Piaget: You Can't Trust "Facts"

Watch the full video - • 2017 Personality 06: J...
Explore the full collection of premium Jordan B. Peterson content on DailyWire+: dwpluspeterson....
// LINKS //
All links: feedlink.io/jo...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterso...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyse...
Books - www.jordanbpet...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus

[@jonnyrs7044]

I used to watch these lectures back in 2016 when i was doing a plastering course but just listening to Jordan too try and figure out what had just happened in my life fresh out of jail after an abusive relationship with an older narcissistic women who pushed me to the brink i lost a career a house and a child in the process and this man i am so thankfully i stumbled across him back then and so glad he had became such a success a truely great man in my eyes thank you Dr Jordan Peterson

[@MrDominicBrant]

respect to you - narcissists are pretty close to evil - my mum was both narcissistic and schizophrenic- according to DrP I'm pretty f-cked lol

[@jonnyrs7044]

@@MrDominicBrant bro i feel for you man 🙏 i can only imagine it... but i bet no i know your one strong mofo ❤

[@MrDominicBrant]

@ thanks, appreciate it, me and my brother ended up pretty messed up, but dragged ourselves through. In way that is good, strangely, we didn't know any different. It only began to unravel when we got away.

[@magicalmiller]

Brother. I lost my children my house my career my mind to a evil narcissistic, machiavellian type. Plus my entire family are psychopath narcissists. I have been around pure evil my entire life. They even took my disabled son and placed him in a home and fed him to the wolves under the 'blanket of compassion". I did 5 years in prison as well. The fact I am this "sane" is a damn miracle in the strictest sense. Most of us do not make it. They are pure unadulterated evil. And having GOD on your side is not enough. I was a pastor at one point. LOVE is not enough. GOD is not enough. People like us are being played by the powers that be. Jordan has helped me as well and if it was not for him I would of burned this earth to its core. Cain is alive and well in me but not the jealous Cain, the murderous one. Good luck man. If I just saw some sort of justice for my children and me I think it would be a lot easier to handle life. But alas that was not the plan for my life. I hope you get justice somewhere. I am beginning to think that I must bring it about in some manner. I hope I am wrong because I am not in anyway sane enough to hand it out in a balanced manner. THIS IS WHY MEN DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT THEIR "FEELINGS". Evil is the only thing I have known to be real.

[@MrDominicBrant]

@@magicalmiller there's one event that happened to me, and each time I tell it, people just shrug and say 'that's rough'. Yet, to me at the time, my soul was ripped from my body and any faith in humanity was, justifiably' lost. I can watch those online ending of life videos and don't feel a thing...

[@AlexReynard]

"The ultimate fact is a fact about how we collect facts." Yup. And Bruce Lee discovered it. He said the smartest thing that any human being has ever said: "Use only what works, and take it from any place you can get it." I refine that a little bit to, 'utility proves truth'.

[@dannyakers8440]

Can you imagine being a freshman in one his classes 😳😂

[@docequis9796]

I can just watch and listen to know... but to be able to learn I can slow to .75 speed and replay twice 😂.

[@Hbmd3E]

someone played computer games in some of the classes

[@coleman318]

crazy how that works; if you aren't ready to receive the message, it doesn't have that 'mana' element Christ speaks of.

[@after-worknetwork6095]

yes. Not cause I was specifically, but bc my collegiate career ended in May 2thousand 6teen. I was among the last to receive an actual education from the liberal arts. They have abandoned the search for truth, but there are many of us young enough to remember how we used to demand the truth. We need complete education reform.

[@davidyoung2042]

It would change your life.

[@peteroleary9447]

The trouble with Piaget is that many of his students come to the conclusion that truth merely a social construct -- infinitely mutable, and hence easily dismissed

[@gianni206]

And… how do we know it’s not?

[@peteroleary9447]

@gianni206 And... how do we know that, say, ... a triangle has 3 sides, and it's not merely a social construct, as some postmodern radical constructivists might claim? It seems you may be missing the forest for the trees with regards to the greater body of Peterson's work.

[@gianni206]

@@peteroleary9447 No no, I agree with Peterson and the idea that objective truth exists, I just wanted to hear what your case for it was. The analogy with the triangle is good, but what’s the root argument underneath that?

