The Limits of Science - A Critique of Scientism

In this lecture we examine the claim of scientism, i.e., the belief that the methods of science are the only means to obtain knowledge of the world.
===================================================
Support us on Patreon: / academyofideas
Visit www.academyofideas.com for more videos, video transcripts and more!
===================================================

[@michaelraymond1279]

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”

[@LifeologyEducationProgram]

Who originated this quote? Genuinely interested

[@Ubertje08]

@@LifeologyEducationProgram me2

[@MikePeiman]

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. (...) Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative." - Richard Horton, Editor-In-Chief of The Lancet (2015)

[@marcdemell5976]

Science has no CON--SCIENCE ! HalleluYAH,amein.

[@aceitedemotor638]

Not to mention biases of academia. Just as compulsory public k to 12 education is meant to stymie original thought and encourage conformity, so too does higher education and university. Science says nothing, scientists say something. And if what they say counters the prevailing narrative, they risk their jobs and reputation at the hands of the mob.

[@dennisyerger84]

In short, science requires belief in certain unproven assumptions about our world and how it operates. That is, even science relies on an element of faith in order to work.

[@dennisyerger84]

@Graham Rathbone That personal testing still relies on belief in things that can't be tested. And to answer your question, I seriously doubt that any party is completely neutral on this matter.

[@dennisyerger84]

@Graham Rathbone They are relevant when they are presented as facts or axioms rather than assumptions.

[@dennisyerger84]

@Graham Rathbone Regardless of what they are "called," they are touted as facts, not assumptions.

[@dennisyerger84]

@Graham Rathbone Speaking of assumptions, you assume that I owe you an answer. I don't. You also assume that I am endorsing "using faith as the entire basis for belief." I'm not. For many of us, science and faith are both valuable and shape what we believe.

[@gdn5001]

dennisyerger84 I’m concerned about your definition of faith. I agree with you that science requires assumptions, that’s obvious and borderline trivial. What isn’t obvious is whether all assumptions are equal or not. And whether “assuming things = faith”. If we are to take the Webster dictionary at face value, faith is defined as “complete trust or confidence in a proposition”. This doesn’t seem to be required for science. If something “seems probable” to someone, are they taking it on faith? That’s not clear.

[@tahaabdelkhaleq]

The scientific method doesn't prove or disprove anything. It can only accept or refute ideas based on current evidence. The conclusions are reported as probability "Likely" or "Unlikely". Depending on how much evidence accumulates and how reliable it is, it becomes highly "unlikely" that certain ideas could be wrong

[@caliberos783]

What? Then science should not be the bases of truth if that is the case. Now, To accept that the claim is true it's because it has been proven.

[@LifeologyEducationProgram]

@@caliberos783 You and OP are both correct. Science, and whatever tentative "conclusions" it reaches should not be viewed as irrefutable proof, as this video clearly demonstrates. Said conclusions are based on probabilities, which themselves still exist within the matrix of the presuppositions also laid out in this video The problem arises however when you have career scientists/researchers, as well as populace brought up on materialism, positivism, and other related -isms, who all put forth scientific claims as if they ARE irrefutable, in the same way the priests of old would do so with the "good books." We've traded in the black robes for the white lab coats and drunk the kool-aid of the cult of the experts, all of which spits on the notion of what true science and the pursuit of knowledge is

[@randomrandom316]

​@@caliberos783 Imagine you and three of your friends are on a street and you make a certain statement about your shoes, say for example you said that your shoes cost you $1. Later on same place next week, this comes up again and all your friends you have no reasons to lie, remind you of the statement you made last week that your shoes cost you $1 and since you recall the same thing you agree with it. Now a shopkeeper, who witnessed both the meeting interjects and shows you a video recording from his CCTV camera wherein you can be heard clearly saying that your shoes cost you $2, the video was sent for forensic analysis and does not appear to be tampered. In light of the video will you and your friends change your opinion or not? Now say you go home and rummage through your bills and see that your shoes were in fact priced at $1.5 and you paid by credit card and bank statements corroborate the same. Will this make you wonder why you might have said your shoes cost you two dollars and then later on probably forgot it? You see if there is irrefutable evidence irrespective of how stringly you believe in something be it based on facts(through the video evidence, the bill, and the bank statement) or your own lived experience(all your friends and you recollecting the same $1 price), you will have to reconsider your position. So as OP said world too works based on the probability of something being "likely" or "ulikely" and Truth often is what we find most likely to be true and can change in light of new evidence.

[@academyofideas]

Yeah I agree, the presuppositions of science are more reliable for explaining the natural world. And yes the free will vs. determinism question is very interesting and I will put it on my list of topics to devote a lecture to. I am always interested in knowing what topics people would like to see covered, so thanks for the request.

