David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation

[@antuntun]

This is one of the rare lectures which had a profound influence on my way of thinking. David Deutsch has an amazing capacity of spotting and presenting complex philosophical and scientific ideas. He's a true genius!

[@danielvarga_p]

I have to agree with you!

[@sedalia9356]

His brilliance and explanation also led me to regard epistemology and knowledge as the paramount philosophy. Also, unexpectedly, helped me resolve several personal professional struggles.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

⁠​⁠@@sedalia9356I’m curious. How did he help you resolve several personal professional struggles? No worries if you’d rather not disclose

[@MsXfi]

Ah the good old days of avant garde TED, not the BS self marketing, coachy, cheap spirituality and word saladery that we get in TED nowadays.

[@denisdaly1708]

Fully agree. This is TED classic. The only one we should have. For the last 10 years I can't stand TED. I love listening to experts and insightful people.

[@mrcrowly11]

His book the 'beginning of infinity' is must read. This talk is a great summary, but no substitute.

[@AlexandrBorschchev]

CES I’m reading it right now! Omg

[@george5120]

CES except that the book has nothing to do with either the beginning or infinity. Just a catchy title intended to enhance book sales.

[@HitomiAyumu]

@@george5120 But it does have to do with the beginning of infinity. Except hes not talking about the infinity of time, he talking about the infinite growth in scientific knowledge.

[@evilgeenius2]

@Dr Wannabestein He's trying to condense the ideas in his book into a short speech and he doesn't do it brilliantly. The book is an excellent but slow burner. His ideas are astonishing

[@evilgeenius2]

@Dr Wannabestein yes, they are dr

[@PeterFallenius]

00:00 00:18 Wondering in terms of things unseen. 01:57 The world never improved, nothing new was learned. 03:49 What had changed that made the difference between stagnation and rapid open-ended discovery? 06:21 Empiricism: Knowledge comes from the senses, not mathematics 08:21 No one’s ever seen evolution, we see rocks. 09:37 Testable conjectures are common in myths. 11:17 What is a bad explanation? 12:55 What makes the difference between good explanations and bad explanations.

[@lquirosr]

I come here every once in a while, always enlightening.

[@chantzukit681]

"That the truth consists of hard to vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world. It is a fact that is, itself, unseen yet impossible to vary."

[@PicturesJester]

His delivery is off the cuff, the notes are there to let him know in what part exactly of his speech he is in. Memorizing a delivery is a way to automatize your delivery, to narrow the way you think about it so that you can't deviate from how you memorize it. Instead he understands what he has to say and the notes do the job of keeping a fixed structure in the speech

[@fallingintofilm]

@Vidas Kulbis The idea that a philosophy should apply to itself, is a really crucial and rules a lot of philosophies out straight away

[@fidetrainer]

Imagine his surprise if he survives another 100 years and discovers it was Persephone all along

[@phiguy6473]

This guy has been blowing my mind ever since his interview on Closer to Truth.

[@DanielAnderssonmoppedanne]

Mine too 🤗 Read the books, follow him everywhere and support Brett Hall 👌🏻

[@chronos2650]

Same here

[@danielvarga_p]

@@chronos2650 Same.

[@mateodoris6856]

Please understand something: This man is one of the most brilliant thinkers of the modern era, despite being far less well known. In his various works, he presents a wholistic way of understanding the universe as it is currently known, from a basic level of core principles and patterns that can be seen in all aspects of human existence. I highly reccoment The Fabric of Reality and the Beginning of Infinity. They can be a bit hard to comprehend but if you take the time to read them they will genuinely make you a smarter human being.

[@BANKO007]

Deutsch is easily the most consequential and insightful thinkers I have heard in decades. I listen to people with incredibly half-baked grand theories, like Yuval Harari for example, and I am saved from being taken in by applying the ideas of Deutsch.

[@testchannel7057]

I'm pretty sure, me a college student, can teach quite a few things to Yuval if I have the chance to talk to him. He is such a fake.

[@ssj-vu3lt]

@@testchannel7057 give me 1 eg where his theory is not good

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

How exactly did you apply David’s ideas to Harari’s?