[@peteroleary9447]

@@gianni206 I appreciate your sincere tone here. This is the KZbin comment section however -- not exactly a bastion for nuanced philosophical discourse. The triangle example I used is simply an _a priori_ statement, a truth that is self-evident, and therefore a (very) blunt instrument to rebut radical constructivist arguments. The point I make is that Constructivism (ala Piaget) is valuable, though many of his students have taken his theory too far.

[@gianni206]

@ So if someone asks "How do you know objective truth exists", the answer I give is: Objective truth exists because it's self-evident. The example being in mathematical constructs holding up the universe. Is that good?

[@tinytim71301]

His lectures are so good. Wonderful teacher and leader.

[@Ignirium]

He doesn't believe in facts, he admitted he doesn't have a foundation of truth with Sam Harris in the dreadful podcast episode where Sam tried for an hour to get Jordan to agree with 1 simple fact, and he refused for 1 hour of simple simple questions. JD is a manifestation of what Half-truth would be if it was a person; He will act as if facts are true except when you ask him that way he can argue the facts. JD is amazing when he's right and appalling/misleading when he's trying to talk things into existence.

[@randywise5241]

Science is ever changing. It is about the search for knowledge, not meanings. We only know a little, so the more we learn, the more the science changes.

[@SupraSav]

The problem is claiming fact. Touting THEORY as fact. Huge red flags. Science will peddle any bullsh!t to gain funding. It's fraud. Furthermore, science is largely being used to plunder nature in one way or another as it stands. There is only one possible outcome for this scenario.

[@danielboughton3624]

Science is a discipline not a body of knowledge as some have tried to spin it. The body of knowledge changes and is really (ideally) a consensus based on results from the scientific process. Certain jokesters and people with agendas have polluted that body of knowledge by hacking the process or otherwise inserting 'facts' meaning the body of knowledge is not honest and often results cannot be sourced or reproduced. In short, when someone starts saying "the science" you should be very skeptical.

[@Imitatechrist]

Too bad most modern scientists do not approach it this way anymore. It became like a religion. A replacement. „We hold the Truth!” Just take this [probably safe] vaссine, even if you're underage! What happened to the morals and humility of science? We shall all ask ourselves, and be careful.

[@bruceami]

“Science” doesn’t change. It’s a process only. It’s a process for finding consistent verifiable facts that allow construction of theorems of how systems work. Or something like that.

[@defeqel6537]

@@bruceami well, theoretically science doesn't change, but in reality we've added different kind of correlation analysis methods to the originally experiment based process, and nowadays many claim that those correlations mean more than they do

[@alanrobertson9790]

Science is a method which determines facts, not simply a set of facts.

[@rpercifieldjr]

There were other issues with Newtonian Physics at the turn of the 19th century. One very major one is that the orbit of Mercury around the sun could not be predicted with the equations. This was solved with Relativity, and frame dragging. Facts do change with the advancing understanding shows that it is not what we perceive it to be. Many years ago it was a known fact that ulcers were caused by stress, hot foods, and needed surgery to fix. One person put that fact to rest, by infecting himself with the bacteria that caused the ulcer, produced one in his stomach, and then cured it by antibiotics. This fact did change, and we are better for it. I am in agreement that the process of discovery of a "fact" is what does not change, and with advancements in the science, technology, theories, and understanding, these tools will provide the best knowledge that can be generated. The real issue is keeping that process true, and uncorrupted. That is the real challenge.

[@gary5799]

Surely it wasn't a known fact, it was a mistake ?

[@rpercifieldjr]

@@gary5799 I call it a limit of understanding. Does a child make a mistake in thinking the moon is this round face in the sky? It isn't till later in their development that they understand it to be a round body the orbits the earth. I think of mistakes as having the understanding, but not using the correct knowledge despite knowing otherwise. If someone today still believes that the ether is used as a medium to transmit light, and other forms of energy, that is a mistake. A theory or hypotheses that can be tested, will sometimes be validated, but never proven as a fact. You cannot prove something is a fact, you can only show that it cannot be falsified. What maybe we should be talking about are not facts, but hypothesis, or theories that can be shown to be tested in a thorough, and systematic way. The more it is tested in various ways, the more complete and solid the foundation you have for it. As understanding, technology, and resolution increases, the theory, and hypothesis, may have to change because new things are found, that the original theory did not cover.

