nicanicabad 3 years ago 4
Can I be entitled to the belief that I am entitled to be an atheist? Or entitled to believing that?
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago
And permission would be given by whom?
Censeo 3 years ago