[@user-pc5wc3yr6r]

@@EmperorsNewWardrobeharari’s theories (in my view) are somewhat regressive, seeming to imply a lot of our development has been to our personal detriment, and humanity was better off when we were merely foragers. Deutsch by comparison says the opposite: that our survival depends on relentless innovation and growth and the pursuit of knowledge. I might be misreading Harari but I think this encapsulates the main difference in their respective messages

[@malcolmmutambanengwe3453]

The search for hard-to-vary explanations is the origin of all progress. David Deutsch

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

Thanks, that’s a useful quote

[@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

16:13 - “That the truth consists of hard-to-vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world. It’s a fact that is itself unseen, yet impossible to vary.” - David Deutsch, _A new way to explain explanation_ (2009 TED Talk) [16:13]

[@eatcarpet]

"They're saying that our opinions are caused by wizards - and presumably, so are their own." Best line.

[@barrywilliamsmb]

David's video jarred me into the reality of how hooked I am on entertaining communication. A dearth of chuckles, zero tricks and not one metanoic moment created so much inner head noise I could hardly hear what he was saying. Regardless, I really appreciate the ideas and concepts. Thanks David & TED!

[@danielgaller5151]

The clarity of a well trained critical thinker, is mostly based on a good inner Ego control. If you can learn to accept you know soo little since you can see so little with your inmediate senses, you will start to use a more disciplined and critical way of analysizing the reality around you hence training your mind to work coherently.

[@stretch3172]

His book "the Fabric of Reality" is brilliant. I'm reading it now.

[@HitomiAyumu]

+Josh Hunter He has a new book, The Beginning of Infinity, that is even better.

[@bjunjo]

Search for better explanations is the key for humanity to move forward.

[@vargonian]

This guy spent most of the second half of the video re-discovering Ockham's Razor. The purpose of Ockham's Razor is to cut out excessive explanation that isn't crucial to the observed phenomena. Contrary to popularization, Ockham's Razor doesn't simply state that "the simplest explanation is the correct one." Instead, it states that you should only infer as far as the evidence takes you; no further.

[@vortical911]

He was using the example of how our ancestors attempted to explain the season cycle (Persephone and Hades, etc) as a metaphor for how we today, including today's scientists, attempt to explain things away with untestable & easily variable theories, and why these kinds of explanations should be avoided if we are to continue to rapidly make progress as a species.

[@papalosopher]

Absolutely brilliant ideas. His test of easy variability of explanation is what I have been looking for to balance the yin of empiricism. Empiricism is like utilitarianism: it sounds perfect and complete, yet you suspect there is something missing there.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

And what would you say is the missing thing from utilitarianism (if you’re still alive after 14 years since you wrote your comment…)?

[@papalosopher]

Yep, still alive, I do not remember watching this video though. Utilitarianism, you say? I would say that once you realise how difficult it is to define happiness, you see it isn't worth much as a philosophy. @@EmperorsNewWardrobe

[@malizaar4114]

Ever since my interest in quantum computer articles by David Deutsch, I think he deserves kudos for the effort he takes to explain his principles to the ignorant...

[@david0aloha]

I think that's kind of what he's saying though. He talks about how people didn't spend much time thinking about things like the stars or other interesting phenomena and people usually accepted dogmatic truths because you would be treated as an outcast or worse for not accepting them. There was great curiousity, but a great deal of resistance - just as you say.

[@Shaunt1]

This is very articulate, he does a good job explaining how things are correctly explained.

[@arthurtfm]

Please please read his book The Beginning of Infinity. It was life-changing for me.

[@Radjehuty]

So in other words, creating theories in which every detail plays a vital and functional role in the process that's supposed to explain a phenomenon. That's pretty cool. Nice talk :D

[@clearmenser]

I love it !!! "Progress depends on rejecting authority..."

[@slightlygruff]

old teds had so much meaning

[@thequantartist]

David Deutsch's books should be a must-read.

[@Saganism]

I discovered David Deutsch late. There's no time to waste.

[@sabarapitame]

QM for the win! What it's magical is that he can explain it so easy in 17 min. Only 74k views in 6 years. We humans suck

[@vaibhavgupta20]

+Sebastián Alejandro 89K in 7 years.

[@InfiniteTravelingSpirit2BE]

Not all humans suck :)

[@honestexpression6393]

127k

[@d_wigglesworth]

151k This is a problem; insufficient uptake. How can we solve this?

[@d_wigglesworth]

Deutsch would say, “by the application of the idea to achieve rapid progress.” Is that a catch 22? Rapid progress will be made when these ideas spread. But the ideas will spread when their application achieves rapid progress.