[@sunset2.00]

What is truth? How nihilism undermine truth or even reason? Why postmodernism dominating academia while its weird to normal folks?

[@egrytznr8893]

Watching this vid one would think u believe all scientists adhere to scientism. Many would distinguish faith and assumptions a little bit better too, today people associate faith more with belief in something spiritual. Assumptions about the natural vs metaphysical vs spiritual are very different. I think some scientists are as pompous as you describe but not all, and as with most of your critique vids the flat earthers and anti-science ppl take the lesson as affirmation of their subjective beliefs. Your main argument sounds like objective truths don't exist or we can never know them. I don't believe we can know all objective truths for sure but they do exist and the search for them is nobel. Love the philosophy vids👍

[@egrytznr8893]

The fact that theory/theoretical is the basis of all science nullifies almost every point u made in this vid. Just saying, but I get it there are people who worship science or think their reasoning is infallible. I know this is an old lecture but alot of your critiques have the same narrow illogical presentation, and it's does a disservice to fans who don't know any better IMO

[@marcdemell5976]

One topic I would like you to tackle is ,,,,,, the philosophy of YAHOSHUA {Yeshua} amein!

[@KanonenBengan]

Science uses hypothesis as a foundation when beginning an investigation.

[@wildbillslunksauce7621]

Socrates said true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. 👍🏻

[@ranjitsarkar3126]

Well unfortunately you cannot know nothing

[@villager_2713]

@@ranjitsarkar3126 But we will when we let our curiosity and the persuit of truth take us. Honesty is the key and let the discovery take you there.

[@applicableapple3991]

He didn't mean literally nothing 🤦‍♂️

[@lorainestjames4181]

the more i know the more i know i don't know. There is a grain of truth in everything.

[@Vurti0]

You wont learn anything when you assume you know everything

[@rja7420]

Its important to keep an open mind. Always search for new ways to see something known.

[@maujo2009]

But not so open that your brains spill out

[@maujo2009]

***** That goes for the both of us, bud.

[@adamjustus3766]

the only problem is that takes a high iq. not a very universal aspect.

[@alanmacification]

Having an open mind is great, but not so open that your brains fall out. " Scientism " is pejorative term as used here. That " . . .search for new ways. . . " is called SCIENCE.

[@klytouch5285]

Hahahaha... dumb nerds... Why didn't you do an experiment to identify how to separate science from media mass psychosis.? I demand you.. Because both of them serve our species of humanity social structure.. And a balancing act must be found..

[@QualeQualeson]

It's important to understand what scientism is and how it differs from science before one goes to the trenches. A lot of these comments kind of confirm the validity of the term. It basically boils down to whether or not one claims that science is the only game in town, despite the fact that such a position is unscientific. This kind of reductionism is a lot harder to defend than mere science. In other words; science is logical, scientism is not.

[@QualeQualeson]

@Graham Rathbone No. They should discard scientism in light of their ignorance and the complexity of the felt experience of existence. Which is kinda just a repetition of my OP, but what the hell. We aim to please.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@Graham Rathbone to your first question, the awnser is yes. You seem to forget that these "non-scientific" methods are more than just religion, there is also art and philosophy which count as "non-scientific" Scientism can/has also been used to describe moments in the scientific community where the scientific approach was abandoned in favor of dogmatic traditional practices (such as the existence of Rogue Waves, which was denied up until the 1990s despite all the evidence and a working small scale proven model made in the 50s)

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@Graham Rathbone your not realizing the scope of scientism (or by its true and discredited name: logical positism) and how limiting/debilitating the claim that 'science is the only way' is, cutting off all other sources of understanding phenomenon (such as mental illness, death, grief, happiness, love, ect) will practically make it impossible to achieve self actualization.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@Graham Rathbone see, you admit that science is NOT the one and only way of analyzing things in this world, thus scientism and its claim that science is the only way is both incorrect and illogical

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@Graham Rathbone thats because in the academic world this line of thinking died off in the 50s, today only championed by less informed people (much like flat earth). Remember, scienTISM is new alias of the idea I have been telling you about. Science (with no added 'tism' at the end) is a valid option for gaining understanding in this world. However it is limited, as it struggles to deal with concepts that go beyond number crunching. To truly self actualize, one can not rely on only one method of understanding.

[@aeromodeller1]

Scientific method arises from the assumptions implicit in the way the nervous system perceives and recognizes patterns. Science is dependent on those processes and how they interact with the world. That is the faith of science. Scientific theories are constructed stories about how the world works, based on the information gathered so far. There is no direct access to the essential nature of reality, only perception of surface features. That is all we have, always limited, never complete, never final. This implies a certain modesty and tolerance.

[@randomrandom316]

Well said, it is a far superior method since its always willing to correct its course even its presuppositions in the light of new evidence which faith based "knowledge" systems can never reconcile with. This video grossed over too many things in order to make an incomplete point.

