Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Refuting Relativism

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
2,123
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Jul 1, 2010

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 10 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • Matt, you think your sooooooooo slick!!

  • lol matt this is making my brain hurt . oh man :) really good video though.

see all

All Comments (60)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @wyattearp985 No, it's a fact. We pretty much know how eyes work, and how they pick up color. And we can tell the range that animals can see too. I told you, it has to do with the amount of cones in the eye. We know the range of light we can see ROYGBIV, and we know that certain animals are less sensitive and cannot see. It's not a hypothesis, it's how your camera lens works.

    You just said the sky was blue. I just proved it's relative.

    Rocks are hard. Molten rocks are soft.

  • @wutdaFU3K Can an animal such as a dog argue if the sky is blue or not? No... of course not... And when they can ... you will know the truth and not a scientific hypothesis regariding what they can and cannot see. As far as mathematics goes, there are variables in math that have been disputed... not math in its simplistic form of course... The point he's making has to do with what we know is TRUE... a rock is hard.. Is true.. there is no comparison in that statement and it stands on its own.

  • @wyattearp985 Some animals can't see the range of light we can, so while the sky looks blue to us, to your dog it's actually gray. Similarly, some animals have even more cones in their eyes and can pick up a larger range of colors. So to a bird, the color they observe is inconceivable to us. Anyway, what he and you are refuting is strict epistemological relativism. Moral relativism is not intrinsic to this.

    Also, in math, does a set that contains all sets contain itself?

  • @wutdaFU3K While I understand your point... I don't understand where your claiming he hasn't made his point. Whether an innocuous point or a point on morals as long as it is based in TRUTH.. Relativism is an inane excuse at best. If someone says "to YOU the sky looks blue. to another it may be green... its all relative" thats not only inane its insane. What he's saying is the scewing of the truth for the sake of relativism is self defeating. Whether over morals or simple truths.

  • @wyattearp985 Relativism is NOT a secular principle. "Moral" relativism is. And this guy does not refute it in this video.

  • I thought this was going to be about "moral" relativism and ethics, not metaphysics epistemology, and ontology.

  • PARADOX

  • I love this guy! Thank you for totally destroying the post-modernistic secular philosophical lie that is relativism!! Many will attempt to argue these points... But you cannot argue what is true. Truth stands alone whether we like it or not. We cannot bend truth and then call it our own perception... You are then willfully lying... Which is the opposite of TRUTH...

  • Read Frank Turek's book...this guy is talking the same thing like turek...

    This guy is a good man...

  • I'm a bit busy this week, sorry. I'll try to respond by the weekend.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more