Nuking Social Constructionism {1/3}

In this video, I develop the core of the Naturalist Nuke, the Big 4 Operational Criteria, and explain my naturalistic, pragmatic understanding of the relationship between science and philosophy.
Here was the introductory video, which you should watch if you haven't yet: • Nuking Social Construc...

[@CrittingOut]

Woo goes in woo goes out, you can't explain that!

[@johnnywoods5549]

No-one can explain zat!

[@AnAverageFiend]

Magnets. How do they work?

[@CrittingOut]

@@AnAverageFiend I don't know but I certainly don't wanna talk to a scientist

[@johnnywoods5549]

@@CrittingOut kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4CTo2xpZbihlZo

[@CrittingOut]

@@johnnywoods5549 I don't think you got the joke

[@sandakureva]

I'm actually not super well versed in all of this. I'm a chef, and my epistemology tends to consist of what is delicious and what is not, but it's a cool debate.

[@GEdwardsPhilosophy]

Knowledge is a tasty treat 🙂

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Hey, you're like most of us here.

[@Anonie324]

I worked as a food runner for some time. If I know anything about chefs and like cooks, it's that they love to see clueless arrogant dipshits getting demolished, after your fifth order of vegan well done steak with gluten free ketchup from a 20-top that marched in 5 minutes before close. Makes sense that you like this!

[@EdwardHowton]

A simple way of looking at it is this: You know what tastes good and what doesn't. That's a result of many factors, some of which are assumed deep down due to how long humans have been around, but which you can figure out with not too much effort and arrive to simple conclusions which allow you to make tasty dishes. Kristi comes along and says "Taste is a social construct so eating shit is just as good"

[@LukeSumIpsePatremTe]

@@Anonie324 On every side of an issue there are clueless idiots. Just ask your fellow apes why the Earth is a sphere. Most of them can't come up with anything.

[@dasuperbudda01]

The king spent nearly 30 mins explaining why the natural sciences are natural, and I'm loving it.

[@mesmerized1758]

2:03 Now I've caught you red handed, KC. Right there, you've promised more videos beyond the scope of this series. You cannot escape it or deny it. As a consequence of this - if I see this channel go inactive again for another year, I'll turn you into a croco leather handbag.

[@harinarain09]

I'll help u

[@kayellee7202]

Not applying the principle of charity, I see.

[@destinystrapper]

you have my sword (and my dagger and my cake cutting rapier)

[@hitobite]

I'm with @@kayellee7202, he said there will be videos, he didn't say when.

[@donwanna3906]

@@destinystrapper I want a cake-cutting rapier....

[@GEdwardsPhilosophy]

Pragmatic naturalised epistemology was never defeated in battle; its interpretivist opponents (who Winters parrots) just quit the field whilst declaring victory.

[@ingold1470]

Or did they simply sneak through the Ardennes and capture the capital while naturalists were waiting around for a fair challenge?

[@forbesbeckum4209]

Except the very problem of circularity that Quine himself notes. If the goal of traditional epistemology is to legitimate the foundations of the natural sciences, naturalized epistemology would be tasked with validating the natural sciences by means of those very sciences. In order to understand the link between observation and science, Quine's naturalized epistemology must be able to identify and describe the process by which scientific knowledge is acquired. Since naturalized epistemology relies on empirical evidence, all epistemic facts which comprise this reliable method must be reducible to natural facts. That is, all facts related to the process of understanding must be expressible in terms of natural facts. If this is not true, i.e. there are facts which cannot be expressed as natural facts, science would have no means of investigating them. In this vein, Roderick Chisholm argues that there are epistemic principles (or facts) which are necessary to knowledge acquisition, but may not be, themselves, natural facts. If Chisholm is correct, naturalized epistemology would be unable to account for these epistemic principles and, as a result, would be unable to wholly describe the process by which knowledge is obtained. Also, if epistemology is wholly naturalized, this necessitates the elimination of the (epistemically) normative. But without the normative, these is no warrant, justification, or rationality. Justification is what makes knowledge valuable and normative; without it what can rightly be said to be true or false? Quine is moving epistemology into the realm of psychology, where Quine’s main interest is based on the sensory input-output relationship of an individual. This account can never establish an affirmable statement which can lead us to truth, since all statements without the normative are purely descriptive (which can never amount to knowledge). It is certainly true that naturalism in a cooperative manner is essential and useful to epistemology, we couldn’t do this without empirical analysis. But replacing epistemology with naturalized epistemology has almost no support anymore.

[@DocOmally101]

Gary its always great to see you kicking around.

[@MrTTnTT]

@@forbesbeckum4209 I haven't ready Quine, so I guess you can take it with a grain of salt, but it looks like you (and by extension Quine & Chrisholm) are not discussing pragmatism as part of that naturalized epistemology. Are we looking at an echo of the dispute between rationalists and empiricists? Where the rationalists claimed "we have certain knowledge" and the empiricists claimed "the closest we can even get is empirical knowledge, and it isn't certain" and Kant claimed "There are some things we can't help but to assume". In this frame, consider the possibility that pragmatic naturalised epistemology is like the empiricist position. The demand for functionality (Crocoduck's big 4) should be something that can evolve. And by extension, we can see other normative claims emerging. But they won't be certain. They will be speculation. But they will be inferred and believed based on pragmatic viability, including the big 4.