[@chrisdavey3113]

Commenting for the algorithm. The more people that hear this and understand it, the better off we will all be.

[@SpinyNormanDinsdale]

I remember when my friend would explain how Santa Clause exists by adding more magical powers to his arsenal. "He CAN get into houses with no chimneys because he turns into fairy dust and blows under the door crack!" That's still a pretty darn good theory!

[@udaypsaroj]

12:30

[@PatriciaRavenell-d6z]

You have such a great way of explaining!

[@andymartin2571]

I generally like Ted Talks and think Dr Deutsch is fanatastic, but they really should have rolled a podium out for this speaker, to hold his notes. It would have been less distracting for him and the viewer.

[@martinguila]

+Andy Martin But there is a podium there whith wheels and all for him to use. I didnt find him holding the papers distracting though.

[@muscutt]

It looks like there is a podium there, although he is not using it

[@edgregory1]

Lectures are for listening not watching generally.

[@serenity748]

this should have 7 billion views

[@Deadnature]

An elegant explanation of how to test the robustness of scientific explanations. I'd be interested in how to *measure* how hard something is to vary. Is there an objective calculation one can make?

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

I imagine by way of counterfactual of each variable. You take the explanatory hypothesis, and word by word imagine what happens if you remove each one. Does the explanation at any point stop explaining what it purports to explain?

[@Spitfireseven]

Everything David is talking about are commonly held understandings and all of these ideas, we typically entertain as seperate learnings, can be found one by one right here on the net. Go to, "What the Bleep Do We Know" for a great outline of this stuff. David's actual discourse is based on how wrong we can be on what we think we know. It is amazing how flawed we really are in assembling a complete picture of the universe and all the dimensions adjacent to it.

[@AlephNeil]

@JohnHasSeriousQ : Something that always strikes me about epistemology is the way that the philosophical points one can make about it are often mirrored by technical arguments and constructions in the field of statistics. In this case, the point about 'hard to vary' making for better explanations than 'easy to vary' is analogous to Akaike's Information Criterion and the theory surrounding it.

[@udaypsaroj]

You sound interesting!

[@christopherhamilton3621]

“Goodness of fit” expressed mathematically, yes.

[@martincremer1422]

I absolutely love this talk with the *major exception* of the term *Wizard* being used as a pejorative. As Arthur C Clarke so elegantly put it, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." The theories produced by Deutsch and their subsequent utilization and implementation in quantum computation is sufficiently advanced that about 15-30 people on the planet today who are able to comprehend and offer an "invariable explanation" of the bottom up functionality of Deutsche's algorithm from the dilution refrigerators cooling superconducting Josephson junctions, to establishing a programming UI for running the quantum algorithm and developing a means to read an output and interpret it. They're Wizards. He's putting himself down. Bringing epistemology front and center to all hard sciences is critical yet the variance in vernacular between chemistry, physics, and biology has become so convoluted that multidisciplinary teams that are responsible for coordinating ambitious projects (like building universal quantum computers) get totally lost in translation. Having spent time in many symposiums on this precise subject I believe an essential element to better explanations is a more precise set of symbolic and linguistic language with cross compatibility between different fields working in concert. I suspect the only way to do so is to develop a novel technology that uses a resource like LLM's to find semantic overlaps and translate higher order abstractions to tactile haptic feedback. Dr. David Eagleman demonstrated this underlying principle works! Watch his tedtalk if you haven't seen it. He developed a vest containing a bunch of micro vibration motors (like the ones in your cellphone that give haptic feedback and silent notifications). He got a group of profoundly deaf test subjects, had them wear the jacket which was equipped with a microphone and ran spoken words through a translation engine that produced consistent haptic feedback in accordance with phonemes. The learning process was entirely passive.* Within a time horizon of as little as three days these individuals could have full sentences read to them and proceed to write them out on a white board. Why this technology has yet to be further developed is beyond me. The only rational explanation is that Eagleman's work was funded by DOD grants from DARPA/IARPA and the tech is being used for communication in military environments. It's cheap to make, works, and absolutely has the ability to in his words "expand the umvelt (or perceptual horizon)" and the use cases for higher order thinking when paired with various data sources is the most immediate pathway toward the evolution of language that exists today. E.O. Wilson made a brilliant argument that only by the evolution of language will humanity possess the ability to adapt symbiotically with exponential technological evolution.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Nothing wrong with ‘wizard’… 😂

[@2011littleguy]

I’m always glad to listen to on of the smartest people who ever existed.