[@GameFuMaster]

@@rpercifieldjr I would argue that ether as a universal medium most likely exists, but we just haven't (or maybe can't) really find a way to properly measure it. Think about how light "slows down" when it travels through a medium and has a new speed. Now if we apply that to light in a vacuum, if it truly was traveling through "nothing" then there should be no speed limit, but we know it does. We are however, sticking to ideas that I think are much less plausible (the graviton), and ones that are completely pointless and absurd (string theory). Remember that we have stuff like dark energy and dark matter even though we can't measure them, but just guess. Not to mention vacuum energy.

[@rpercifieldjr]

@@GameFuMaster If there was a medium that electromagnetic radiation traveled through out motion through it would be detected. When you look at all of the various motions that we as observers make, earth rotating on its axis, Moon orbiting around the earth, Earth and moon orbiting around the sun, and the solar system within the Milky Way traveling within the same medium, no change of the velocity of this radiation has ever been detected. So the chance of finding a medium that this EM radiation travels through is very close to zero. Since EM radiation acts like both a particle and a wave a medium would imply a flow of some type. This flow has not been observed. Also current EM theory explains and predicts changes in medium velocities of EM radiation. There currently is no theory that has been tested for some type of medium, all so far have been falsified. String theory has not shown any promise to date, and there is no real path at present to unify the large and small scale theories of the universe. There is a lot we don't know, and all we can do is to continue to improve the technology, gather higher resolution data, and work on better theories to explain the universe. This is how you progress in science. When something is hypothesized and tested, we can then start to decipher what we see.

[@GameFuMaster]

@@rpercifieldjr So I'm obviously not that well versed in this subject, so this is just my uninformed hypothesis. So we do know that light "bends" with "gravity". So we have made observation of its movement being changed. We see light "refracting" in water, but that's only because we have a comparison as an outside observer. Imagine if we somehow lived inside a glass sphere, and the sphere rotates, we would see light moving without its velocity changing. Remember in relativity that you cannot truly know who is actually moving if both parties are at "rest", as both can equally and validly say that the other is moving.

[@TLMS654]

Traditionally, science was about uncovering knowledge-truths about the world that were considered immutable. Knowledge was something fundamental and enduring, not just a consensus or a ‘best guess.’ While science today embraces change and refinement, it is worth remembering that its historical goal was to find enduring principles, not just evolving interpretations.

[@Argonaut80]

There are no “facts” is true science. It’s always just been the consensus of what is most likely happening, based on the collective works and understanding of the global scientific community. As a biology undergrad, a professor taught us this on day one. Science has to be able to change, as we learn more as time goes on, based on new technological advancements, exploration, and simply by running new experiments. It’s what makes science so honest. It’s always admitting that this is our best guess, but is supported by findings.

[@vestaxwax]

Tell that to Fauci and his disciples.

[@Argonaut80]

@@vestaxwaxI’m not making this political.

[@vestaxwax]

@ Neither am I. It's about understanding how actual science works, not how frauds abuse their credentials to coerce those who entrust them in the name of 'Science.'

[@Argonaut80]

@ And what are your credentials?

[@vestaxwax]

@@Argonaut80 I'm not the one coercing anyone into doing anything, therefore I'm not required to be credentialed. Or entrusted with public health and safety.

[@AlexReynard]

And now we're on the verge of finally taking seriously the idea that consciousness is the foundation of reality. All the materialists want to believe in a tidy, simple explanation, and yet they keep running into areas they can't explain. It's like someone living in a dungeon their entire lives, insisting nothing exists but the dungeon, and thinking that if they just study the dungeon long enough, they will discover how it produces the food that gets delivered. They don't want to admit that all the effort they put into trying to solve that dilemma was wasted, and the simple solution was obvious the entire time.

[@HarryBuxley]

There is not even agreement on how to define the word consciousness. Additionally If you are rejecting the material viewpoint you may aswell just say magic is the foundation of reality. It conveys the same amount of information.

[@AlexReynard]

@@HarryBuxley That's as silly as saying, "Believing in electromagnetic fields is like believing in magic." There may not be agreement on what consciousness is, but there sure as hell hasn't been any progress in solving "the hard problem" of how consciousness could be generated by the brain. It isn't. Rupert Sheldrake's been proving that with a multitude of experiments over the years, and the CIA's Gateway Project determined the same in the 1970s. Consciousness is the foundation of reality, and material is just energy behaving as a solid. I'm sure people disbelieved in electricity, radiation, gravity, germs, and DNA at first too.

[@suggesttwo]

Facts and truth are not the same. My car is steel. The paint is green.