[@lloydgush]

I honestly think we should construct a theory of intelligent design, even if it's contrived like a ptolemaic cosmology. Just to disarm those who'd use it against truth seeking. Start with a theory of purposeful design to explain the appearance of variation, of course where we know purpose exist, which is in agriculture and animal husbandry. And it could even be used to explain why SA didn't domesticated the "queixada" (it's a piggie, and they did recently do it, I meant pre-historical), so it would be a theory about how to find purpose and how to expect purpose in animal species. We do technically have a lot of tool on how to find it, not so much on how to predict if there's something to be found. After having a working model with some predictive power, you then apply it without knowing there's an intelligent agent, compare it to the predictions of evolutionary biology (not that the theory would have an underlining of evolutionary biology already with the added artificial selection) and we call what ever we can conclude from that "intelligent design theory". Funny stuff likely will arrive from it, like "god likes crabs" "god gave octopuses brains because he couldn't give them exoskeletons" and other funny stuff like that. Ironically, that sort of stuff predicts a "crocoduck", and it's called spinosaur, IE, if you stick a dinosaur into a river ambush predator role, it's going to look alot like a crocodile. And the sad realization that polynesians didn't create the banana so it could fit in preachers assholes, it's just incidental that it does. They selected for a lot of flesh and a lot of fruits per chunk from a pill shaped fruit. Stacking a lot of long crescent shaped fruits is actually quite efficient. Now, here's my suggestion for starting premisses: A purposefully designed variant is a pool of living beings who's properties were designed by a symbiotic actor with a purpose, and who share more genetic/phenotypic/niche similarities with each other than with natural/other variants. A purposefully designed variant is a variant of a living being who's designed purpose competes with it's survival ability under natural selective pressures. A purposefully designed variant will evolve away some of it's purposefully features if it's left to survive an reproduce under natural selective pressures. Now on the premisses related to why and how agents create new species. Agents create new variants by selecting for desirable traits. Agents create new variants from locally available variants they can form a multi-generational relationship with. Agents create new variants to cope with their own survival needs. Agents create new variants to cope with instincts they have but can't cope with it otherwise in it's new environment that differs from the environment where those instincts had it's function.

[@tdb922f]

I am basically just an engineer. I will have to watch this several times to be even remotely sure I have actually understood it. But one thing I am already quite certain of: protohumans were learning things be testing and observation long before any structured metacognition or philosophical debate. Even my dog learns to carry out tasks that produce desirable outcomes by trial and error. He does not have an underlying epistemology in the sense that social constructionism would require. To claim that philosophy (etc.) are somehow senior or foundational seems extremely bizarre to me. Enough navel gazing...I'm off to build stuff that will make the world a better place. I can do that without falling into a downward spiral of nihilistic dread! Peace brothers, sisters, comrades.

[@revelationreflection]

"Build stuff that make the world.a better place" Then you better be real careful about what you build, how, why, where and i what scale it is implemented, think of long term effects, structural societal and economic effects, etc etc. Things have consequences, don't be too simplistically optimistic and cocky about it. But you have a good day, too (sincerely).

[@AnaseSkyrider]

I think the idea that epistemology and ontology precede science comes from the idea that the things we were doing, trial and error, requires we already have some foundation to even believe it would work in the first place, even if we don't have a formalized understanding of those views. To do science is to start with a foundation that believes some form of empiricism is a valid system for acquiring knowledge, that external reality exists and can be broken down, etc. One could argue we are evolved to think in such science-like manners as a function of nature selecting creatures who can learn in such manners to survive, perhaps because that is the nature of reality, not just our conception, or was the most useful.

[@donwanna3906]

"Downward Spiral of Nihilistic Dread" sounds like a bad-ass roller coaster.

[@iseriver3982]

I would say that your dog doing tricks for treats has nearly nothing to do with learning and understanding. Sure, archaic humans had research and development (engineering). They made better axes and bows and spears and houses and then somehow agriculture happened, but there's no real understanding behind it. Several cultures all claimed their person god happened to give them victory in battle or good harvests, but that's not knowledge of why high carbon steel makes better swords, or nitrogen fixing fields produces higher crop wields. I'm still making the same point, I just think getting dogs involved destroys the metaphor.

[@talmiz101]

so....you solve other people's problems but no one ever asked if *you* have a problem that **they** can solve for ya? right? man I feel sorry for Engineers everywhere because people like you make our world better everyday and NOT A SINGLE TIME do you guys and gals get any Thank you, so allow me good sir. thank you for your hard work and that you are able to make it better.

[@pruusnhanna4422]

From the perspective of a humble engineer, the values involved are not “good” vs. “bad”, but “it works” vs. “It doesn’t work”. I surmise the Kings view is something similar, though more elaborate.

[@Madnessofmusic]

“Needs hammer” vs “doesn’t need hammer”

[@keira_churchill]

@@Madnessofmusic If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. If hammering the thing worked then maybe it did so in spite of that percussive bias. Something working is not always evidence of it being a good solution.

[@Madnessofmusic]

@@keira_churchillI agree, in cases where the hammer is not the solution, one must turn to WD-40. However, on a serious note you are correct in terms of the theoretical idea. However, in practice/daily life I find that if an approach works and doesn’t make the problem worse, it’s the correct one, regardless of any deeper considerations.

[@keira_churchill]

@@Madnessofmusic If that's his argument (yes it's a social construct but it often works so who cares?), then it's not quite the "nuke" that was advertised in the brochure. I don't think that's the basis for his WMD, but given that he disembowelled the entirety of his first two instalments in the last few minutes of this second one, it's hard to foresee where he'll be going in the third. Maybe he'll use that WD-40 to slip in a bigger hammer somehow. We'll see. I don't think I'll be needing a dosimeter when watching it anyway.

[@KingCrocoduck]

@@keira_churchill I might surprise you.

