How do you know if what you believe is true?

Рет қаралды 4,337

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер

@boltez6507 4 ай бұрын

Kind of a summary. Science deals with ideas that can be observed or whose effect can be felt,or basically ideas that can be tested in some way with respect to reality. Philosophy doesn't necessarily deal with ideas that can be observed/tested. Science is hence a subset of philosophy. Tbh i consider the definition of science to be more flexible than described in the video. Dark matter/energy kinda appears to be an anomaly here,it appears as if we just assumed its existence in order for other things to work out as we know them. For one its overall distribution or assumptions just keep on changing,as our simulations become better we find our previous assumptions to be false and each and everytime the theory of dark matter is adjusted to hold other areas of science together without any apparent reasons. Secondly there's no method/way devised to test for its existence. So yeah there are ideas in the mainstream scientific community which might be labelled unscientific according to the rigid definition of the video. The video was good btw,for better retention you might add pictures but i personally don't mind their absence.

@DDRational_ 4 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@dizzyblossom5968 4 ай бұрын

I guess some theists test their beliefs the same way we test the existence of unicorns-----by just really, really wanting them to be real.. 🤦🏻‍♂️

@SillyCar31 4 ай бұрын

lol thats a fact bruh 😂

@roshanjose7692 4 ай бұрын

Great job man. Information given was gold. I suggest you have contrast between heading and points, maybe a colour contrast or font size difference. And more bullet points and numbered lists, first few slides lacked that. Keep going!! "Only way to beat bad information is by good information"

@DDRational_ 4 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@SriHarshaChilakapati 4 ай бұрын

Felt like a lecture instead of as a documentary style video. Maybe change the fonts and colors a bit? Explanation though is top notch. Now, regarding the 'your green isn't my green', I think we can come up with a test. 1. Take both the participants into different rooms. 2. Ensure that both rooms are completely closed and have the same lamp to illuminate. 3. Give the participants a scale of 10cm length. 0cm represents not green at all and 10cm represents it is only green and no other colour. 4. Decide a standard green object and ask if the candidate sees is green. 5. Repeat previous step to find a standard green object that both candidates say it is green. 6. Tell the candidates that this level of green is 5cm on the given scale. 7. Give candidates multiple greenish and not greenish objects and ask to draw greenness as per that scale. 8. Increase the number of objects to cater for errors in measurement. 9. Repeat same objects sometimes in different order to see if they can spot it. 10. Compare the bars of both candidates and you'll figure out if both of them are in the similar range of error. What do you think of this method?

@DDRational_ 4 ай бұрын

I don't think it would work. For instance, what's a standard green object? Wouldn't it be subjective? And why would the candidate say he/she sees anything other than green if they've grown up their whole life calling that colour green?

@TheRakeshgautam 4 ай бұрын

I believe in only one thing that beliefs which caused more deaths in the last 20-100 years must be vehemently criticized first than trivial beliefs which automatically will decompose with scientific development.

@manideepkasina2131 4 ай бұрын

I liked the video. To the point and crisp.

@yogi30051972 4 ай бұрын

I like the new format! Just include more colours for the background. You certainly made the topic simple. 😊

@DDRational_ 4 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@SunilFrancisGeorge 4 ай бұрын

After all, Socrates once said, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." 👓

@mithilbhoras5951 4 ай бұрын

I think we are always gonna have belief in some false things. The aim should be to believe least false things as we possibly can.

@MotivationGuy-sb8pv 4 ай бұрын

I really like the presentation keep making videos like this😇✌

@souvikroy6099 4 ай бұрын

Thanks

@quarks-and-electrons 4 ай бұрын

Good one pranav, few images here and there would also be great....

@DDRational_ 4 ай бұрын

Yes I'll do that with the next one

@ayobvklxvah 4 ай бұрын

I feel this format as if you’re prof at Yale or smth😂 well this format is amazing though!

@Ajnabeesings 4 ай бұрын

Dude was gone for so many days but thank ~god~ he is uploading regularly now (u see what i did there)

@DDRational_ 4 ай бұрын

Haha

@ankit5820 4 ай бұрын

Suggestive book PSYCHOLOGY OF BELIEFS

@Madara456 4 ай бұрын

Can you provide this document

@NikhilV-zj6oz 4 ай бұрын

WHATS YOUR TAKE ON " CARNIVORE DIET " ?

@whatsup3519 4 ай бұрын

I have a question. What is the science of being charismatic.There would be a person in our class where entire attention goes goes to them. why? What r the techniques they use to get that attention. They r good at talk and we feel no bore around them Why's? Pls,explore the science of silver tongue people. Expecting ur reply

@kappaprimus 4 ай бұрын

While I'm sure he can make a far better researched video on this topic, in short, the "social sciences", in this case psychology and sociology, are not as axiomatically fixed as the "hard/natural sciences." Firstly, what is charisma? One of the biggest problems of such concepts is they aren't really fixed. A comedian is charismatic, as is a dictator. Sure, you could say that it is simply the ability to "attract" people to pay attention to you (and be influenced greatly by your words and ideas) , but this definition is hardly functional - for charisma is contextual. It isn't simply about the person themselves, but also the environment, the ethos, the time, and the people they are faced with. To you and I for example, Hitler wouldn't be half as charismatic (especially if I'm allowed to assume here that we don't know German), because we don't live in an era where racial dominance seems like a subsvribable idea. Of course, like you did, public speaking and theatres (including one's intonation, body Lang, etc) are personal skills that far improve their charisma, but again, let's have a look at two cases: A kid in class who's good at sports: will probably be quite charismatic because sports and extracurricular activities always make for an interesting topic Yet, being good at sports as a corporate employee wouldn't fetch you many points because at that point most hardly care. Again here however, the kid who was charismatic because of his sport related abilities will have much more confidence and likely be more charismatic in the corporate for the sole reason that they carry this confidence. My point here however, is that there are correlations between variables and outcomes (manner of speech and sports to charisma), but they aren't necessarily cause and effect in the absolute. Sorry for the long read.