[@lukepoplawski3230]

Well….yes and a little no. We understand “green” to be a visual spectrum wavelength but people’s PERCEPTIONS of green that shape their reality into truths may differ slightly. So if you gathered 100,000 people and plotted their visual observations in relation to other colors you’d most likely get a very very sharp distribution, but a distribution none the less accounting for variances in the human perception. And then steel has an incredible amount of variation in its grain and structure and composition that it can’t specifically mean one thing to refer to it as steel, is it carbon steel? Etc I do however find these micro dissections to be useless and tiresome, and it’s in this microcosm that Peterson has been diving head first as of late in attempts to undermine post modernism.

[@suggesttwo]

@lukepoplawski3230 actually it's teal, green in the sun and blue in the shade. And the reflected wavelengths under the specific conditions will remain, regardless of anyone's opinion. It could be painted bright red.

[@lukepoplawski3230]

@@suggesttwo I agree. The wavelength frequency we can classify objectively as “Green” is derived from a near unanimous subjective observation. Apply this same concept to morality, utility, etc and you arrive at what I personally understand to be post modernism and is an epistemology I very much agree with.

[@suggesttwo]

@lukepoplawski3230 I looked up post modernism. It reads to me like denial, psychology or wilful ignorance. Sloppy. Careless. Build an engine. Don't torque to factory specs. Destroy it if you try to start it like that.

[@lukepoplawski3230]

@ I would encourage you to give it a second look because it most certainly isn’t that, and I don’t think you’re understanding its concepts, in fact may have them backwards. Reviewing the expansive amount of time we have now in recorded history (a luxury of the modern age) as well as “shrinking” the world has given us larger data points for generalizations about humankind and our associated experiences. It’s not a “denial” of anything but an acceptance of improved data. A good example is religion, viewed in the microcosm of the 1800’s people may not have heard of or had access to the knowledge of the world’s religions and have an unjust irrational bias of their own views. But now, with recorded evidences of the thousands of religions that have existed across our time here on the planet some of those bias can be blunted (this of course does not account for human psychology). Another example would be explaining a tentatively rational belief of a global flood, but now we can see other civilizations that lived through the time periods of this flood and had no record of it, in conjuncture with modern measurements we can pretty much render that hypothesis false and even foolish; it’s the modern equivalent of squashing flat earth theory and geocentrism (both of which where theories for their time).

[@GaliscesGaming]

I hope he goes on to explain this, but facts don't change. Our understanding of reality changes, and with science (hopefully), that understanding gets better over time and closer to effectively explaining the facts. So to say that facts change over time is the wrong way to look at it.

[@swansonz3534]

It's just a mischaracterization of things. If the "fact" changes then it obviously wasn't an absolute fact and we shouldn't refer to it as such. It's manipulative and slimy. A better and more accurate description would be to call it an inference to best explanation or something along those lines. But to run around calling things fact that aren't i don't know why people engage in this sort of suspicious behavior.

[@GaliscesGaming]

@@swansonz3534 I love Jordan, and I suspect he's doing here what he does with almost everything, which is symbolizing the subject to death and using a more abstract definition of fact than we tend to actually attribute to the word. I think that kind of thinking is one of if not his greatest strengths, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't also often get in the way of clarity.

[@neilpace]

Thank you... I was losing my mind listening to him repeat this over and over. We discover electricity... But it was Always there. We developed the expression of the mathematical laws... But electricity was always doing what it was doing.

[@kendall959]

This is true. Real Facts do not change . However we often call theories fact when they are in fact very wrong.

[@kendall959]

Evolution and any understanding of time, geology etc more than about 6000 years ago are not fact but " educated guesses or theories". All kinds of new variables could and often do change what we think may be true about the past.

[@utac]

This is the fundamental issue underlying AI and the way we interact with it

[@EbonyPope]

Man I miss the Peterson of old who was less political and would just inform you about the wonders of human psychology.

[@aclifford652]

But to be interested in, or absorbed by politics, is quite like what he's describing here. You need to be able to take on board new developments all the time and incorporate them into your world view. Or perhaps you don't, or alternatively won't, because of other complicating factors. For instance at the present time, the whole Trump / tariffs debate ( when it's possible to keep fully abreast of it ) is nothing short of confounding to most neo classicists for whom Milton Friedman is the authority.