[@Asehpe]

Here's a somewhat longish reaction: 1. The assumption that you are uninformed about philosophical discussions and arguments, especially the more technical ones, is warranted by the simple fact that this is usually true for people with a scientific formation. Of course this does not imply that the assumption is correct: it is perfectly possible for an engineer to be also fully aware of all the consequences of British Skepticism (say, in David Hume's work) for the framing of the basis of empirical science, but it is not a frequent thing. One tends to assume things that are frequent; that's how they become assumptions, in the general-language sense of the term. No need to be angry about it (if I'm correctly interpreting your tone -- if not, my apologies). 2. The only way to reject philosophy as a foundation for science is to accept a fiat from some higher power (i.e., some form of religion), simply because there is no scientific way to prove that science is what it claims to be ('a method for aquiring/improving knowledge'). Trying to do so creates a tautological circle ('science improves knowledge because science says it does'). Unfortunately, whether or not science as a method for acquiring and increasing knowledge is seen as functional ('it gets results!'), its basis ('why does it get results?') has to be either philosophical, or religious. There simply is nothing else. 3. The interactivity between science and philosophy is quite probable, and it is one of the claims of one of the groups of philosophy that you dismiss when you declare yourself against a philosophical basis for science (which one will be left as an exercise for the interested reader). But this does not logically affect the need science has for a philosophical basis for even existing. One possibility is simply that science is a part of philoisophy -- one of its many fields of inquiry and/or schools of thought, like, say, phenomenology, linked to a methodology with a very interesting structure and enormous practical consequences. None of the claims you made about the 'interaction' between science or philosophy, assuming that they are all true, would be incompatible with this possibility. (This is only one possibility, by the way; there are others.) 4. The idea of philosophy as simply serving to clarify the concepts in science is of paramount importance to logical positivism (or perhaps, more broadly, analytical philosophy), which I suspect to be the school of philosophy on which you base your conception of science (please correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the philosophers you mention -- Quine, Peirce, Popper, -- are both acknowledged by logical positivists like Carnap, Neurath, and/or even Russell or, for Peirce, Frege). Naturalism is seen by many as an elaboration on logical positivism. As I said in a comment to your video on 'lived experience', though, there is much criticism of logical positivism and its main tenets -- not just post-modernist authors like Foucault (and I still think it would be great to see how you would discuss his Archeology of Knowledge), but by philosophers of various other schools of thought. If you want to base science on logical positivism, you will have to come to terms with these critiques and counterarguments. (I understand your initial argument that this video is too short for you to do everything, but I suggest at least a certain degree of humility when making your claims since you are still NOT coming to terms with very important existing arguments against your viewpoint. By all means tell us what you think, but please note that you haven't settled any questions.) 5. To put the methodology first historically is quite correct, but note that this is not the same as saying that it is conceptually prior. Of course we start out by trying and learning (trial and error) how do to things, and only theorize about why these methods work later; but that does not change the epistemological place of the theory (= philosophy, system) as the base for the correctness of the methodology. To use a simpler scientific parallel, people knew how to make explosives (e.g., Chinese fireworks) before they understood why explosions happened (i.e., no knowledge of chemistry); but conceptually, the reason why explosions happen is still (if the theory is correct) given by chemistry, not by the method whereby we first learned how to make fireworks. I.e., chemistry is the conceptual basis on which explosives depend, even if, historically, we found out about explosives before developing said conceptual basis. 6. Perhaps your real beef is with the person who criticized you rather than with the debate between naturalistic and non-naturalistic visions of philosophy (on your side, consider Daniel Dennett, who did a great job of presenting the problems inherent to the approaches that you criticize here; and consider that there are criticisms of his approach as well.) If so, I can fully agree -- I don't think her arguments are all that cogent either. But if you're really interested in the philosophical basis of science, there are much, MUCH better sources to look at than her, or Grix -- from people who were much better than sports policy professors. (Be careful with Nassim Taleb, though -- his confrontational style and some broad assumptions about statistics has drawn much criticism from statisticians ever since his Black Swan debut.) A final comment: do not take criticism so personally. I understand your dismissal of the video that prompted this reaction, and I tend to agree with your arguments about it. But it is better to keep everything at the level of discussions and arguments, not stooping to jokes, even if the video you criticize did stoop that low. The internet is already full of mean-spirited people, isn't it? I hope you won't see mean-spiritedness in my criticism here, and wish you all the best with your ideas and videos, and hope to hear more of them.

[@KingCrocoduck]

Before you start: I know that social constructionism isn't limited to the proposition that science is a social construct. That is the one proposition that I am challenging in this series; see the introduction if you haven't already. kzbin.info/www/bejne/on3UnqWPiq6DedE

[@Rickety3263]

You sir, are my hero

[@KingCrocoduck]

@Bullen König both

[@nicholasleclerc1583]

@@KingCrocoduck Oooooooooh !!! So cool, man; it's been a while, too; glad you're back

[@AK-uy3xn]

“...social constructionism isn’t limited to the proposition that science is a social construct.” - do you mean that social constructionism is all b.s. but you’re focusing on this one proposition or that some s.c. propositions have merit? I thought in your Nye vs Ham commentary video you agreed that race is a social construct?

[@KingCrocoduck]

@@AK-uy3xn I understand race to be partially a social construct, and partially a conventional scientific category whose development was independent of social influence. The claim being contested in this series is that science is fundamentally a product of social relations.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Oh...christy winters. Yeah...we've met. No i cant provide a reference for her scientific interest as she only held an administrative role in our student counseling department.

[@djanitatiana]

Think she would wreak even more damage in counselling...