[@shivamkumarmishra5051]

This sort of modesty leads to pitfalls as well rise in quackery, creationism and all other anti-science attitudes is the reason of these pitfalls. Science has it's flaws and it knows it flaws because it is self-reflective unlike some other beliefs.

[@djkujo007]

Not that many people liked this video lol. I guess this is a hard pill to swallow for some. I realized this years ago. People treat science like religion.

[@asresalim6145]

New age religion

[@raiesshah2790]

Scientism may have affected the thinking of certain individuals. It also tends to think human beings in the past were stupid, which is not a general case. What makes us human beings has nothing to do with science.

[@lagg3sbd394]

Human beings in the past weren't able to stop the black death. And certainly neither could god.

[@davidw.4524]

@@lagg3sbd394 They built pyramids. We can't even replicate one in 2019.

[@lagg3sbd394]

@Peter Kazavis Thanks to modern science we can stop many diseases that we could not when everyone thought like you do. So stop denying science, without it you wouldn't be here commenting.

[@davidw.4524]

@@lagg3sbd394 Dude calm down. Scientism is as real as science itself. Rem in 60s and 70s humans supposedly walked on the moon but in 2019 'we can't go back since we lost telemetry data and it would be a painful process to build it back' quote from Don petite, a NASA scientist. In my opinion it actually never happened.. Lol so tell me again how we can replicate a pyramid that has not been fully explored in 2019. We're devolving not evolving and the further back you go in history the more intelligent humans used to be. We're the most dumb generation in human history ever!!

[@lagg3sbd394]

@@davidw.4524 No, we can go to the moon, we don't because we don't need to, it's already been explored and another mission costs too much. In 1969 there was an incentive to go to the moon, the Cold War, but now there is no reason to go to the moon. We do, however, send manless missions to moon and other planets. And the moon landings can't have been faked because our technology was not good enough to fake it. Pyramids are historical artifacts, we can't just break into it and explore. But we are smart enough to replicate the pyramids. Humans in 1300s were really primitive. You had to make 7 children so 1 would hopefully survive childhood and be able to continiue your name. We were ruled by feudal overlords who did not care about the needs of the poor and only cared about their hunger for power. People would be burned alive for questioning God. You would work really hard only to have your land plundered by the Mongols or the Ottomans or Barbarians. Mankind is getting better and better every generation and you should be grateful for it.

[@pharaohimhotep4676]

I'm an Atheist since decades ago and every time I say I don't believe that Science can explain everything the other person tends to judge me as if I were a kind of "masked religious who just pretends to be an Atheist, because the religion of every Atheist is Science". Now this video can explain everything in simple words. Science is our ONLY current available tool of research, even so, just a tool…

[@rehmsmeyer]

True and sad. There is much that cannot currently be through science alone, just as there are many assumptions holding up the current scientific model. Even more interesting is how many people take current scientific beliefs on blind faith, that is without doing the experiments themselves. Instead, they rely on "herd immunity". "If science says X is true, it must be, because otherwise someone else would have disproven it." Well, not if everyone just keeps building on it as if though it were fact, and not just a logical explanation.

[@MikeO7977]

+Pharaoh Imhotep I am tempted to ask how do you know that? (please note that I am NOT starting arguing, just asking how do we know that it is, indeed, our only tool of discovery).

[@pharaohimhotep4676]

+MikeO7977 In truth, I do not know anything nor I believe that anything can be known for sure without a kind of faith on inductive reasoning (and that's why I'm a critic of Scientism - not a critic of Science). If I believe that Science is our only tool of research (and Science in its broad sense, which would be almost the same as Philosophy - the mother of all Science), it's just because I'm humble enough to admit that only the knowledge based over the research of great men and women over the History of mankind can be the delimiter of that we know about the phenomenic world (and this does not exclude the common-sense in many of its ways). That is, Science is that allows us to make compatible our mental models of the world with the models we draw out of reality through empirical checkings. I'm not saying that only knowledge that can be proven empirically is true knowledge (this would be seriously ridiculous, for Epistemology is a philosophical field much greater than that can be only empirically tested), I just believe that, if saying about empirical conclusions, then our mental models must be empirically matched at least in reasonable ways - and this Science can offer us within its limits. Therefore, if there is something else that can be as efficient as Science in the explanation of the phenomenic world, I will be the first to be open-minded about this. Until now, I do not know anything else.

[@johnmiller7453]

Fortunately he's not alone. Science is just one tool in the toolbox and wise men and women know this.

[@nietzschecarioca7835]

Science explains how but not why. Religion explains BULLSHIT

[@herm535]

Your voice sound like a young version of Jordan Peterson! Its cool! I Love and appreciate your work. Thank you.