[@Mority90]

He is a genius. He has said so many interresting things.

[@BitcoinMotorist]

I like listening to this man. Although it took a while for him to reach his point, I was captivated by what he was saying. I also like the way he makes controversial statements and doesn't mitigate them by saying things like "I personally think that. . ."

[@Radjehuty]

That's exactly right. I just never thought of it in terms of the most important element in scientific understanding. We're always taught that it's thing's like falsifiability which I guess is very much related to this but not the same; and empiricism. I like how he illustrated the points even if the idea was already coined by an early logician.

[@TechyBen]

You can go even further than stating "explanation" and put it down to "frequency and correlation". There is a measured frequency and variable correlation that is tied to both the rotation of the earth it's tilt and the years progressions (etc) that have measurable effects on seasons. This is where the value in a testable claim often is.

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

no. this is precisely what he rejects. frequency and correlation will never give you new knowledge, only more information

[@johnAshpool]

Did anyone notice that during nearly 20 minutes of speech, he didn't make a single verbal mistake?

[@biljanapercinkova318]

He is reading.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

The sign of a well rehearsed presentation, even if he has notes at his fingertips…

[@ashmeadali]

3:59 "But that ability to make progress remained almost unused until the event that revolutionized the human condition and changed the universe. Or so we should hope because that event was the scientific revolution. " What could be next revolution ? A spiritual revolution? Experiment: Sing *HU* . Search how to sing *HU* . A sonic tuning fork to safely alter personal energy, frequency/vibration. "If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration." Nikola Tesla.

[@deductivist]

@neoaeonian Hard-to-vary means that it would be hard to change the explanation without introducing arbitrary bits, or making it contradict the evidence.

[@ovenlovesyou]

I agree, and if you love the tying-into-itself factor, I urge you to read his first book, Fabric of Reality, it has that to the nth degree, it's pure brilliance. His books are my favorite general-audience science books along with the Origin.

[@bajan13ken]

I found it easier, because he talks slow :) but the point was that "hard to vary" explanations are truthful, because not only are they testable, but, they follow logically (he didn't mention "logic" but that's what I inferred).

[@suredoloveya]

unexpectedly excellent talk. interesting concepts.

[@CSBSIRIKIVENKATASIVASURYASAI]

* progress depended on learning how to reject authorities. * enlightenment - a revolution in how people sought knowledge. * "Take no one's word for it". * "All observation is theory laden" - Karl Popper. * All knowledge is conjectural. * explanation is a assertion about what's there, unseen, that accounts for what's seen. * Bad explanation - easy to vary. * Good explanation - hard to vary. * the search for hard to vary explanations is the origin of all progress. * Two false approaches blight progress: 1. untestable theories and 2. explanation less theories. * The truth consists of hard-to-vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the world.

[@DavidRutten]

@ShadowShorts, if you wish. I cannot help but disagree with pretty much all your points again. I do not think this is inherently negative, I do not believe a War only had one winner (could be nobody, could be both parties, who said War is always a non-zero-sum event?) I *am* an extremist, but not a religious one. Religion is defined as a belief in the supernatural, there's nothing in there about forcing your views onto others. Even though I have strong personal views, I'm a secularist at heart.

[@aspTrader]

johnAshpool... I did notice that too. It's remarkable. Have you seen his hour long talk on Vimeo? Google "Deutsch optimism vimeo" to find it. I didn't notice any mistakes in that talk either. Amazing...

[@DavidRutten]

ShadowShorts: "I hesitate to reply to someone who immediately marginalizes my remarks" I didn't mean to marginalize, sorry if that's how it looked. I was merely voicing disagreement. ShadowShorts: ""ignorance is bliss." That may be the case for uncomfortable personal truths, but I don't believe it applies to -what we would call- scientific truths.

[@kcjaymes]

Is it wrong to think, in regards to what was said at the beginning of the video about mans progress before the scientific rev., that it could have been like acceleration, in that we advance with a constand acceleration, so your velocity has constantly increased. so there was energy behind or advancements it just took time for there to be a very visible rate of development?

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Not wrong, no, but the other implied lesson is that too few people keep up with the process of learning & searching. If more people thought more deeply about ‘what else has to be true for this to be true’, we’d be in better shape by now than we presently are….

[@david203]

This is three years before he started working on Constructor Theory, so I won't consider it an introduction to that new discipline.

