Epistemology, Ontology, and Axiology in Research

[@orgcomm]

NOTE: The point on Ontology @3:45 should start with a bullet that says something along the lines of "Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies 'existence' and the nature of 'being'" before I narrowed in on our existence as human beings. I'm in the field of Communication and we study human beings. My bias for asking researching questions about human existence showed through on that point (and in other places in the video). A more purely philosophical video about these terms would have discussed Ontology in a more general and patient sense with more depth and detail before moving to a focus on human existence. But, once videos are posted, you can't change what you said. So, please take note of this important omission.

[@DedenHabibi]

Thank you for clarifying this :D

[@defenderofwisdom]

In addition, the question of "why do I exist?" from the perspective of Sonny in I Robot is a teleological question, a question about purpose (telos) for his being (ontos).

[@bushraa5845]

Your 8 minute video made more sense than the 400+ pg book sitting in front of me. Thank you

[@orgcomm]

Glad it helped!

[@coltonbuhler7011]

He probably found this info in that book. Lol

[@shaykorner]

Same here.

[@ahg5853]

Exactly. The textbook I sold my kidney to purchase.

[@sarahwanyama3098]

Those text books explanations are too wordy for non communication experts. The video was timely.

[@MusicMakesMeHigh185]

This is great! I’m currently writing my dissertation and find that academic explanations of these theories are way too complicated to fully understand. I’m sending this video to my friends!

[@leandrearainey9603]

Epistemology: Branch of philosophy that studies knowledge (how do we know what we know)… knowledge is relative/ social construction… whatever we treat as knowledge is knowledge. Knowledge is out there waiting to be discovered. Ontology: studies nature of human beings (who are we, nature of our existence), do we make real free will choices. Are external forces “controlling” our outcomes? Are we better as individuals or groups? Axiology: studies values (what do we value , what values or outcomes will result from our research? All three help us appreciate research in different ways

[@cloudoftime]

No, that is not what ontology is. See any philosophical description of ontology, and even the pinned comment from the maker of the video. Ontology is the study of being and reality, not the study of human beings. I don't know why he hearted this comment (when he even corrected himself 5 years ago) without explaining the flawed explanation here.

[@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine]

But it's not professional scientific research more existential we only understand what we hear and must understand? And see what you value etc..

[@qaiserhaider]

The Best Description of those confusing philosophical assumptions. Thank you Sir.

[@orgcomm]

I'm happy it was clear for you, Kaiser.

[@qaiserhaider]

@@orgcomm Actually helping me in shaping up my PhD assignments. Thanks.

[@grandmasteryoda9313]

One thing I will admit that is hard when it comes to Philosophy is the way people look at you when you ask these types of questions. Well, at least in my own experience. I learned the hard way when it came to asking these questions around people who didn't really care for Philosophy. Most of them always told me, "The world is what it is. There's no need for Philosophy. Good and Evil? They just existed. Why are we here? We just are. So deal with it." These type of answers always drove me insane because it felt like I couldn't find anyone with the same questions that were floating in my head. This video helped me by showing me I'm not the only one out there with these kinds of questions! :)

[@orgcomm]

I hear you. Very few people want to explore those deeper questions but I find that they frame the rest of our thinking whether we realize it or not.

[@tranformbites]

You're not alone haha

[@potterhead1145]

Thank you for the fantastic video. I'm a film and media undergraduate student and this is the best explanation I've heard of these notions that keep being referred to but no one really has a grasp of...

[@orgcomm]

Glad the video helps. Thanks for the encouragement.

[@rasheesyed8834]

Thank u so much for this wonderful contribution to my knowledge..huge respect

[@tarakdas4282]

Excellent video! Now I understand Epistemology and Ontology ... Axiology was a bonus! Thanks a ton!

[@orgcomm]

Glad it was helpful!

[@lindachipunza458]

A great expose of the three philosophies that demystifies each one of them and shows how each is linked to research. Academics need to do this more so that they do not alienate themselves from the very subjects for whom research is conducted in the first place. Well done. Will definitely refer my PhD and Masters students to this site.