[@EdwardHowton]

She administered students? What did she administer to them, copro-cerebral conversion therapy?

[@nunyabisnass1141]

@@EdwardHowton actually I think she worked for a museum in the fine arts department. Either way i didnt bother to actually check as i was only making a joke.

[@artemis7271]

@@nunyabisnass1141 I know years ago she worked with a "think tank" (vomit) in Germany

[@jeremykoehnlein2158]

@@drkmwinters dude, he literally already clarified in a follow up comment right here that he was making a joke. Try looking for a little context before replying. And maybe take a moment to ponder why you’re so defensive.

[@ShawnWilliams314]

Here's a comment for the algorithm. I admit that I'm firmly agnostic in this debate as a layman, but I do find your argument thus far fascinating and I cannot wait for the next video. It's going to be a lot of fun. Best of luck, KC.

[@noelplum99]

Ok, so I enjoyed this and interesting to see where this goes in part 2. Your knowledge of this is an entire order of magnitude beyond mine which makes this a very compelling watch. I am listening to what you laid out here and I am thinking back to my considerations on this from a few years ago. At the time i very much took the same position that (unless i misunderstand the thrust of your position here) that science is effectively the more deliberate application and formalisation of things we already do naturally (things such as you outlined here). So i am interested to see where this goes next. The point I made at the time, that I still find compelling (maybe you will disabuse me of it in pt2.... my ageing brain hopes not!), is that this not only applies to us but that the processes of experimentation, extrapolation, interpolation, expectation of repeatability and giving value to repeated observations apply not just to us as humans but to my pet cat and beyond; that this form of understanding and interacting with the world arose from unremitting and inescapable evolutionary benefit (:it works) long before even the possibility of philosophising it into being even existed. Ok, on to part 2, hope for more of this heady mix of thoughtful content and metaphorically bloodying the nose of one of the smuggest people I have had the displeasure to meet in my years on KZbin

[@mclark23]

Crocoduck wakes up from hybrrnation after years of sleep. And he comes out swinging. Come for the quatum, stay for the epistemology.

[@Wingedmagician]

He’s back just in time for the blockbuster Kaiju wars. I want to see Godzilla vs Crocoduck.

[@Torvar]

Good to have you back. Always entertaining and informative. Crocoduck bless.

[@factjuniorroll]

Im guessing this vid is gonna be pretty based

[@DarranKern]

Eh

[@alkestos]

KC is highly based.

[@donwanna3906]

@@alkestos He's one of the most basedest.

[@aeroscience9834]

My philosophy: *Shows ICBM*

[@lordbendtner9328]

Kim Jong Un approves

[@keira_churchill]

The ICBM has not been shown yet. There's more WMDs in Iraq than in this video series so far. Given that the entirety of the first two instalments were shot down by friendly fire in the closing few minutes of this one, if he can't get to the punchline in the next instalment then he can consider himself done. Ain't nobody got time for this.

[@Paxmax]

Intelligent Communication Based Messages ?? =o)

[@Paxmax]

@@keira_churchill Well, imagine how much sh-t Croco had to wade through to even find a kernel of Fistie Splinters "arguments" I think we could afford Croco some slack. Rebuttal usually takes 3 times as long as the original argument when dealing with uncharitable players.

[@keira_churchill]

@@Paxmax Not quite. He started on the losing side and stayed there without any weapons or any hope of building one. If he's been wading through stuff looking for "kernels of fistie splinters", whatever they are, then he didn't find or present any in the first two instalments of this "rebuttal" series. He wasted two videos building a "nuke" that was so unstable that he set it off and atomised his lab by accident in the closing few minutes of this one, thus proving that it does not take 3x as long to tear down an argument as it does to make it. All we can do now is wait to see if he can dust himself down and build it again from scratch in the third instalment. The first two were quite clearly a waste of everyone's time.

[@danielrhouck]

I agree in principle that what you should care about is (mostly) the nature of the world you perceive, but there are some important consequences to some of the hypotheticals you mentioned to emphasize that point: * In many of them there's an external reality, and there might be a way to wake up and experience that; this seems worth learning about * In some of the others, you get solipsism (at least within this apparent reality), which has important ethical considerations * Related to the above, anything beyond the cosmological event horizon no longer influences your perceptions of the world, but still might be worth caring about if other people are there or you're working on a space program to *send* other people there.

[@Anonie324]

What a WONDERFUL birthday present!

[@maingun07]

Happy Birthday! May all your traffic lights be green!

[@antecave]

Nature->Evolution->brains->predictably useful behaviors->codified scientific rules->BOOM

[@dylancope]

The idea that philosophy precedes science is certainly worth challenging. Notable examples are Hume being directly inspired by Newton's methods, Marx being inspired by Darwin (among lots of philosophers inspired by Darwin), Popper being inspired by Einstein. Dan Dennett talks about this in his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". Dennett is the most articulate natural philosopher I have ever read so I highly recommend anyone checking out his work.

[@BigHenFor]

So who was Plato inspired by? Or Aristotle?

[@WearyWizard]

24:00 bold of you to assume they'd watch the whole video

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

After having been a philosophy major from about 1999 until 2018 (leaving and coming back after doing real things) I can say that philosophy is most certainly not the foundation of science. Philosophers can’t even agree whether or not the world exists. Many seem to be under the impression that incomplete knowledge is not knowledge at all. Edit: hadn’t watched the whole episode. You thoroughly addressed this.