[@LifeologyEducationProgram]

Hopefully the academy of ideas guy doesn't start justifying capitulation to the covid jabs lol

[@fariddamasio7880]

Science explains the physical, faith the metaphysical and both have some degree of influence over the other without dominating or reducing the other's significance.

[@josephzanes7334]

But when and where does Science become a literal religion

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@josephzanes7334 in the mind of a person or institution, it can happen at any point depending upon the circumstances of the individual case.

[@applicableapple3991]

@@josephzanes7334 I don't think actual science can, but a distorted version may

[@johnwright7916]

@@josephzanes7334 In economics. The democracy index is an example of scientism that might be more detrimental to how we perceive different countries and cultures in a Eurocentric world

[@johnnymagic1673]

This channel is the best thing that has ever happened to me.

[@EdwardScissorsHands1]

I think it's right that scientism is self refuting, but the claim of all knowledge can be made that way too, even philosophy. All kind of knowledge must have axioms. So, who's right in that, if we can equalize all these types in the same thing?

[@101bsatx]

Eduardo Felipe Ultimately it comes down to a super natural or natural worldview. All knowledge, in order to be true, must claim a beginning point and say it is self evidently true. Super naturalists can say "we believe human reason to be true because God created the mind in a logical way as to produce truth. We can therefore trust human logic because of its creator and purposeful design" whereas naturalist must say "we believe human reason to be true because random cause produced it to be truthful." The argument then goes that the naturalist cannot conclude the reliability of the human mind to be true because to do so would you'd have to assume the reliability of the human mind. It's circular reasoning to say the reliability of the human mind is proved by the human mind. It's a very fascinating argument.

[@ZenBearV13]

This is the ridiculous Sye Ten Bruggencate argument that boils down to just another god of the gaps. Claiming you can trust human logic because you believe in a supernatural being that you have no evidence for is just that, a claim. There is no justification for that belief, and therefore anything you base on that belief is equally unjustified. The truly hilarious part is when Sye says that assuming reason is valid on its own is viciously circular, but assuming reason is valid because god exists is "virtuously" circular, and thus valid. This is the last bastion of theism, and it's a pitiful sight to behold.

[@Theo-oh3jk]

You're late to the party. Philosophers already know this and there are many competing thoughts on the matter. It ultimately comes down to this: the world is a far stranger and bigger place than humanity will ever know Have some humility and get on with your lives and treat everything, including the gods of science with a very healthy dose of scepticism.

[@stevengrocce370]

​@@ZenBearV13 The last bastion of theism may be a pitiful sight, but not the first, and true, bastion of theism. The God of classical theism, originally posited by Aristotle remains glorious and undefiled. The superstitious god of the gaps may be fading as empirical knowledge grows, but the God that is the metaphysical basis for intelligibility in nature and rationality in humans, which discerns the intelligibility of nature, remains and must remain untarnished by any discovery of science. Let me justify this claim with the following syllogism: (1). The world and everything in it exists and is contingent. (Contingency being: each fact about the world could have been otherwise than it is, and is such that the explanation(s) for that fact lie(s) in other facts). (2). Contingent facts must have an explanation for them (either in some other fact, which would make the former fact contingent, or in the fact's own necessity in the case of necessary facts). There must be an explanation for the world that is not contingent or it would continue ad infinitum, which leaves the facts unexplained. (In other words, the answer to contingent facts cannot be: 'because they are'.) (3). And so, since the world exists it, therefore, requires something necessary. (Which means that the foundation of all contingent facts must come from something or a being whose explanation is grounded in its nature. This being's nature is different from the universe itself because the universe's nature is contingent). We may refer to the necessary being with the colloquial term, God. To explain more thoroughly: (1) is unarguably true. I have heard attempts to deny (1), but they are always based on misunderstandings of what "contingency" is. I have never heard of anyone with philosophical training (especially with training in philosophy of religion) seriously attempt to question (1). All of the philosophically sophisticated critiques of this argument attempt to deny (2), but (2) is just the Principle of Sufficient Reason. And if you deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason, then you open yourself up to a universe which is completely absurd - one in which things happen for no reason at all, where it is not possible, even in principle, to find out what the explanations for certain things are. I don't see how any person claiming to be a "scientific rationalist" could possibly countenance such a thing. An example of this is when Richard Dawkins is presented with some alleged mystery that science hasn't yet solved, and (correctly) responds that scientists are working on it and will eventually find the answer, he's presuming the Principle of Sufficient Reason. But if he's presuming the Principle of Sufficient Reason, then he is implicitly committed to a belief in the necessary grounding of reason i.e. God. You must believe in God if you believe in the power of reason. The success of science requires the observation of rationality to exist or its success would be a miracle. I must say that the vain attempts of atheists to refute God, while still holding onto the principles that require His existence, are nothing short of contradictory unknowing attacks against their own metaphysics.