[@orgcomm]

Hi Linda. Thank you for the encouragement. :-) I'm glad the video was helpful. Have a great semester.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

Just... uh... be aware that is not how those words are actually defined in philosophy. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, but he really talked about the study of truth and just used the term knowledge instead. He was talking about whether or not truth was out there to learn or whether it is a construct or relativistic, etc. These are ontological questions about the philosophy of science. Good questions, but they are ontology, not epistemology. And what he called ontology... that's existentialism. Again, good questions and they relate to ontology, which is a very broad field. But if you tell a philosopher that's what "ontology means" they're going to look at you funny. And I never studied axiology. Interesting areas, but I don't know if this video defines it correctly or not. Epistemology is also really worth considering here, like actual epistemology not what this video calls epistemology. That's questions like how we actually know that something we believe is really true. Knowledge is most commonly defined as a "justified true belief" but what "justified" means is an enormous subject matter and the bulk of any intro course in the subject.

[@emoo217]

This was phenomenal. I will use with my students for sure

[@orgcomm]

Hi, Ellen. Glad it is will be useful for your students. Thanks for the encouragement. :-)

[@oblivitus.]

Well done! I wish society knew about these underlying philosophical assumptions they make. How much better political arguments - and silly, petty day-to-day arguments - would carry on!

[@ivys1991]

I don't really know anything about philosophy, but my curiosity was piqued when I came across the word "axiology". Thank you for explaining this in a comprehensive way! i found Epistemology pretty interesting too!

[@orgcomm]

Glad it was helpful!

[@patrickandreidiaz3688]

This video just saved my life.

[@robodahobo]

Superb video. Very clear and concise. Thank you very much!

[@orgcomm]

Thanks, Robert.

[@Triton1051]

aha moment; a new tool for the utilizing! I need to look more at the subtlety involved but, a 'puzzle piece' has definitely been brought into clearer view. Elucidating! Thanks! (Edited for clarity)

[@student786]

Thank you for a very educative talk. Stay blessed.

[@orgcomm]

Thanks for your encouragement.

[@balathakulla2964]

this video helped me to avoid my confusion on these three philosophical assumptions

[@thegoodthebadandtheugly579]

Anthology, phenomenology, chronology :) thanks for the axiology.

[@angelahodgkins7780]

Ive read so much, been to classes and watched videos to rty and get my head around this, but this video actually made it make sense! thank you!

[@orgcomm]

Thanks Angela. I'm glad the video was helpful.

[@chandrachaulagain800]

Very clear and nice explanations.Thank you

[@kedirmohammedidris8140]

Wow! Very enlightening for anyone, particulary Ethiopians, under era of political ignorance.

[@danielrivera9521]

read 500 pages, here I am 9 min later i understand them, thanks Dr.!

[@orgcomm]

Happy to help, Daniel. Thanks for your encouragement.

[@cesmed]

I wasted my time with so many videos with complex examples, thanks for this

[@minkyteku1100]

Thank you for the clue. Atleast, I know where is what, what is where ❤, 🙏🇿🇦.

[@mmathebemampane1724]

Thank you so much for this video! It literally just simplified the terms

[@Hannah-tg8hw]

YES! Thank you. Proof that not everyone can teach something abstract while others have a gift to.

[@orgcomm]

Thanks, Hannah. :-)

[@ixmix]

Ontology and Epistemology were hard nuts for me to crack but now i eat and digest them easily ✌️

[@michelleemmtv]

Thank you. This helped a lot.

[@GabrielGosselin]

Thumbs up for the warning.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

I just watched this my wife who needed to see it for her Ph.D program that starts tomorrow. I was a philosophy major in college so I thought "great, I took multiple courses on epistemology and ontology. I can help her with these concepts." Then I watched it. And I had to cover my face as the video explains what epistemology means... but instead talks about concepts in philosophy of science and ontology of truth. There was a reference to neo-Kuneon philosophy in there. That isn't epistemology. Epistemology is how you map truth onto knowledge, not the meaning of truth or what things exist. The philosophy of what things exist is explicitly the definition of ontology. Given that it was describing ontology concepts and calling them epistemology I didn't have high hopes for its definition of ontology. And I was correct. What it calls ontology is more like existentialism. I suppose to some degree it is related to ontological questions in existentialism... somewhat. But it is FAR from what ontology as a general field of study actually means. I never studied axiology. Hadn't heard the word before. I generally avoided that area of philosophy for the most part. But given how wrong the other two terms were, I don't have much confidence in the definition given for that one either. I told my wife that she should learn these terms as defined here and as used in her field of study because that's what she needs to know. But I also told her not to be surprised if she uses them in front of someone who studied philosophy and they look at her like she has 3 heads because apparently this field of study is using these terms completely differently from what they mean in philosophy. I totally get why these concepts are useful in this field. But I would REALLY prefer that you use the correct terms. Instead of epistemology, that concept is ontology. And instead of ontology, that concept is existentialism. And axiology... I'm not sure if that's right or not.