[@EbonyPope]

@@aclifford652 Yes but Peterson of old wasn't political. That was my whole point. As soon as you align yourself with a certain political party you will lose some independence since you have to tow the party line. I said nothing about tariffs. Even Ben Shapiro said in his most recent video that they are poison for the economy though.

[@ixfr123]

That is what happens when you go after free speech as Canada did. Everything is going to become politicized at that point.

[@aclifford652]

@EbonyPope I don't know that he's aligned himself as such with a Party, or a populist movement. Certainly I think he's managed to keep more distance between himself and this US populist movement than a lot of other 'casters' about the place. Personally I'd never heard of him until the trans lobby accosted him. I only know him, as does much of the world, as an inherently, if initially reluctant political figure. It's a bit like wishing that Martin Luther had stuck to religion I think. ( Though you might well respond that that's precisely what Luther wanted to do. )

[@EbonyPope]

@@aclifford652 Peterson is not Martin Luther King my dude. He is now openly supporting the Daily Wire. Martin Luther King never was shilling for any party. He even talked about it. He was not aligned with either one.

[@hectormunozhuerta]

This is way better than any college class I ever had.

[@brucekellett440]

This reminds me of the classroom sketch in the TV series Third Rock from the Sun. You know where that teacher is describing quantum mechanics to a bunch of clueless bored students.

[@darthhodges]

Two thoughts. Regarding the "failure" of Newtonian physics my understanding was that Newton was right within the conditions and level of precision we were then capable of. As conditions changed, particularly our ability to measure ever more precisely, we found it insufficient. So we developed more theories that were sufficient. And then we improved measurement so those new theories became insufficient and so on. But Newton is still sufficient under certain conditions at relatively low levels of precision. That's why it's still taught first in physics. Second, I had a teacher that explained facts differently. A fact is something you can prove, but being proven now doesn't make it a truth. A truth simply is. There is overlap, many facts are also truths. But not all facts are truths, and not all truths can be proven, making them not facts. As mentioned above conditions change, therefore whether something is a fact or even a truth may be dependant on when.

[@natehendricksen3338]

What, when, how and why. These answers have been pursued by humans since the beginning. Rarely are we satisfied with the answers we arrive at. Examining the root of that dissatisfaction can teach you a lot about yourself.

[@ektran4205]

theories are always going to be incomplete

[@mattfuller651]

Facts are things that have been studied well enough to know them with certainty (not necessarily absolute certainty). Scientists and other experts primarily work with ideas that can potentially become facts after study and examination. But their study is built on facts that have been previously established.

[@gianni206]

Only when you fail to reject the null is a fact a “true” fact

[@robertsmithington8892]

Thomas Sowell discovered, there is a particular group it greatly misunderstand processes, therefore misunderstandings facts. One of those processes is logic and reason, which is one way to test facts. Thomas Sowell discovered, there is a particular group it greatly misunderstands processes, and therefore misunderstanding facts. One of those processes is logic and reason, which is one way to test facts. You can see the problem here when viewed from Pieget's perspective

[@heresa_notion_6831]

Well, they evolve just like everything else. However, the fitness function, by which they evolve might also change at times (not sure). Piaget's statements about the methods by which facts are sought appears to be simple functionalism. Finding facts involves performing procedures that generate them, simpliciter, and a fact is simply what is found and what it does; that then gets selected or not. Functionalism is the answer to everything in my experience. My second favorite answer is recursion. :^)

[@pavelsterlin6414]

Just like entities have identity, so do entities actions, For a man: walking is different activity from running, the same with jumping, standing, sitting, falling, laying on the floor, swimming, etc. Change is a fact just like inertness, i.e., change has identity to. If it didn't, the concept of change would be a cognitive and evaluative blank to you.

[@paulcrack1]

Man these videos are so good...

[@jeffreykalb9752]

Using what "works" will never get you to the truth of things. That is the problem with modern mathematical physics. Rather, you have to aim at truth.

[@mosin9105]

Thanks

[@BayLeQue]

Is the best development for a child the most rapid?

[@danielboughton3624]

What is the end goal? What is the purpose of the development? Is the kid going to grow up to dig ditches or fly a jet or what?

[@TwiddleJones]

He might get bullied at high school for being an old man already.

[@puddintame7794]

If facts do evolve over time, that would suggest even benevolent totalitarianism is always bad. Because the facts that the benevolent despot uses to to improve the lot of man will change. Countering any good he or she tries to do.