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

obviously

[@DCWilliam24]

Wonderfully insightful.

[@michaelrose93]

*"Without a functional reason to prefer one of countless variants, advocating one of them in preference to the others is irrational"* > 12:43 < Says one of the primary proponents of the Multiple Worlds Interpretation?

[@PicturesJester]

If you actually read the work behind his advocacy for it you would understand the reasons. The fact he pretty much birthed quantum computation should be a hint that he might be onto something.

[@GoneHaydn]

If we would have arisen "a bit" later we would not have seen other galaxies and our cosmological theories would've been very different. Perhaps we're too late to really understand how life got started. All evidence is wiped clean. Also there's the theory that early bacteria came from space, which I think is a superfluous hypothesis. Since we can create amino acids from mixing various atoms together, and that it is what we're mostly made of -- makes evolution feel inevitable.

[@kcjaymes]

i guess i was just thinking on a world wide conceptual level. Thank you for your thoughts.=)

[@LadyTink]

Hey TOS, I wasn't expecting to see you here ;3

[@joelgullick1245]

No, you've all got it wrong. I think what he was saying is that understanding is vastly different from experience. One requires observation the other requires both observation and reason...

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

10:01 Greek myth explanation of the seasons

[@berg0002]

If we know that the ratio between the diameter (or, as a derivative of diameter, the radius) and the circumference of a circle is irrational, why sticking to that ratio, as opposed to finding a constant that does have its constant and real inverse value?

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

what are you talking about ?!?!

[@berg0002]

Pi

[@midgetsow]

I just wish explanations were more concise, I think most books/dissertations/lectures don't have an issue with varying too much.

[@SchinTeth]

Good speech, yet again

[@jakepr]

i am dubbing this the "nerd war cry" his entire attitude is "bitch, sit down - this is how it is"

[@wayneturner2028]

Excellent !

[@paulbali9998]

FINALLY someone willing to question the Demeter story. lol Wizards and cavemen!

[@ScienceAppliedForGood]

It was a good explanation.

[@mrdrsir3781]

Wizards did it!

[@cmarqz1]

Brilliant!

[@karanchanaya2981]

Hope your well Mr Deutsch an Family.

[@chillhopworld]

Basically what this dude is explaining is that "tout les modèles sont faux, mais certains sont utiles". Le mondel est un médium qui connecte le monde des idées au monde physique de sorte à expliquer la prédictablilité des événements. "Truth" is the most accurate model to predict what it is intended to predict.

[@humblestman]

infact, anger is an evolved trait, to anger is to fear and fear allows us to avoid hazards

[@kalaway]

I thought this was a great talk, but I don't know how fully I agree. If the sun revolved around the earth & wasn't in line with the equator it would theoretically have the same effect on the seasons (though obviously other issues would come up) A holistic theory that fits w/ everything else 'proven'--as long as you begin with a correct original theory--will more likely be correct. That's what I thought the title was pointing to- the ability to "prove" & then explain that wisdom for posterity.

[@Josephus_vanDenElzen]

7:43 induction: the unseen resembles the seen? no..

[@DiscipleTube1]

yes but those confidence levels are based on evidence interpreted with a different presupposition then creationist would use. And that's ok because based on a creationist interpretation the stats would be flipped. A creationist could claim the same amount of validation using their presupposition. The problem here is that evolutionist refuse to admit their presuppositions where creationist don't (or at least shouldn't). Karl Popper would say it was very bold for such claims of certainty.

[@zebonautsmith1541]

I saw a slightly different talk by him. Must have been in another Universe.

[@davidlilley4637]

I do not disagree with David's presentation. I only wish to make one qualification with respect to myths. Myths are only myths in retrospect. At the time of their creation they were the best science of their day. We didn't go from 100,000 years of being myth based to a sudden explosion in scientific thinking and discovery. We always operated on truth being "correspondence with the facts".

[@davidlilley4637]

+David Lilley I had a computer problem but now I am able to finish my comment. We have had three enlightenments on top of those that China provided long before ours. Our first was 2,400 years ago with the Greeks. You only have to look at Bertram Russell's awe of this period to understand that it was a bigger jump forward in relative terms than the Enlightenment. Our second enlightenment was the 500 year Islamic Golden Age, translating the Greek knowledge and other knowledge, preserving the Greek knowledge and standing on their shoulders and delivering new knowledge. Only to stop abruptly in 1,100 AD and deliver nothing since. The Enlightenment was the third enlightenment. And, like the Islamic Golden Age, it relied heavily on the Greek golden age and especially their preservation of Greek knowledge. My bottom line is that (1) we have had enlightenments before and failed to build on them and (2) science (trial and error) is not new but as old as mankind. The only impediment to scientific progress is when we think we know it all.