[@mrrownel]

Exceptional! Thanks for the post. Very helpful in understanding these abstract terminologies.

[@ivlivs.c3666]

Really well-explained. Thanks!

[@israrahmad1649]

Thank you

[@surbhigupta4046]

Love from India... Amazingly Explained..😍

[@havenbastion]

Ontology is just the nature of things at patterns in a mind which may or may not have an external referent that may or may not be shared. Epistemology must be divided into meta-epistemology (the nature of knowledge, truth, certainty, etc.) and the technically specific areas, logic, statistics, game theory, cognitive biases, logical fallacies, Bayesian reasoning, etc.

[@EddieEnriquez]

Excellent! Thank you!

[@imsonal]

Thank you ✨🙏🏻

[@mechannel7046]

Great explanation

[@MsPercussionist]

Great video. Thanks!

[@eenkjet]

The i-robot example was teleological as well.

[@orgcomm]

Hey, good point!

[@rtendotapiwa306]

I am blinking rapidly as I realise that I have read this term (after assuming it was "theological" and the writer was phonetically writing it as he would pronounce it #) Now I must return to it and get reacquainted all over again. #academia #sigh

[@joseyg9167]

helpful examples and explanations , thank you

[@rmns987]

Excellent summary. Well articulated.

[@orgcomm]

Thank you kindly. I appreciate that.

[@bethankrzowski4553]

At first glance I thought it said epistemology, ontology and anxiology... That tells you where I'm at with all this 😆

[@funnyclips2696]

Hmm, so educating! I've watched many tutorials but it's here I've seen the relevance of these terminologies for my research. But pls, is there a limit to these number of philosophies...? I was trying to understand positivism, interpretivism, pragmatism and realism; then I come across another set like constructivism, postpositivism, modernism, etc. Then I become confused!

[@teleofunctionality9246]

Here is a good way to approach the beast known as “philosophy”. First, one must understand the over-arching branches of philosophy, which includes but not limited to: epistemology, metaphysics, morality etc. So for a neutral reading into them, find a contemporary guide into these branches: Like Audi’s guide to Epistemology, or Jacquette’s introduction to ontology and etc. After you have gained a tout court understanding of these major branches, then you can delve into chronology. What I mean when I say chronology is to start from ancient philosophy, all the way from medieval to analytics to contemporary philosophy. So from Plato, to Augustine, to Aquinas, to Russel, to Orwell, to Kripke, and eventually you get into contemporary philosophers like McCain. After having gained this aspect, you can now focus on particular interests on particular positions in particular branches. Although this is quite nuanced, I would acknowledge that this methodology is very beneficial.

[@qiangniu6914]

Fantastic explanation!

[@purapalin]

Thanks for the forecast! Just a quick off-topic question: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (air carpet target dish off jeans toilet sweet piano spoil fruit essay). What's the best way to send them to Binance?

[@rtendotapiwa306]

Thank you for this video. It is really helpful. My discipline is cross-trans-multi-discipline and it can get confusing when I have to refer to different disciplines as I study. I have a strange ask to make: I would have appreciated clearer examples to tie up what you are explaining so that I could then follow more closely. I am a visual/ literal person and I struggle to grasp things if I am not able to see them. Example: the example that you give about ways of getting knowledge -the statistics on climate change etc. What assumption does it make the approach to the study? I feel 'hung' somehow. I apologize for asking such an 'obvious' question but, the struggle is real for me in this area. I do, however, appreciate that you made a lot of reference to ethnography and it made it easier to substitute my research into your examples. Thank you

[@orgcomm]

Hi R Tendo. The example about statistics in climate change implies lots of assumptions about reality such as reality is out there ready to be discovered, it is measurable with quantitative instruments, and those numbers represent something tangible, external to us in our experience. That's how I see it. But, you know, that climate example is not from a study that I did personally and we can make educated guesses about researchers assumptions. In the end, however, it would mean asking the author what they believed. I used it as example to illustrate so I couldn't say for sure what those authors assumed. Interesting question!