[@misatorespecter734]

@@ZenBearV13 if you can prove string theory is absolute true and you can explain why wave function collapse upon measurement, I will gladly believe in your idea that only things can be found with "evidence" or "falsifiable" is true and exists. Your whole arguments against God's existence is flawed simply due to the rejection of "human limits to know the universe" (Heisenberg Indeterminacy principle) and the rejection of metaphysical events that can be observed but can not be explained why (such as wave function collapse).

[@billhesford6098]

He's right. One must use faith before reason. As atheist David Hume said, there can be no cause and effect, only habits of reason. Science works alright, but accounting for it's pragmatism is a different question.

[@lagg3sbd394]

Remember the times when faith was used over reason? People thought that god could stop the black death. People thought that they had witches in their towns. People fought wars over a bucket. Peasants were living in extremely shit conditions and all they thought was that god would help them if they paid all of their savings to the local church to get rid of their sins. Totally not great times. Seriously, what do you think gave you your computer/phone? What gave you the internet? What gave you planes that allow you to cross distances that could never be crossed in the past? What gave you modern medicine that treats diseases that would result in your death in the past? Please don't spread ignorance, people like you are regressing the world.

[@delgande]

@@lagg3sbd394 he is not Philosophically, science has limitations That is all he's saying Causality and induction are two problems raised by Hume, an atheist To blindly claim that science is the new god is nonsense It is very, very, useful and worth doing but we must not make the mistake of creating a new orthodoxy or a faith around it as some people try Saying this in no way is saying that we must abandon it I hope you understand

[@lagg3sbd394]

@@delgande Science is not a religion, because science changes itself as new information comes to light. If it was a religion, we wouldn't throw it all away with the discovery of quantum mechanics. We are therefore not creating a new pantheon around it as you claim. But he isn't just saying that it has limits, he is saying "One must use faith before reason". This kind of thinking is the kind of thinking that led to deaths and suffering of millions. That's what I'm objecting to. Using faith is way worse than science, because the truth isn't always intuitive. Rationality is the best tool the human mind has to explore our world, and theists like him are just blinding the world.

[@delgande]

@@lagg3sbd394 i meant that some people claim science is infallible and 100% truth The only unfalsifiable thing we know is mathematics THAT is 100% true once proven It is not inductive unlike science There are things that are not observable and not able to be tested, those are two limits of science along with more abstract limits like induction and causality He says faith is needed for its fundamentals, like the assumption that we CAN learn the world as it is No one has "proven" that the material world is philosophically "real" just like there isn't conclusive philosophical "proof" of free will or self yet we still operate as though they are true That is what he's saying Actual scientist are not necessarily the ones making those mistakes, but laypeople you meet in school, online, and elsewhere DO they're the ones who love degrasse tyson, say "fuck yeah science", are new atheists, and generally treat science as if it WERE a god These people DO exists and their views are ehat we call scientism They're turning science into an orthodoxy Science has inherent limits and in order to believe its predictions are "truth" requires faith, philosophically speaking I hope you understand

[@lagg3sbd394]

@@delgande Again, science, unlike faith, changes itself as new information comes to life. Our assumptions can be disproven, which is definetly not faith. And according to the scientific method, nothing can be proven, it can only be disproven. If something can't be disproven after lots of experiments like evolution or relativity, than it is probably correct. We don't say we know with %100 certainty that evolution is true, we say it's %99 true. That is the point of science. It can change itself, unlike religion. In religion, God is a fundemental truth even when it clearly contradicts reality. Ad hoc solutions and circular logic is sometimes required. That's the difference between religion and science. People who say "fuck yeah science" and watch degrasse tyson don't worship science blindly. They change their mind if new information makes them. Tell me a single person who still beleives in spontaneous generation or thompson's model of the atom. You won't be able to. I can tell you millions of people who beleive in Noah's Flood or the Exodus. An average Joe probably does not know how quantum theory works or why is it correct. They trust in scientists. They wouldn't enter a debate with a scientist about quantum theory, because they are probably too ignorant. These people aren't worshiping science, they just don't know or care enough to have an opposing opinion. The original commentor is basically saying that one must use faith over science, because scientists are corrupt. Instead of doing his own research and forming an opposing opinion, he chooses to blindly beleive in God. Science has lots of holes, and maybe they will never be filled, but at least it doesn't claim to have them filled unlike religion.