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

I have to take exception with your assertion that science is as old as mankind. This is just fundamentally untrue. The methodology of science is a prosthetic to correct for the human frailty of mind that prevented genuine discovery. This is why human technology remained essentially unchanged aside from some accidental advances. Also Islam was the reason Islamic golden age came so completely to an end. Islam is antithetical to science and reason as are most other religions, but it is even worse.

[@davidlilley4637]

I agree with one exception. Popper gave us P1, TS, EE, P2 repeat in Objective Knowledge. He puts it simply "we learn by trial and error". We start with a problem (P1) rather than on observation or something we thought up in an oven (Descartes), we come up with a trial solution (TS) and test it (error elimination, EE) which leads to a better understanding of the problem and its porential solution. We reach a new starting point P2 and repeat. Aristotle, the first scientist, had no frailty of thought 2,400 years ago. Science is only about problem solving and we all participate in problem solving every day. Thus I can say that science is as old as mankind, probably as old as our having a neocortex.

[@stopthephilosophicalzombie9017]

David Lilley I need to read more Popper. When I say science I mean the modern methodology that understands and corrects for the psychological problems of confirmation and other biases, hypothesis testing, etc. What's funnier still is human rationality is so frail that most published 'science' isn't rigorous at all, and will eventually be thrown in the dust bin of misinformation along with all the religions. ; )

[@davidlilley4637]

Science, or what Popper called World 3, objective knowledge, is doing just great. Imagine how many times we went through the P1, TS, EE, P2 routine before we stopped the spread of ebola and we will do the same with the zica virus. My take on religion is that man isn't religious and never has been. In most of western Europe we don't do religion but have NO POSITION wrt an absolute being. Animism was a great idea superseded by a better idea, polytheism, superseded by a better idea, monotheism. Ideas come from thinkers, philosophers and scientists. Any cosmologist trying to understand the world we live in. Our cosmology moves on as we make new discoveries about the world and ourselves. An old cosmology morths into a religion when it refuses to move on because its sponsors and employees have relied on it for a good living. Witness the Vatican, the biggest building in every UK town and village and the biggest house in every town and village.

[@crudhousefull]

What's scarier than the creationists are the "ahhhh"ists that ahhh whenever Darwin's theory is mentioned. Okay...so many sequences have been seen and recorded. Great for mankind. Many ways of manipulating these sequences and materials have been devised. Great for mankind. Nothing on why sequences are as they are or how materials have come to be.

[@G11713]

Regarding the prehistoric ancestors... monoliths?

[@uppitycracka]

you guys argue over the nuances of arguing all you want. i only have one question: who cuts this man's hair?

[@vortical911]

If Santa can turn into fairy dust, what other remarkable abilities does he possess? This is an easily-variable explanation :). Maybe Santa simply has the ability to pass through transparent objects, such as windows!

[@marianpalko2531]

2:33 One enumeration to rule them all.

[@ajsirch]

While I like what Dr. Deutsch has to say - I think he's quite mistaken about the relative stagnation of human progress in early human history. That kind of a view is what a scientist steeped in scientific myth tends to display. The ancient man had little time to spend theorizing about stars simply because he had a more pressing concern - staying alive both from predators as well as other human beings. The space that scientists have - that luxury - to question authority was built on the backs of those who obeyed authority in the service of figuring out first how to treat each other. In contrast, post enlightenment - well within the context of exponential knowledge growth with accompanied search for right explanations for phenomena, the world barely managed to pull back from the precipice of total annihilation several times. In other words, the depraved behavior of man even with the "right" explanations and the "right" methods of eliciting truth has balanced us on the knife edge of destruction and utopia. The irony is that had stone age men availed themselves of the scientific method at that time - we might have never made it thus far.

[@mlonyenioner]

They did take time to make cave-paintings, why would they not have time theorizing

[@ajsirch]

@@mlonyenioner Heh - aren't you the one calling them cave paintings? As if it was a recreational activity? It could just as well be a nursery or a school rather than something purely creative past time. You're just injecting your theory into the past. They did have time for theorizing - we call it myth at the moment.