[@rtendotapiwa306]

@@orgcomm Thank you for the reply. I get the assumption now- it is an objective reality, the truth is one (Realistic assumption) and the study is out to prove this... I'm probably mixing two videos but it is all making sense now...(I hope😅). It is a relativist ontological assumption that is etic in approach/method.

[@flyingsodwai1382]

I'm bringing this up at a party. I have tons of experience killing the mood at a party, it won't bother me. :)

[@orgcomm]

You've been warned!

[@Johnny-Clara]

Excellent video, thank you!

[@pandaharu9464]

Thank u. Helps a lot.

[@goldengusoone]

Thanks so much such a great explanation

[@orgcomm]

Glad it was helpful!

[@twelfthhausjones6753]

Too often we confuse 'purpose' for 'imperative.' Evolution does not occur thanks to purpose; it occurs thanks to imperative!

[@BCtruth]

What is the difference between objective and subjective?

[@ritamustikasari]

These three points, epistemology, ontology and axiology, is that always there on the research? One research SHOULD have epistemology, ontology and axiology aspect on it? Thankyou for the video. Nice introduction haha.

[@moriartysassistant8148]

just started my online class and on the 2nd day we have presentation on this:(

[@jacobsimwanza5514]

The question sir is that in order should these branches of philosophy be studied?

[@orgcomm]

I personally don't think it matters. They are not steps in a process. So, you can start anywhere.

[@jacobsimwanza5514]

@@orgcomm thanks for your answer, sir.

[@evaeva8731]

Is " the importance of philosophy in the modern times " epistemology or axiology ? Help me guys .. please

[@krzyszwojciech]

Ontology is studying being, not just a human being. Defining it just through human experiences seems to reveal some unnecessary philosophical commitments.

[@orgcomm]

Your point is well taken. I'm coming at it from a social science perspective and I made this for my own students, first and foremost. It's online for anybody else who finds it useful.

[@jasonspades5628]

My academic friends have academic parties. Does this mean i can't shave myself? Get it?

[@hippopotomonstrosesquipped8362]

All epistemological views are true though and one view doesn't cancel out the other... it's just another way of getting to the truth... For example God can claim knowledge is out there waiting to be discovered People develop knowledge based on how far we have evolved intellectually-that truth for us is the current truth, a step further into the full exposure of truth, All knowledge (truth) is therefore relative. ...I never studied philosophy I'm just going on a whim by what I'm trying to understand from this vid.

[@Ugaritic]

Great 👍🏻

[@salimatadiallo997]

Hello I would like to know as I am writing my dissertation and focusing on diversity management in UK higher education. Therefore I try to find out what are students experiences of discrimination and how are Equality and diversity policies implemented in our uni , using online questionnaires. I used also interviews to interview the Equality and Diversity office in our uni to find out how they implement their policies and handle racial/ethnic discrimination in our uni. Therefore my supervisor told me that in my case I am using all three however how do I related ontology and axiology to mine. How am I suppose to talk about these three in my writing

[@salimatadiallo997]

Also I am confusing myself with research paradigms and research philosophies. Are ontology epistemology methodology and axiology research paradigms? And the philosophies are positivism etc?

[@orgcomm]

I have another video on research paradigms. You might look at that one and get a taste for how that topic is different. Essentially, research paradigms are groupings of research and theories around certain assumptions. So, this video and that one are related but they are not the same. Paradigms are like buckets containing similar theories.

[@gluyimbazi9428]

The presenter skipped 'methodology' and 'paradigm' probably on the assumption that they were obvious, for they would largely depend on the epistemological and ontological stand taken basing on the particular philosophical perspective selected. I commend the presenter.

[@orgcomm]

Thanks for the compliment. I have a question. Why do you say I skipped those other terms? The three terms in the video are all branches of philosophy. If you google these three terms, you'll see that they are connected. But, the terms paradigm and methodology are not branches of philosophy. Did you watch another video about it that included paradigm and methodology as well? These are honest questions. And, again, thank you for the compliment on the video.

[@Canadasemfiltro]

Maybe my question is going to sound silly, but I am not understanding what mean these philosophies. In the books, they just explain each term, but I am not understanding how it actually works in practice. Research is a mix of these assumptions or it must follow one?? So, in my reseach methodology can I address more than one of these perspectives?