[@CyaNerdz]

Thanks for the video, really clear explanations (and one of my first times hearing a scientist really walk through the things I've learned and appraise them from their own perspective). I studied almost exclusively philosophy of science (mostly on theory choice) for my Philosophy MA and this was still enjoyable and informative even only at 30m in length! Hope Kristi can stand to be a bit more humble in future lol it's a bit cringe hearing people speak incorrectly with such confidence

[@mojobag01]

As someone that approached philosophy from mathematics I must say that was fascinating, amusing, colourful and mouthwatering.

[@kendomyers]

What I found most obnoxious was the attempt to subjugate the hard sciences under the soft sciences. I say that as someone who majored in polisci and business. Edit: ... Concentration in international relations. Minor in East Asian history. Also, I have an associates from an accredited culinary school. But I love me some science and philosophy, thats why Im on these channels.

[@DeconvertedMan]

on the subject of food what do you make of the "appropriation" of dishes that some have complained about - is there anything "NOT" borrowed from somewhere else? I suspect there might be a single ingredient that might be local to one place - and thus not used anywhere else (or used sparingly as its hard to get) is no one else allowed to use said ingredient? My thought on such matters is that its silly to complain about part of (or all of) a culture being appropriated. What are your thoughts on such matters?

[@kendomyers]

@@DeconvertedMan The food and recipes themselves? I think are impossible to "appropriate," just cook and eat what tastes good. However, the symbology surrounding the food might be "appropriated," I think the way to do it properly is to make sure not to make what is sacred to someone else profane, and if you do use foreign symbology to use it with fidelity (or at least make a good faith attempt) Besides that, just cook and eat what tastes good. And if I want to get all meaningful, food brings people together. Lets set aside what divides us and all break bread together.

[@rcolorado2364]

Yes I worked very hard on my BS in physics and that was pretty annoying.

[@DeconvertedMan]

@@kendomyers how would one make food profane? :D

[@kendomyers]

@@DeconvertedMan *the symbology around food But to answer your question, if I cooked and sold eucharist as a breakfast cereal *(transubstantiats in milk!) That would be taking a sacred food and making it profane Consider how any every culture has a food or drink or ceremony that is sacred If you make crackers and wine, just dont try to make eucharists unless youre actually doing a communion, for example, unless youre out to offend

[@ShaneHolly]

KC you're awesome man.. love the channel and glad your back..

[@robbiekop7]

He's doing just fine 👌 without his Sunshine Band 🌞 that he had in the 70s

[@Youshallbeeatenbyme]

I truly didn't know how much I missed listening to you systematically kill sophist's and their arguments. Also I'm glad that you're taking this on, 'cuz this is almost 100% my exact same approach.

[@ABaumstumpf]

Note to my self: Don't get a Crocoduck, they have very irregular patterns of long hibernation.

[@NirielWinx]

I want King Crocoduck and Anticitizen X to do videos together.

[@giulialund2001]

Damn this dude smart as hell. It was his suggestions in his video "so you want a degree in physics " that convinced me to go into a STEM program and got me through my math courses in CS.

[@tigerj4000]

Looking forward to this.

[@jonah_da_mann]

Long story short: we humans and our brains are able to recognize patterns. Ergo, we are able to figure out how the external world works. We detect; therefore, we learn. The only question is: “how do we overcome all the social, material, and psychological obstacles that merely IMPEDE our ability to uncover those truths (rather than flat-out rendering it impossible)?” I dare any postmodernist/social constructionist to argue that humans can’t learn from recognizing patterns.

[@bencochrane6112]

Playing devil's advocate, at a certain point the model has to be made as a poor abstraction of the observed universe. You may call this a model, hypothesis, or a theory if there is sufficient evidence. However, the model itself must be constructed: it is not the true phenomena observed, but a poor abstraction of it. Hence, all of the models we use are constructed. Understanding that is seriously important if you want to do good science - you get no extra points for simply believing a theory that happens to have a lot of evidence behind it. That's certainly no excuse to say we can ignore models because they're constructed. To deny evidence backing them up would be, well, stupid. But, we cannot automatically assume that our model, no matter how much the evidence suggests it is correct, is the actual phenomena... it isn't. Newton was proved to only have a piece of the puzzle. The same will happen to Einstein. Basically...don't throw out the core of constructivism just because some dumb asses use it badly.

[@Magnulus76]

The whole notion of there being an "external world", a world which is superior to the so-called internal world, in the first place, is philosophy from Descartes.

[@seanbeadles7421]

What postmodernist would argue that lol? Don’t joust against windmills lol

[@constantinosstylianou]

Very excited for the rest of this series, King! What do you think of Ladyman, Ross, Spurrett and Collier's 'Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized'?

[@KingCrocoduck]

I'm very eager to finally get around to reading it

[@forbesbeckum4209]

Lol funny. They call it metaphysics naturalized but in order to ground their view of relations without relata they need a Platonist view on the problem of universals. Peak irony.

[@ilja857]

I'm loooking forward to your next video. Dying to see how are you going to observe your methodology in the "real world" while using the same methodology to observe it. Fascinating times we live in.

[@TheologyUnleashed]

Finally, another video!

[@thatbuckmulligan]

OMG! I was just talking about you and now here you are!

[@UriahChristensen]

William James' 1907 lectures on pragmatism changed how I look at metaphysics, and its roll in science. James puts forth that pragmatism is a method of solving metaphysical disputes by examining the expected practical consequences of positions and comparing that to experience. To me, this implies metaphysical positions ought to be falsifiable, and that scientific methodology informs our ontology. Basically, that metaphysics ought to follow from our physics. Which I believe Sean Carroll pointed this out to WLC in a debate. Anyway: love your videos! You were missed.