[@organicchemistry6357]

When someone in STEM gets triggered, it triggered his or her cognitive dissonance

[@SotraEngine4]

I'm studying engineering I have for a long time been annoyed by scientism, or people treating science like a god that will solve everything Science is a human made tool used to make useful models of the world. To be able to predict stuff and build stuff. Are the models getting better over time? Yes Are they still innacurate to some degree? Yes Are the models human made? Yes Now, notice I say models. They are like the shadows in Platon's cave. They can predict very much very accurately, but they do still have unknown inaccuracies

[@account-iq7xd]

@@SotraEngine4 well said

[@JohnDoe-in3ep]

Sky God

[@asresalim6145]

@@SotraEngine4 Exactly my thoughts. Another good example is the people who couldn't see the elephant in the dark room but were pretty confident about their observations about it by touching the parts.

[@StavroginNikolay]

@@JohnDoe-in3ep That’s a pretty simplistic and poor understanding of God to say the least. Heaven ≠ sky.

[@Pythagoras211]

I think the point was that if success doesn't equal truth in all cases, then you have no way of knowing when success is an indication of truth

[@IcepickL]

Very good argument, and very well-articulated. I subscribed.

[@martinmarchef8303]

This channel is mindblowing ! Thankyou!

[@nicholashale6116]

Quite informative! I am majoring in the sciences, but I find that the scope of science in ascertaining absolute truth to be limiting. I believe that other schools of thought must be incorporated into one's world view in order to make sense of/coexist with one's experience of "reality"... For example, solipsism would say that me writing this very comment would be imagined and that I am tossing such thoughts out for imagined commentors to reply with critique or validation of my comment or even to simply ignore me. This world view would be unprovable/irrefutable by the scientific method based on your mentioned presuppositions of science. However, works of art (e.g. "Matrix") can help us to conceptualize such a possibility, whether or not it is ultimately the "truth" of our perceived reality.

[@PantSakell]

Matrix Arrays, Building Blocks, Preassumptions 🙂

[@DouglasHPlumb]

Kant says physics must start by assuming matter to be composed of particles. (Metaphysics of Nat. Science)

[@Jinx-iw6zb]

Not anymore though

[@DouglasHPlumb]

@@Jinx-iw6zb Is physics not the study of matter and energy?

[@Jinx-iw6zb]

@@DouglasHPlumbThat's correct, but it's not particles though. They are not particles beyond the atomic level and what we assumed to be particles showed behavior of both particles and waves. And the more deeper we go it becomes even more weirder.Now it's more like study of physical laws than particles. But it used that assumption during kant's time though.

[@DouglasHPlumb]

@@Jinx-iw6zb I talk about science a bit in my book "Assholes & Bullshit: ..." I have a chapter called "The Assholes of Science"

[@DouglasHPlumb]

@@Jinx-iw6zb I tried typing a response to this and Grammarly got in the way somehow. I think Kant was right in his basic statement of CPR that you cannot extend reason beyond experience and physics maybe has done that - or it sounds that way to me, someone who knows little about physics. Who can theorize on additional dimensions? This can only be unprovable speculations. I think that was what he was trying to say in the language of his day. I don't believe his thinking is out of date.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

When you say that science is based on assumptions, my reply is that every kind of thinking -- not just science - is based on assumption. Hence, philosophy -- whose ultimate job is to make as clear as possible the assumptions of all thinking, including its own !

[@chekitatheanimatedskeptic6314]

7:31 It is clear that success =/= than truth. But I think there is a difference between how assumptions and paradigms work. In your example of the geocentric view that is a paradigm not just an assumption. A paradigm have a lot of assumptions, and they can be replaced by other paradigms when the number of inconsistencies to maintain those assumptions is far greater than another corrected or completely different paradigm. That is not simple to occur since it needs a great number of people to be able to contest the accepted paradigm, or great technological advancement to be able to observe and collect more data. The difference between faith based narratives (myths) and the scientific method is NOT that the later do not use assumptions, but that science uses the less possible number of assumptions to be able to explain a phenomena, while faith based narratives will need to stand their ground even though their assumptions become more and more difficult to explain as we are able to collect more data, discover more processes, etc. There are some assumptions faith based narratives CANT change, even in the face of massive incoherence. Science paradigms also are maintained in some cases in the face of those massive incoherences, but with time those are abandoned and another better paradigm is adopted (one that encompasses more of the reality, or explains much more what was incoherent). That happens because science CAN and will change.

[@Muzbearable]

Yes I think your argument is a key point that was overlooked in this lecture. It was frustrating in that regard. I listened to every word and he would either end an argument before realizing is was self-defeating or provide inexplicably unrelated examples. As a critique of Scientism I expected much more. But if that's all they have...I'll stick with my microscope.

[@Theo-oh3jk]

Paradigms are just a system of assumptions. You haven't argued against anything.

[@jdm3656]

A most excellent video, 10/10.

[@academyofideas]

I think possibly the disagreement may come from my definition of scientism, based on your comments it seems as though you would use a different one. For I am not sure that based on the one I use a proponent of scientism could adopt what you refer to as a “modest empiricist epistemology”. Then again the definition I used at the start of the video (Eric Weil’s) possibly allowed me to create a straw man.