[@orgcomm]

All three of these overlap a bit. And, most researchers don't usually spell each of these out in their writing. They are assumptions that researchers make about the world and their own research. We each see the world and have beliefs about the world that then shape the practical way we do our research. I'll give you an unrelated example. If I'm a politician and I assume that the best way to encourage economic growth is a hands-off approach, then I'll try to reduce government regulations on businesses. My assumption about what sparks economic growth make me favor certain types of laws over others. Now, back to research. If I assume (as a researcher), that the best way to really *know* something is through personal experience (that's my epistemological assumption), then I'll design a research study in ways that capture participants' first-hand experience and interpretation. So, the three areas of philosophy in the video are all ways to describe a researcher's starting-point beliefs they have in the back of their mind (whether they realize it or not) to design and pursue their research. Hope this helps, Leticia.

[@rtendotapiwa306]

Thank you for this question. It is what has me scrolling through the comments. I realise that my research has some major overlaps and making it fit one box is difficult for me. I am conducting an Autoethnographic study on experiences and understandings of democracy. My method is epistemological in that sense. However, I still need to understand my axiological assumptions based on my research aims. It gets cloudy in the process when I read different literature and come across all these terms and the scholars have different approaches, intentions and the like. Thank you for the question. It is not silly at all, take it from me. I also had the same question. I am commenting here so that I have an online reference to come back to and see what I am thinking about all this.

[@wayfaring.stranger]

You just helped me with my PHD, cheers. In regards to the bible what type of philosophy would be taking the bibles parables at face value, and what theory would be viewing the bibles stories as a deeper and more archetypal lesson.

[@orgcomm]

Hi, Sam. I glad the video was helpful. While I am a Christian, I'd have to give much more thought to your question about the Bible. This video is about how we approach research given our assumptions about the world. I'd have to think more carefully about your question in order to answer it because I don't think it could be answered lightly.

[@areshashah1584]

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ great video

[@wilsonchukwu4451]

thank u so much

[@orgcomm]

You're welcome, Wilson. :-)

[@Musicboxforever]

Best if you could cite Saunders in your video ❤️.

[@orgcomm]

Makes sense but I didn't use Saunders as a reference for the video. I really just made this video for my own classroom students and it sort of took off on KZbin much more than I anticipate. So, consider this similar to a mere classroom lecture, nothing more. If I ever redo it and update it, I'll keep Saunders in mind as source as I revise my notes now that I know it might reach a broader audience.

[@neilifill4819]

Well OK. I wish I hadn’t submitted my entire dissertation today before I listened to this… oh well.

[@caio868]

If you ask an economist (aka someone with a Ph.D. in Economics) why mathematics and statistics are so much in the realm of the (mainstream) economics, they will tell you that economics is the only social science that uses clear assumptions based on an axiomatic system. The result of this is that if any 2 people are arguing about whether the government should do policy A or policy B to arrive at some expected result, they have clear assumptions to prove their hypothesis whereas in other fields as law (for example) they use some kind of "judgment" or "opinion" that they say is based on research, but the essence of their field is not based at the so-called axiomatic system where you can follow logically to prove your hypothesis. My question is: how Epistemology, Ontology, and Axiology can enlighten me to understand better why they think they are doing it better than in other fields in terms of analyzing how things work?

[@orgcomm]

It's a good question but I'm not a qualified person to weigh in on it since I'm not in either law or economics. But, you raise an interesting question.

[@wandavision794]

Hello sir, may I know your book reference for epistomology, ontology and axiology philosophy? Is it case studies in courageous communication?

[@ObeySilence]

Cool at a party

[@orgcomm]

Ha. Don't risk it!

[@aion5837]

Heidegger's philosophical position is entirely different. He didn't place human subjectivity/man at the centre of anything. It isn't anthropocentric. His principle concern IS being - ontology.

[@orgcomm]

I'm in the Social Sciences and we talk about ontology mainly as it relates to humans. So, this video is done from my point of view.

[@_cloudface_]

I'd be more social if there was a guarantee of these kinda subjects being discussed at parties aye 😐

[@aimankhan9406]

hi I'm writing my dissertation on lgbt in uk primary schools which stance do you suggest I take

[@orgcomm]

I'm not sure. I wouldn't want to give my opinion how you might apply this content to specific research. Those questions are better answered by the faculty you're working with directly.

[@ObeySilence]

Can a answer be reliable?

[@orgcomm]

Can you give more details about what you mean? I'm not sure what aspect of the video you are asking about.

[@stueyapstuey4235]

Axiology?! Hm - van Halen, or, does it date back to Hendrix...