[@alkestos]

Fantastic work, as usual. Hail to the King, baby.

[@Gibson1961SG]

Just when we needed him most, the avatar returns!!

[@RandomBrownLunchSack]

Ouch, that smackdown. Amazing.

[@MrAnthonypennant]

Thank you for posting this!!

[@protestifications]

"if they're not applicable to my ability to navigate the world, then they are literally of no use to me" YES THANK YOU Armchair philosophers waxing on about yOu dOnT kNoW wHaTs rEaL piss me off to no end.

[@ladyhm.6748]

Quite the low IQ take.

[@liamcdm3689]

@@ladyhm.6748 lol Says the person that seems to imply that fixating on fundamentally useless ideas makes one "smart."

[@ladyhm.6748]

@@liamcdm3689 It's a profound display of ignorance on your part to call these ideas 'fundamentally useless'-even though they have influenced generations of culture, technological development, etc.. Try reading philosophy before yabbering about it.

[@liamcdm3689]

@@ladyhm.6748 If they do not apply to one's navigation of the physical world, then yes, they're useless. You're the armchair philosopher KC hates.

[@ladyhm.6748]

@@liamcdm3689 Kind of presumptious of you. May I inquire as to what precisely 'does not apply to one's navigation of the physical world'?

[@rightpa]

Two days!? But I want a nuke now!!

[@EdwardHowton]

Found the North Korea.

[@88_TROUBLE_88]

@ᎮᏒĀɱØԃ ᏒāᏠᎮÜᏖ Do wat mate?

[@Steelmage99]

12:00 Ouch. That's a hell of a burn. :)

[@88_TROUBLE_88]

3rd ° for sure

[@wasneeplus]

I find it very satisfying to see that your philosophy very much mirrors my own thoughts on the matter.

[@phileas007]

the cliff-hanger is palpable!

[@nebiros_at9473]

It really is fascinating browsing comments and seeing it look similar to comments in Kent Hovind debate videos.

[@Howtragicforyou]

Yeah almost like people don’t like having their irrational ideological frameworks poked and prodded.

[@jeremykoehnlein2158]

I think KC just might be the greatest science communicator there is right. This is spectacular.

[@jeremykoehnlein2158]

@@drkmwinters so, did you not watch it? Or is your head just that far up your rear end?

[@KingCrocoduck]

@@drkmwinters seethe harder

[@markkocsis6198]

@@drkmwinters What the hell is wrong with you?

[@liamcdm3689]

@@drkmwinters With that grammar, how the fuck did you get a PhD?

[@nova_supreme8390]

I already know this is going to be my favorite anime.

[@nooneatall5612]

I like your theory and the big 4, I think I will take it.

[@maingun07]

Mister Nukey, delivering tough love by the megaton

[@Voidsworn]

Reminds me of anticitizenx stuff, which is good stuff. It boils down to, for me, it doesn't matter what the fundamental nature of reality is if I cannot determine how to. Whether I'm a brain in a vat, some kind of solipsistic world, an actual simulant as part of some simulated world, or something else is all meaningless. I have deal with the world as it appears to be, as I am limited to perceiving/interacting. Trying to go deeper without tools is futile.

[@artur-rdc]

If you have been inspired by Popper, as you have said, you might be interested in reading David Deutsch's the beginning of infinity, which in my view improves Popper. Your "big four" is well summarized under the Deutschian idea of 'good explanations' which consist of 'hard to vary' descriptions of reality. From watching the video, it seems you're converging on these ideas, even if still making some mistakes like instrumentalism or empiricism, or so I think. Anyway, nice video. Interested to see where this goes.

[@liberality]

This is a dis track without a rhyme or a beat. It's still on fire.

[@JagerIV]

I enjoy seeing what your doing. I'm not sure how much it matters. Who is going to be persuaded one way or another?

[@j.gairns]

Thank fucking christ you're back. Excellent video!! More please.

[@nacetroy]

Came here and sub'd on James Lindsay's word from his recent stream with Benj. Boyce.

[@KingCrocoduck]

Welcome!

[@psychee1]

It's taken me several views to sufficiently grasp what's being said (English isn't my first language) but it's worth every view. 13:46 Big 4 breakdown

[@GamingBlake2002]

17:25 "Via the process Popperlerly called falsification" Nice one.

[@Danarcis]

I'll be interested in how you tackle the immediate counter-argument, natural =/= good or desirable

[@williambarnes5023]

The greatest of our moral values apply to every level of society, imposed from the outside, from ants to wolves to aliens, due to simple mathematics. A collective cannot long abide loss of members greater than its gain: It will go extinct. This is the command not to murder, an ought from an is. A collective cannot long abide loss of resources greater than its gain: It will bleed dry. This is the command not to steal, an ought from an is. A collective cannot long abide loss of cohesion greater than its gain: It will fracture apart. This is the command not to lie, an ought from an is. Violate these rules, and the universe itself will destroy your group and replace it. The is places limits on what range of oughts are permissable. You can't have a pack of wolves with the moral value of killing two pups for every one birthed. The pack dies. You can't have an ant colony with the moral value of laying down false trails to food and nest. The death spirals. You can't have a nation with the moral value of destroying its own economy and education. The great collapse.

[@revelationreflection]

@@williambarnes5023 Pretty interesting. So the assumed value is that life is desirable. "The great collapse" sounds like some catch phrase used by people peddling polarizing politics, but I watch too much political stuff maybe. You can't have an economic system that imbues every actor to maximize revenue and expect a rational and sustainable society on a planet.