[@damien884]

Who cares about trusting them. It’s about accepting their place in the real world in that moment

[@rrano6331]

In the end, we’re all taught by God and He does a much better job.

[@Kristine-x1t]

Best thing Ottawa University did was release this man out into the public a much wider audience 😅 Is he perfect in all he say, no, but so much closer than most 😉

[@rfzw]

University of Toronto. And they didn't fire him per se, he took a sabbatical and then never went back because he didn't think it would be possible to teach normally after being embroiled in all the controversy.

[@CMA418]

He’s become a fame-hungry, power-hungry money lover. I don’t auto-trust anyone making “truth” claims, but especially ones who are selling books doing it. Clear conflict of interest.

[@creed22solar123]

​@@CMA418 yea earning money from hard work in trying to figure stuff out for decades of your life and then trying to help people with it? Perish the thought

[@rfzw]

@ Right, because famously, no great truth-seekers and philosophers have ever written books

[@CMA418]

@ That’s why Socrates was the GOAT. Peterson is a Sophist. He’s great at sounding smart to young people.

[@Kristine-x1t]

I wonder if I was his student at which point my brain would explode because it couldn't keep up, would have loved to find out.

[@itsalljustimages]

'theories' are never facts (I don't know if any philosopher ever assumed otherwise) Only observations (which can be repeated) are facts.

[@sebastiaanstok]

"If you take a biology course right now, in 20 years pretty much everything you learned, or very much of what you learned will turn out to have been wrong", well that didn't age well 😅

[@collinsanyanvoh7988]

Density equals mass over volume. It's a fact that can never be changed or substituted. It forms a piece in the puzzle of complete physics knowledge. Theories can sometimes be misleading and the approach it takes is detrimental to science. Because we try to fit them with factual knowledge, which always bring confusion. An example is evolution which largely depends on historical evidence. Most of the claims are not factual, yet it is thought as a theory. Scientists should accept that only facts beget facts. It's as simple as that.

[@Kevin-sr8yx]

That's not a fact. It's a formula describing a law.

[@NoToobForYou]

​@Kevin-sr8yx Precisely. See Ohm's Law for another example. One must define terms and then remain consistent. This is why those pretending to be based in science surreptitiously change the meaning of words. Words like "gender," "vaccine," and "woman."

[@JC-qh6wl]

Theory: “You can’t trust facts.” Facts: “You can’t trust theories either.” Theory: “Yeah, but you can’t trust facts because this theory said so.” Facts: …

[@andreahoehmann1939]

I think physics provides by far the best examples when it comes to epistemology. Postmodern theories that deny reality as a whole have only been able to spread in Western educational institutions because knowledge of physics is gradually being lost.

[@frederickkneuss3367]

Facts never change. Thats definition. Theories change. Most science works on theories, until facts prove it wrong. Otherwise, it’s assumed the theory is fact. It’s the assumption that can sometimes be problematic.

[@codgypodgy5260]

Current or then or future facts

[@alanrobertson9790]

A mathematical fact of 2 + 2 = 4 is true by definition whereas an observed fact can change as instrumentation develops. Don't agree that "Facts never change".

[@bruceami]

False, facts change all the time. They may vary do to all kinds of conditions like time or location or many other variables. Not all facts change, but they may or may not be conditional. The same is true of “truths.” In both cases they may be conditional or unconditional.

[@brucej1278]

The method of science appears to consist in favoring the human sense of eyesight over powerful competing senses such as hearing, taste, smell, touch, and especially “personal feelings”. Imagine asking a room full of 20 people to estimate the temperature in the room and to write it down. Then bring in a digital thermometer visible to all 20 and ask the same question. The first instance is “less scientific” than the second, and the first instance is relying upon “feeling” (skin temp or metabolic rate) rather than eyesight. Understanding science as a process of subordinating other information sources to physical vision and the psychological processes related to vision helps to explain some things, such as Why the scientific method rapidly accelerated historically only after the improvement of glass optics brought about the telescope and the microscope Why science was a threat to an existing social order and required that feudalism be ended before science could greatly expand (“truth through observation and reason” conflicts with “truth through social status, tradition, and legal authority”) Being a process of learning through visual observation, science is limited to never become Art, where vision comes from the inside, and will always be in a (hopefully fruitful) competition with things which are often more Art than science, such as philosophy, religion, politics, commerce.