[@orgcomm]

The lineage goes back to Hendrix, then Eddie Van Halen, then Yngwie Malmsteen.

[@goldengirlgoldengirl7498]

😮😮😮

[@Ken-ki]

That's why I don't socialize that much, I'd rather go to a philosophy lecture on a friday night...

[@orgcomm]

I hear you.

[@WeebSlayer71]

"Warning: please don't use in parties" 21st Century everyone

[@flyingsodwai1382]

4:30 what? It's an OLD movie? Fuuuuuuuk, I thought it was newer, it must be me that's old.

[@orgcomm]

It's a 2004 movie. So, almost 20 years ago now. I love that movie.

[@robert5726]

Very helpful, but can't believe you referenced Will Smith the idiot actor instead of Issac Asimov the brilliant writer for I, Robot. That really offends my sense of Axiology! Haha

[@orgcomm]

Ha. Well, if Asimov had been in that scene, then I would have showed him. Plus, I LOVE Will Smith. Agree to disagree.

[@katelynwanfeima1688]

hahahahhahaha instant ruining of friendship when mentioning these three words with my non-academic friends

[@orgcomm]

Ha. Very true. Consider yourself warned! Ha.

[@Dr.G_the_skeptic]

So, that is why my social life has died lol

[@kristakaufman8527]

You should be understanding people in context to how GOD JESUS created them to be, judge with the VALUES and NATURAL LAW that is from HIM and how it applies to us and what consequence it brings to ourselves and others.THAT is the ONLY WISDOM that which we can derive from GOD's word!

[@orgcomm]

Hi, krista. Nice to meet you. You know, it's well known that I'm a Christian. This video is only meant to explain the meaning of these academic, research terms because I'm also a college professor.

[@havenbastion]

You're going to the wrong parties, brah.

[@enolaghey]

I wish Ben Shapiro would watch this video.

[@Dr.MikeGranato]

Our human brains will always be constrained by its capacities or lack thereof. We can never prove what we claim we to know or value. Yet we have these complex ideas and systems to analyze the metaphysical world and apply the abstract to reality. What a wild ride living is. Thanks for the insights!

[@radtoli4548]

thank you

[@DickHoskins]

Excellent video. Thanks.

[@shamillanakate3243]

Thank you

[@orgcomm]

You're welcome, Shamilla.

[@taho9676]

hello sir , I want to ask you which research assumption should you adopt.

[@orgcomm]

The research assumptions are connected to the types of research questions you are asking. They influence each other mutually. There really aren't any right or wrong assumptions to make (strictly speaking from a research standpoint).

[@boud86]

Thanks for sharing this :) One of the most down-to-earth explanations of these abstract terms!

[@orgcomm]

Thanks for the encouragement. :-) I'm glad the video was helpful.

[@geordie4339]

My philosophical (epistemological, ontological and axiological) position. 1 Is knowledge out there? Knowledge is a biological phenomenon. A concept only exists in the form of a description. No describer, no description; no conceiver, no concept; just stuff out there that can potentially be conceptualised and classified in infinite, perhaps conflicting, ways. 2 Do people develop knowledge based on perceptions and experiences? Yes. And those experiences include thinking. 3 Is all knowledge merely a social construct? No. A human is born with some knowledge (such as not to walk off the edge of a cliff) and acquires other knowledge through a mix of experiences - both personal and social. 4 Do we have free will, or are we machines? The universe is deterministic, organisms are machines. But that leads intelligent social animals to conclude we best live our lives as though we have free will. Crimes must be punished. Hard work should be rewarded. 5 Are we best understood as individuals or social animals? Both views are needed, and which is best depends on the question you are asking. 6 What do we value? We value many things, and continually make trade offs between the costs and benefits of different options..

[@emuakpoakpovoka1193]

That was funny as hell! I'm gonna bring this up at a party and talk about the Bible right after! YEEEESSSSSSSS!

[@anthonraj6168]

Wow, awesome. Explanation totally down to earth. Thank you sir, finally, understanding these terms are the best take away. Love from Malaysia.

[@streaklight]

How rationalism and Plato's Forms is not complete conjectured bullshit is beyond me

[@Rowenagander]

this is an excellent lecture. thank you

[@orgcomm]

Thank you, Rowena. I appreciate the encouragement. Glad it was helpful.

[@shohan5772]

0:08 I'll personally make sure they don't get to see another day if they use those words in front of me.