[@williambarnes5023]

@@revelationreflection *"So the assumed value is that life is desirable."* No, that's not an assumed value. The inflicted reality is that life which _doesn't_ value itself goes extinct in favor of life that did, resulting in the valuing of life as a necessity. The ought from the is. *""The great collapse" sounds like some catch phrase used by people peddling polarizing politics, but I watch too much political stuff maybe."* It's a double entendre referencing the fall of Rome and the Great Depression and perhaps a worry of the future under leftist politics. But the intended meaning was that those who are great collapse, not that the collapse is great.

[@raymondthebrotherofperryma1403]

The irony of the chart @12:00 is that KC didn't place himself as far to the right as he deserves to be.

[@phiwise_9489]

New Crocduck vid! GET HYPE!

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Even with notifications on, i got nothing over over the past 4 years.

[@ansar-man]

Maybe this quote from 2500 years ago is off target; "Reason is immortal, all else is mortal."(Pythagoras). It's at least parsimonious.

[@TECHN01200]

What i think the main issue is is a confusion of the knowledge produced by the scientific method and the scientific method itself. The scientific method being the method meant to produce knowledge built with the intention of best weeding out personal values. The knowledge itself by definition of being observations makes it clear that scientific knowledge cannot be a social construct and the scientific method was devised in such a way to best remove values from the scientists.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

What others call philosophy, I prefer to call mathematical modeling, or, at least, I wish to mathematically model all philosophy, or as much of it as I can. To start, social constructionists calling someone or something "racist" or "sexist" or "Western biased" begs the questions: So what? What next? What should I do about it? Or, what should be done to/about me? Give me an algorithm of what should or should be done next - by whomever. But, now, I will analyze and question the cost-benefits of that algorithm just as the social constructionist did a cost-benefit analysis of someone or something before calling them racist, or sexist.

[@spinosaurusstriker]

That was really good!

[@trumanhw]

An example of Christie's confusion is: falsificationism which establishes what can [be] scientific, making epistemology _predicate_ to _ontology,_ but, I'm an empiricist.

[@shoa4566]

So good. I will watch it a fourth time

[@LionKimbro]

"This video series will put forth my positive argument for why, I believe, at its core, the existence of water is not a social construct." (okay?)

[@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear]

Thanks for the video :)

[@KarlWinterling]

Kristi Winters is a political scientist, so she's probably predisposed to believe that the natural sciences can be subordinated to the social sciences through some form of interpretivism.

[@purgatoriprytania5382]

You mean, a propagandist?

[@GEdwardsPhilosophy]

Social scientists are often most unwilling to question the articles of their neo-Kantian creed.

[@alexj7440]

@@GEdwardsPhilosophy Neo-kantian creed?

[@KarlWinterling]

@@alexj7440 Neo-Kantian (quasi-)religious ideology.

[@alexj7440]

@@KarlWinterling so what is this neo-kantien ideology?

[@stairwayunicorn4861]

Are there any notable examples of ontological and epistemological naturalism positions?

[@gnosgrajab2468]

I am in the process of trying to understand post-modernism. I'm doing this because every attempt so far has fallen short due to my loss of interest caused by my rejection of the ideas. I consider rejection of post-modernism unwarranted if I do not have sufficient understanding of it, so I'm revisiting it so I can gain a sufficient understanding to uncover my mistake and benefit from it or reject it fully. Applying the Big 4 to my readings thus far, I feel safe saying post-modernism fails on all counts. Post-Modernist must HATE you .:)

[@KingCrocoduck]

See my video, "Postmodern Woo."

[@kj4242]

Very good model. I like it. Thanks

[@stephenphilbin3919]

12:00 I take it the scientist in you just couldn't stand to leave it at labelled axes, and made you unable to leave the graph untitled. It was so close to being perfect.

[@Cyberplayer5]

22:00 Ok how funny you used footage from a drive around Downtown Dallas. I live in Texas not far from there.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

At the end of each of your videos like these, KC, give the listener a surprise quiz, to see if they had really listened.

[@fractalnomics]

Nice work. Have you come across the work of Professor Alan Musgrave of Dunedin New Zealand? He was a student of Karl Poppers.

[@snappybean]

Welcome back to the battle.

[@bm-br3go]

I'm no expert in this, but it seems what most people are saying when they mean "socially constructed" is that the things and some of the manners in which people pursue science is socially motivated, not that the results are made up. I dont think this is an extraordinary claim but recognizing this does, I think, have some benefit to our own recognition of the limitations of our thinking.

[@majdjinn5042]

So is this a Tzar Bomb? Or more so smaller bombardment to cause as much long term damage as possible?

[@stribika0]

It's the only way to be sure.

[@reinerwilhelms-tricarico344]

6:45 As a scientist I approve this message. It's always a good idea to think and know about the philosophy of science, and philosophy in a wider sense, but since there is hardly a science of philosophy, the philosophers really want to believe they're special and more foundational, and ultimately the only ones able to put together a coherent theory of the scientific edifice. Clearly though, in in the history of science, the philosophers are most of the time just catching up and often don't even know what the heck they are catching up to. On the other side, we already see attempts in neuroscience, physiology, and evolutionary biology to come up with scientific foundations of human cognition, and that includes both philosophy and science. For me as a physicist things are indeed a lot easier if you simply start with a naturalist dogma.

[@burieddreamer]

Awesome!

[@brianlaroche8856]

3 sports card memorabilia stats trivia collectors disliked this.

[@john_reese]

In the end I would be surprised if it doesn't boil down to Kristy's razor anyway: "Anything that supports feminism can be asserted without evidence, anything that goes against feminism can be dismissed regardless of evidence."