[@academyofideas]

The importance of examining the presuppositions of science has been seen as integral by philosophers, as Ivor Leclerc wrote: “One of the fundamental tasks of philosophy, however, is to inquire into presuppositions, and as Whitehead has remarked, it is precisely those assumptions which ‘appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them’ that most deserve examination.”

[@estevanhammondsanchez4768]

Academy of Ideas I wont make the claim that science is the only method in existence to attain objective knowledge about the natural world, but it is the only way that we know of. If you have any other methods, then I'd like to know.

[@martam4142]

Philosophy, buddy.

[@joemahma3017]

@@estevanhammondsanchez4768 there’s no such thing as objective reality. Reality is an interpretation of our surroundings by our minds superimposed onto space and time. The subconscious interpretation of reality by our minds renders reality subjective by its very nature.

[@dream1430]

@@joemahma3017 how do you know there is no such thing as objective reality

[@BlacksmithTWD]

If we define religion as : a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Then it becomes obvious that science itself doesn't qualify as a religion as it has only beliefs about the nature and to a limited degree the cause of the universe but nothing about the purpose of the universe. As soon as a set of beliefs contains all three, like scientism which makes claims about the purpose, then it's a religion and as such can't be science. Thing is that human beings need a purpose, since they can't get it from science, they will try find it somewhere else. The problem with scientism is that it rejects plato's cave without any decent argument or evidence to do so.

[@Fafner888]

Cont. And finally, I think there's a much more basic problem for scientism which is that most of the people are not scientists and know very little science, but we assume that people know a lot about the world and their immediate environment via their own experience, yet this knowledge isn't grounded by any kind of rigorousness scientific investigation. So it seems to me obviously false that science is the only valid method for arriving at knowledge because most of us don't really use it.

[@SirCmoke]

Why exactly it seems to be obviously false for you , that science is the only valid method to arrive at knowlegde....? Obviously is that , working with science , not praying with belief , is what let you have a Computer aswell the access to an unbelieveble amount of valid and in Detail explained Knowledge "mostly for free" .... instead of realizing how phenomenal scientific methods are working out you are complaining about others work of figuering out what Reality is , while you sitting behind the Monitor assuming , somebody gonna Provide Knowledge to you anyway , so you just have to consume it , Science doesnt make you unverstand the World better , it just makes you step by step being able of re-doing what nature does "outside" of the mind , while remaining not knowing "why" the World is what it is.... Oh and as you wrote also that BS .....Science itself , goddammit , is NOT A METHOD ! Science is the abillity of the human conscious , to do research and to develope , Methods for working , learning ,teaching ..... indeed for All kind of interests in seeking and gaining Knowledge and abilities .....

[@CarlosESanchez10]

Hi, great video as always. Is the lecture series about Nietzsche complete? I think the lecture about the superman was missing, it was one of the last topics.

[@NOVAsteamed]

This video is like bringing arguments to the paradox of the egg and the chicken. Of course, science had to be based on presumptions. The difference between actual faith and science is that the presumptions used in science are made through observation which is in concordance with the scientific method. This sole observation of species was used as a hypothesis to make scientific progress. The hypothesis of species was later proven. There is a word for such unproven but probably true theories: it's called a postulate or an axiom. Postulates and axioms are commonly used in mathematics and some were proven through the work of time.

[@petersteenkamp]

Religion is about what is morally/ethically right or wrong. It gives purpose to life. Science is about what is factually right or wrong. It doesn't give purpose to life. But it can make predictions for the outcome of certain actions. As long as both stay in their own area there is no conflict.

[@jeffreylundin4716]

There is so much about this world that is more a feeling, an intuition I've obtained... than is a verbalizable thought process.. so ya.. I don't think science is the end all and be all of how you can get knowledge. It is very good at analyzing certain mechanisms in the material world... but the immaterial space that takes up most of what is... that is something I don't believe science handles very well.

[@academyofideas]

Thanks. Yes the lecture series about Nietzsche is complete. The Übermensch wasn't a topic we covered in that series. We are thinking of making a lecture on the Übermensch in the near future though so stay tuned!

[@roxyolmstead3691]

I totally see you in like a college debate tournament LOL love your videos keep up the good work

[@bradtheunchad3192]

A man who assumes that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has always risen as long as he can remember is just as intelligent as the man who assumes the sun while rise tomorrow because physics will work as they always have as long as he can remember.

[@zumzoz7245]

What a useless comment

[@asamiyashin444]

It's retarded that modern scientists are evolutionists yet they talk about fixed laws. It's not coherent. It's one or the other, you can't have evolution and fixed laws together. I think that there are fixed, perennial things and things that change, but they use one or another at their convenience and unfairly. For example, there are a lot of tribes who tell us that in the past human beings and animals could change forms. A follower of the cult of scientism would say that it's "unscientific" and impossible just because he has never seen that, while he believes in the big bang and evolution, both things he has never witnessed.