[@86lngd25]

because scientific facts are only as good as the science during that time period and are up for review as time goes on and new studies are brought forward i assume

[@CatETru]

God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Jesus is the only Truth you need.

[@atherosclerosisheo3379]

Is that why he was so destructive in the old testament but now only comes out on a piece of toast

[@creed22solar123]

​@@atherosclerosisheo3379 applying modern morality to bunches of savages in the desert. How very original, did Dawkins illuminate u on this?

[@creed22solar123]

​@@atherosclerosisheo3379 yea should have just asked the nice peaceful reasonable people that lived in those civilized times "can't we all just get along?!" Very original thought, my friend. Is it perchance from the dawkins school of dogmatic belief?

[@Thedisciplemike]

And yet Christ is all in all and the study of science is the study of the mind of Christ manifested in reality

[@Thedisciplemike]

​@atherosclerosisheo3379 when you dont know a topic very well, its best to keep silent

[@3MrNiceGuy15]

Because it isn't absolute. Never was

[@JakobusMaximus]

Every man has his own religion. A set of beliefs and ideological visions that shape his actions in the world. Those who pursue science are no different, and their beliefs can be just as strong as any man of the cloth. "trust the science" is a phrase with as much religious zeal as "trust in the Lord".

[@bruceami]

Well accept that “science” doesn’t exist. It’s merely a process. Jesus does exist, so I’ll trust in Him. Doing otherwise results in catastrophic consequences.

[@holyghost718]

Because science proves itself wrong every other year 🤣 great video

[@whiskeytango9769]

Scientific facts don't keep changing. What happens is that new facts come along that force a re-examination of the *explanations* that existed for the previous set of facts. Newtonian physics did a great job of explaining gravity, but some observations [facts] did not fit the model. That showed that Newton's theories, while powerful, were incomplete. Einstein came up with a new model that not only incorporated Newtonian physics, but also accounted for the facts [observations] that Newton could not account for.

[@bogdanpopescu1401]

you are splitting hairs over the meaning of facts; new facts coming in means that facts are changing

[@TheWaxworker]

Science is the study and apprehension of reality by rigorous observation and the elimination of error. Theories and paradigms are only valuable insofar as they assist in accurately projecting reality. They keep changing over time not because reality is different or because it is relative but only as our understanding of reality changes and erroneous ideas keep getting put to the wayside.

[@Heckasuperduper]

Great summary✅

[@brucej1278]

Not sure you can demonstrate that reality is not relative. The common meaning of the phrase is that "reality is relative to my preferences", which is obviously an adolescent mindset. But objects in motion are relative to each other, matter is relative to energy, time is relative to space, and God is relational....so what do you mean by 'reality is not "relative'?

[@courtneyjensen]

Nice lecture... although I have my qualms about "facts" changing. (I'm a professor of physiology and epidemiology; the former is firmly footed in fact while the latter is notorious for being "overturned"... but not really.) In a couple of my recent videos, I talk about how misinformation is what changes. Here, I talk about study weaknesses (by breaking down a video game study): kzbin.info/www/bejne/iXrLaWevlpeErrM And here, I talk about Bill Maher as an influencer misinterpreting the scientific method, which leads to seeming contradictions: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqCwdJ-Dit2qadU Anyway...... your line about "we got this all wrapped up" is, as I see it, the problem. In other words: hubris is the problem. Not the facts themselves.

[@danielboughton3624]

My take on the message is that the facts don't change per se but the questions do which lead to new theories that either better frames something or supersedes an older model which produced a result/fact that perhaps provides a more enlightened result.

[@courtneyjensen]

@@danielboughton3624 That sounds right to me. Good way of looking at it.

[@isj032]

Because science is not inflexible like religion.

[@SandraElliot21]

In investing, success requires more than just technical analysis - it takes discipline and emotional resilience. The “time in the market vs. timing the market” mindset has kept me grounded through the market’s ups and downs. Thanks to Evelyn Infurna’s expert guidance and daily insights, along with my focus on learning, my portfolio has grown steadily. Here’s to continued progress!!

[@SandraElliot21]

Use her name to quickly conduct an internet search.

[@SandraElliot21]

SHE’S MOSTLY ON TELEGRAMS APPS WITH THE BELOW NAME.

[@SandraElliot21]

Infurnaevely1

[@NianLisa]

I appreciate the professionalism and dedication of the team behind Evelyn’s trade signal service.