[@JagerIV]

Basically. I think this is hitting up, I'm not sure if its exactly distributists critique, but the people hes arguing against dont care about any of this. They use "social construct" to dismiss anything they want, not for logical reasons.

[@ConnorwithanO]

It's been many years since I heard the name "Kristi Winters". I ceased paying attention to SJWs after everything that could be said about them had already been said.

[@AlphaGamerDelux]

I used to watch your videos in my atheism KZbin days, and I thought that I unsubscribed from all but Thunderfoot. Then you popped up, I completely forgot about you. I thought ,"I should watch at least this video before unsubscribing." But no, this will keep me subscribed. This genuinely is a good atheism video, these people act like a cult. All the people that possess a naturally "religious personality" will tend towards it. But Christianity is out! And these people a group in one of the many up and coming ones!ple a group in one of the many up and comming ones!

[@Eta_Carinae__]

Someone's finally saying it. I will try here, since I can't quite think precisely how you'd respond, but are the Big 4 Operational Criteria reflexive? The idea behind this naturalistic programme is to serve as foundational (And rational coherence is #4), so I think it's fair to ask. Can we derive the OC _with_ the OC? Don't trust my scholarship on this, but I don't think Quine ever posited a foundation; I think he was wary of foundationalism -- I suspect a reader of Haack would be to. But the nature of a _kick-off point_ sounds quite close to that. The only thing I can think of was that the OC prior to any stage in the chain would not count as knowledge, but since the OC is a feature of nature, and I'm right about what you're going for, that doesn't sound plausible. EDIT: I should rephrase: does the OC satisfy it's own criteria for being a virtuous model of scientific practise?

[@KingCrocoduck]

The OC are not a foundation; they are (SPOILERS) a product of natural selection, our understanding of which is the product of the Big 4-compliant evolutionary theory.

[@Eta_Carinae__]

@@KingCrocoduck Ah, that's how you'd address circularity. I've been ingesting some naive realism in recency, so I'm tempted to say something to the effect of "at it's most prior, there is no real distinction between the ontic and methodological blocks in the diagram. Evolutionarily speaking, the primitive model _is_ real, there is ontological content, and is justified by that and not improved fitness" but I'd be operating dogmatically now, well outside your own system. Cheers for the response. It's good to see you back, man.

[@maxpflughoeft6806]

@@KingCrocoduck unfathomably based

[@djanitatiana]

​@@KingCrocoduck And Darwin wins again! Im sure this is why social constructionists are just religious fundamentalists with more piercings, tattoos and hair dye.

[@cmdrfun1]

My god what a hook at the end

[@siljamickeify]

Could someone tell me if I'm understanding this or not? Do the proponents of the "ontology came first" suggest the following statents to be true? a) Science is any activity that generates knowledge that did not previously exist. b) Knowledge can only be created once one has systematically defined what things can be known. c) Monkeys had developed fundamental philosophical theories on whether one can say that a rock exists or not. They then went on to bang two of them together with a nut in between, thus producing the knowledge that rocks can break nuts. Maybe I'm being stoopid here and missing the point, but is this what they suggest?

[@TheologyUnleashed]

13:00 sounds like logical positivism. Do you think only things which can be measured and predicted exist?

[@KingCrocoduck]

That's not what logical positivism is. Stop reading William Lane Craig.

[@TheologyUnleashed]

@@KingCrocoduck can you recommend a book a good book on epistemology?

[@Symplarify]

Give this man a triple PhD.

[@lamalamalex]

1. Metaphysics: Objective reality. Simply, “nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” Or, wishing won’t make it so. 2. Epistemology: Reason. Simply, you can’t eat your cake and have it too. 3 Ethics: Self-interest. Simply, man is an end in himself. 4 Politics: Capitalism. Simply, give me liberty or give me death. 5 Esthetics: Romantic Art. Simply, the fuel to ignite the fire of the human soul, his consciousness. From the Philosophy of Objectivism. Check it out!

[@Alientcp]

Wooo another one.

[@LordPastaProductions]

Pragmatism does all the good things that postmodernism does but without all the bad.

[@onedeathbyflame]

Man said, "build the core of the nuke" holy shit, naturalists should run

[@mathis8210]

I would not say that the value judgements are the basis of the methodology. I see them more as a filter that we can apply to the results. For example the methodology shows that the theory of gravity has predictive capability, regardless of whether i am looking for something with predictive capability or not. I guess you will take a somewhat similar approach to this?

[@BigHenFor]

But ideas which lead to hypotheses are not immune from value judgements. Even deciding what to study is a value judgement, and value judgements may be made about the results.

[@joryiansmith]

The deep, scientific, accurate, thorough, and profound reasoning you provide for each and every point you're making is near perfection, but it's wrapped in a pompous, snuffy, and arrogant tone. Scholarly and entertaining: Yes. Persuasive to anybody outside your very close circle of friends and followers: No. One minute in you state you don't care to persuade, only to provoke viewers to think more seriously about these topics. So your objective is not persuasion towards reason, but provocation. Sounds Twitter-esque. Let's see how that goes.

[@KingCrocoduck]

There is an important distinction to be found between being provoking people's thought process, and being a provocateur. It would be disingenuous to equate the two.

[@joryiansmith]

@@KingCrocoduck Fair point. I just don't see your delivery as falling into the former. But I could be wrong.

[@liamcdm3689]

@@joryiansmith Remember though, "facts don't care about your feelings." ;) KC is merely applying this maxim correctly.

[@DerNamenlose1991]

kristi winters now that's a name i haven't heard in a very long time