@whatsup3519 4 ай бұрын

@@kappaprimus I mean through words, or while having a conversation with someone who always speak, but we enjoy it. What is the science behind it. Expecting ur reply

@kappaprimus 4 ай бұрын

@@whatsup3519 yes and that is what I have implied - it is not necessarily the content of the words that is important, but also one's appearance (how they look, groom etc), their confidence, their clarity of speech, eye contact and a lot more including body language, use of words, phrases, social awareness (and ability to respond effectively) and so on. If you mean to ask _why_ it is that we respond better to this so called "charisma", the best possible explanation (which is generally so for most social phenomena) is evolution and survivability. As social creatures, human beings wish for belongingness, mutuality and so on. Conformity and agreeableness seem to be easy methods to find oneself such social comforts - you don't have to do anything by yourself but instead agree as everyone else in a group with what the single person who seemingly exudes "social responsibility and leadership characteristics" says and does, because most would assume that a person satisfying this role is most effective at coherently maintaining and guiding a group. In short, you're more willing to listen to charismatic people precisely because they're charismatic, which is that they embody all the qualities people generally look for in someone who leads them (regardless of their actual capabilities in any given task)

@whatsup3519 4 ай бұрын

@@kappaprimus appearance and body language matter. But how to good with words .1. Some People "know to say right word at right time". How to learn that? Is there any scientific way to do it. What u call it. 2 And why some people willing to listen to one person over other. What r the parameters make them do that? Expecting ur reply

@kappaprimus 4 ай бұрын

@@whatsup3519 @whatsup3519 1. How do people learn how to say the right thing at the right time? A: - There is no _one_ right thing, it also depends on how you frame your sentences, you can say absolute nonsense and get away with it if you can make it sound persuasive enough - you learn how to deal with social contexts as you _participate_ in them. The more you do the better you get. There is a 'science' to it of course, but human interactions are far too complex for you to want to consciously improve each variable separately, you're far better off intuitively finding your way through by exposing yourself to conversations. But also, in case you still insist behind the science, then first you need to meet with the other person's areas of interest. Use words/terms they are familiar with, use their hobbies, preferences and so on to develop their interest. Similarly, empathising with them (trying to understand their feelings/state of mind and desires) and acknowledging their presence (or validating their feelings) is very effective at making people wanting to reciprocate. There are many more aspects but start with these, and for these again you need to first understand the other party, so try actively looking out for what people generally show interest in, what they like, don't like etc. Once you have a basic connection with a people, humour is another great way of furthering this

@tusharpotdar5762 4 ай бұрын

I would like to listen same in hindi 😊 By the way psychology and types of personalities another top on which you may create a video series

@karthickrajas5863 4 ай бұрын

👍👍👍🔥🔥🔥

@abhinavprabhakar455 4 ай бұрын

awesome! some new fonts would be nice!

@nothing29717 4 ай бұрын

My argument is best represented by Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: Imagine a group of prisoners who have been chained inside a dark cave since birth. They are unable to turn their heads and can only see the wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is a fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a parapet along which puppeteers walk. These puppeteers cast shadows on the wall of the cave by holding various objects in front of the fire. The prisoners perceive these shadows and echoes of sounds as the only reality because they have never seen anything else. One day, a prisoner is freed and exposed to the outside world. Initially, he is blinded by the light and struggles to understand and accept the new reality. However, as his eyes adjust to the sunlight, he begins to see the world for what it truly is, realizing that the shadows on the cave wall are mere illusions. Filled with newfound knowledge, the freed prisoner returns to the cave to rescue the others. However, the remaining prisoners resist and are hostile, preferring the familiar shadows to the unknown reality beyond the cave. Interpretation: Whatever we are perceiving might be akin to the prisoners' perception of shadows. We could be biologically constrained to perceive the world as we do. Yet, there could be something higher, and this world we observe might be merely a shadow of this higher entity. Science, in this view, could be seen as a description of this world full of shadows. If truth is something that reality abides by, and we can never fully observe reality, then science itself is impossible according to the definition in this video. Metaphysics deals with the question of what reality is and generally explores multiple possible realities. According to me, there should be something akin to science in each world that metaphysics generates. I would rather use the term "phenomena" instead of "reality". --> Truth is something that phenomena abide by, and we must observe phenomena....so on

@subhuman3408 4 ай бұрын

I think there is circular reasoning here. What is difference between truth and reality according to you?

@shauryaaher1579 4 ай бұрын

I think reality is what there is and truth is our correct interpretation of reality. I don't think that answer will satisfy you, though. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

@Madara456 4 ай бұрын

Science is philosophy i think more i would try to understand more

@subhuman3408 4 ай бұрын

If l have predictive power