[@mlonyenioner]

​@@ajsirch I'm not injecting anything. You said they didn't have time for theorizing, I point out that they had time to make cave paintings. Now you're saying they had time for theorizing. Great, we agree.

[@ajsirch]

@@mlonyenionerIt's well and good you found an explanation that works for you. Myths create a level of explanation that "works" - in the "who" and "why" sense, not in the "how" sense. As long as "how" remains low on the demand for explanation - earlier societies were able to deal with their existential issues. It's only when "how" questions made their way front and center, that significant time and resources were devoted to it on the hope/faith that it would payoff even in existential matters. Their faith was rewarded not only with extraordinary development but also with equally extraordinary destructive capabilities. But you have your explanation -

[@mlonyenioner]

​@@ajsirch I agree that myths are not good explanations, but they are explanations and they come from theorizing. You said that early man did not have time for theorizing, but obviously they did. I fail to understand what you are trying to get at with your existentialist spiel. I am sure early man were just as unable to deal with existential issues as we are.

[@churka5984]

Good talk except for the fact that myths were never meant to be explanations. They are stories that hold symbolic similarities between the human psyche and the natural world. They were developed organically through centuries of verbal storytelling and therefore hold great value even today. The ancients didn't use to think as literally as we do today, so we can't say for sure if they were 'less advanced' than us.

[@garth199]

It make it sound as if they preferred myths over explanations when myths were as close as they could get to explanations given their toolbox.

[@osofrontinoquantico]

I think Bohr´s atom model was pretty ad hoc. So was QM before the second wave. Every theory begins as a bad explanation. Some times you just need to ignore the wizard in the room. To this day I believe a wizard causes the wave function colapse, and still managed to do physics. By the way, I wonder if Deutsch is a Simpsons fan or just did some internet pandering.

[@kokopelli314]

Religion has played a major role in history. Just as slavery, warfare, tyranny and all forms of oppression and prejudice have played major roles in human history. One day, they may be relegated to history, if we have the courage.

[@Lihinel]

Seems wrong, at least when phrased like that. It is seems that under favourable conditions at least some new technologies were made and preserved over time so that the space of possible new technologies (that require prior advances) became larger. But it may also be said that this process can be slowed down, halted, or even reversed at least in a region (without knowledge transfer global) under unfavourable conditions. (strict (autocratic) conservative regimes, theocracies, ludistic movements)

[@xSilverPhinxx]

Exciting times we live in.

[@DavidRutten]

ShadowShorts: "but you never seem satisfied to just develop your own ideas, you also have to attack others in the process." I think religion would get a lot less flak from secularists if it did not try to force personal beliefs on Education, Tax Law, Healthcare and The Justice System. Rationalists attack all ideas, good and bad, true and false. The ones that remain standing are the ones that we'll accept until something better comes along.

[@roidroid]

Google gives me No results found for "The dour will be with us always." what did you mean to type?

[@AR333]

what he means by "varied" is rationalized an explanation is easy to vary" When it can wrap it's way around any outcome, i.e. can rationalize with any and all new evidence its really the same thing as unfalsifiability

[@Maxstate]

In the way that the most common denominator in all of science and progress are the establishments that make it possible for it to take manifest in the first place. Even the most basic and first of the modern (so not stone-age) scientific progressions in the history of man has been made possibly by, often but not always, some form of government or upholding of a social contract by a bigger establishment. Where I disagree with him is in his argument that all establishments bar progress.

[@DavidRutten]

ShadowShorts: "That's not complicated. In fact, there's an almost medieval simplicity there." That's not really true. There was no proper mechanism in the Dark Ages for testing truths. Instead, our modern notions on how to discover truth stem from the Enlightenment, which happened *after* the Middle Ages.

[@nouranmahmoud4688]

Thanks

[@JohnPopcorn06]

and what about those assertions which only seem to be impossible to vary for us? i mean, if we were smarter, we could realize they are not so unique after all.

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

that's why no explanation is perfect. every explanation will be replaced by a better, even harder to vary explanation.

[@annabago8621]

I love this.

[@Vashstampede]

I enjoyed this guys humor.

[@vikitheviki]

When less and less people was imprisoned by religion we could suddenly make the scientific leap forward. Thats why science and progress in all areas have literally exploded. Without religion we probably had developed much faster and as we can see, more and more people abandon religion and old myths to explain the world, and thank God for that ;))