Ayer on Frege and Russell: Section 3

[ReduxRex]

can't stand Russell, but.. must, keep going!!

[jkrdsr]

Reminds me of a male Julia Kristeva, in both appearance and manner of articulation.

[MrPlender]

Could someone tell me, what is the name of the book by Russell that exposes the assumptions of Scientific theory? Thanks.

[3rdEarlRussell]

@MrPlender The name of the book is Human Knowledge: It's Scope & Limits

[MrPlender]

@3rdEarlRussell Thank you! My wait has been worth it, I'll go and buy it now.

[fede2]

i'm having trouble with ayer's accent.

[MassiveJungle]

i find it easier to understand a thick scots or irish accent than his kind of upper class drawl

still an interesting guy though

[jessemaurais]

Magee's eyes look huge in those glasses

[poetswolf1985]

If you pause at 1:45 Ayer has an "Oops, I just farted, please forgive me" face on

[MassiveJungle]

lol

[t0kt0k]

What's going on with the editing of these videos? I'd love to see the full un-mangled version.

[theinternetscholar]

at the end . . . in essence, we BELIEVE and have FAITH in science as much as some people have belief and faith in religion or god

i love philosophy

[mc0558]

What nonsense! Science deals with the physical aspects of THIS world; religion deals with metayphysical "matters" and God extends outside this world.

Science eschews belief and subjects itself to proof based on facts found in this world.

[theinternetscholar]

I know that and I know what you mean, but science can change and previous ideas can be wrong . . . even when we thought they were true.

For example, Lamarkian evolution was accepted 'but' when we learned about genes it was proven wrong. And what about Quantum physics, we thought that the universe had to had order and logic, but apparently it's all down to probability

I agree with you but I'm saying science can change and what we believed was right can be proven wrong.

[mc0558]

I don't disagree with anything you are saying here, but the interpretation I put on what you said above (2 months ago) was different.

I think it is also important to recognize that the mathematical "proof" of scientific fact is a lower level of proof than experimental proof. I know I am in the minority here, but I am still not able to accept Quantum physics as certain.

The Universe has a myriad of secrets to disclose that will I believe confirm the concrete physical basis of matter.

[shilohwillcome]

I don't think you know what your talking about, the problem is we don't have mathematical proof for any empirical science.

[technepisteme]

theinternetscholar,

When we say something is "accepted" in science, we don't necessarily mean that it is thought to be true, and certainly don't mean that it has been "proven".

When you mention religious BELIEFS, this term isn't being used in the same sense as beliefs in science, for the scientific "beliefs" are seen as changeable and subject to speculation, (cont...)

[technepisteme]

... whereas the religious ones are NOT viewed in this way. They are rigid, whereas those of science are flexible.

And mc0558, don't be so sure that you are in the minority wrt to quantum :)

[paulsmyname]

Hehe, quite the impressive ventriloquism act from Magee at 02:15.

[ReduxRex]

@paulsmyname

lol--indeed.

[ContraWagner]

Justification for science and question of what makes something scientific still remains as a problem. But I agree with Russell that science is our best bet.