[@DannielleRosales]

Evelyn Infurna Services has really set the standard for others to follow, we love her here in Canada 🇨🇦 as she has been really helpful and changed lots of life's

[@gianni206]

Canada lost a great professor

[@blackopsmovers]

@DrJordanBPetersonClips Please, for Christ's sake, stop putting @DailyWirePlus in the corner of your original content you shill and get back to own original thought. Jesus...

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

Newtonian physics is not a "subset of Einsteinian physics". Newtonian physics operate at a different level than Einsteinian physics. For the most part, Newtonian physics are fine, and in fact are used every day. But in the extremes of the physical world, Newtonian physics breaks down. Things happen that Newton cannot explain. Einstein thought about that, and came up with a theory to explain that which Newton couldn't. Remember though, the Einstein himself realzied his theory wasn't "complete", in that it had no explanation for quantum phenomenon. Relativity deals with the universe, quantum physics deals with the particles that make up the universe.

[@jacobshirley3457]

Think of it as image resolution, like he mentioned. A blurry picture is "a subset" of a clear picture; you can produce the blurry picture from the clear one, but not the other way around. Is a blurry picture wrong? Is the clear picture wrong, if it can be made clearer? (there's no right answer, since this is a philosophical debate)

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@jacobshirley3457 But the difference between Newton and Einstein is not a picture becoming more clear. They are two very different pictures. It's not like finding the speed of light, getting closer and closer to the final result.

[@skeptic-g4h]

Newtonian physics can be derived from relativity by making certain assumptions about certain things. Any result that can be obtained using Newtonian physics can be achieved using relativity. Newtonian physics are a special case of general relativity and hence a subset

[@AlbertBalbastreMorte]

I think you accidentally reasoned why Newtonian is a subset of Einstenian.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@AlbertBalbastreMorte I think you're wrong.

[@adragonoflight]

I was an atheist and science nerd all my life, but after experiencing many intense paranormal experiences starting in 2022 I came to understand that esoteric occult knowledge explains how reality works way better than science does.

[@CMA418]

Mine was the opposite! 🥴🙏

[@AidanRKelly]

GK Chesterton and John Senior are two brilliant men who were on similar journeys to you. I hope that you will find God (as tricky as this word is to use given how it carries so much different baggage and meaning for different people) as the answer to what you’re looking for.

[@nigelgroves9851]

Was 2022 when you started on the mind altering substances ?

[@karlostj4683]

Piaget and by extension Peterson is overthinking things. Physics is easy to understand by following the timeline of scientists without trying to explain what each scientist was abstractly trying to do. Peterson seems to enjoy using 20 words to explain simple concepts. Isaac Newton collected the current theories, pondered them, and derived his Laws of Motion which explained the world of moving objects better than the previous explanations. But then the discovery of Mercury orbiting the Sun didn't follow Newton's Laws of Motion, and so scientists accepted Bewtonian Relativity because it worked perfectly well for everything OTHER than Mercury, until Einsteinian Relativity correctly explained Mercury's motion. Scientists observe Nature, and attempt to explain it better than the explanations that came before. They devise theories, make predictions, and suggest experiments to test both. The experiments either demonstrate the theory is correct, or they don't. There's no need to expound upon anything beyond that.

[@AzazelKarnKane]

😁🫠😊🥰

[@Christianity_and_Perennialism]

“Confused ideas and muddy ponds appear deep.” - Nicolás Gómez Dávila, describing Jordan Peterson’s career.

[@subterranean327]

Translation: "We don't know nothin' about the world we live in. Not really."

[@YeshuaIsTruth33]

Science is a bought enterprise, has been for a lifetime

[@YeshuaIsTruth33]

Christ Jesus is the way, the truth and the life 🙌

[@Heckasuperduper]

I view the bible as a steel axe. Not to be controversial or anything lol

[@JB-td4ei]

Absolutely brilliant, as usual. His line about facts being the fact’s about how we discover facts should be on a t-shirt. 🤪🥸

[@mikeokeefe2014]

Love your work, happy thoughts from Ontario... Hopefully you get a chance to turn your brain off and go fishing and just listen to nature . Your always busy.

[@mattfuller651]

Facts are things that have been studied well enough to know them with certainty (not necessarily absolute certainty). Scientists and other experts primarily work with ideas that can potentially become facts after study and examination. But their study is built on facts that have been previously established.