[@peaceo100]

@@asamiyashin444 there are only "fixed laws" in physics and even these are not really fixed, only close to. Evolution follows simple rules without breaking any laws, you need to go into more detail for this one. the reason why we think the big bang and evolution are real is because we have mountains of empirical evidence for them. Anecdotal evidence is nearly worthless.

[@asamiyashin444]

@@peaceo100 Yeah, man. Keep repeating the gospel of your religion. I have read a lot against it and my conclusion is simple: evolution is a cult dressed as "science". There is no one single evidence. No way you can convert me.

[@peaceo100]

​@@asamiyashin444 one of the biggest differences between science and religion is that science can accept to be wrong. I dont believe in evolution, its just the best theory to describe reality. If you had real evidence against it you could convert me without any problem. Ofcause you dont really have any empirical evidence against it, if you had any you would publish it and it would be accepted as "truth" by the scientific community. Being able to change is one of the strongest abilitys of science compared to religion. So what is you evidence?

[@Tsuphian]

Man! You deserve so much more views. :(

[@MsDomminus]

"Episteme" means superimposition, to place over. We superimpose theories and beliefs to "what is". Knowledge is always incomplete. Science, which is obviously necessary, has to do with measurement. "What is", which include us, is immeasurable. In this sense, we need not know "what is", because we are that.

[@dirtiernick21]

This channel is gold 👌

[@martam4142]

Yes, it is!

[@owen5640]

Watching this in 2022 hits different

[@sandyacombs]

Science has lots of beliefs because science needs to use assumptions in order to function. Ex: Darwin's theory of evolution explains that small mutations over time lead to new species. Mutations can be measured, the assumption is that over time they continue to happen and lead to new species. Ex: The Big Bang theory is also predicated on assumptions. Background noise can be detected in all directions scientists assumed that the noise is left over from the creation of the universe. The example can go on and on, every branch of science is built on assumptions that might not be true.

[@CornerTalker]

Read Richard Weaver's "Ideas Have Consequences" to investigate further. Or read the short story "The Destructors" by graham greene

[@GeorgWilde]

Truth of sense perceptions has nothing to do with belief. Because if you have nothing else than sense perceptions, then its all you have, there is no alternative. So thats it.

[@martam4142]

So you are forced to accept that it is reliable, because it's your only tool and asuming it's not reliable would ruin the scientific enterprise.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Before watching this channel, I read the comments and had an ominous feeling that it would be a religious apologetics video. Six minutes in, and there have been a couple of borderline claims, a bit of cherry-picking, and innuendo. I need to investigate more. Finished

[@Matto_Harvo]

When science moves away from engineering, the closer it gets to scientism

[@Matto_Harvo]

@John-Paul Hunt totalitarian group thought.

[@chocolateneko9912]

why does it get to scientism when it drifts from engineering?

[@Matto_Harvo]

@@chocolateneko9912 designing a car and driving it can be seen and proved to work as intended. The affect that that car’s output will have on the planet, cumulatively over decades cannot be proved but is believed to be known. That is scientism.

[@chocolateneko9912]

@@Matto_Harvo I understand more now, I thank you for this response

[@bushdid_911]

true. i kinda agree with you.

[@JoaquinCorreaDrums]

"(because) it works... bitches" Richard Dawkins.

[@sunset2.00]

the vid refuted that too. Corrected:"It works for now bitches in poshch English".

[@chaitalichatterjee4742]

Fuk but why 😂

[@sorenbuenneke6434]

Science has lots of other presuppositions. Linear causality, the dualism of subject and object, and also assumes what type of information is commonly accessible or knowable in general (only “material and observable” phenomena, but this is laden with philosophical content).

[@tobarstep]

You can't actually see it happening everywhere at all times. It must be assumed to be so (through induction).

[@sunset2.00]

The white swan problem..

[@rubaiyatmehedi9337]

@@sunset2.00 but the black swan was the problem

[@Wonderish403]

Hey man, I love your channel. I did find it ironic that you said Old Mate's model of the sun orbiting Earth worked but that we now k ow this not to be the case. There's a bit of faith based science right there. We really don't know anything.

[@sunset2.00]

Newtonian laws of physics too

[@martin36369]

1:28 "We will then examine ONE of the presuppositions of science" whereas the list reads "Examine the presuppositions of science", one singular the other plural.

[@salvationsplace]

I think a better understanding of the meta physical and religious side of the argument is needed. Its difficult to find any true debate on the subject as the only definitions provided are from the scientism POV. The true argument is about a “nature only” position vs a much larger reality.

[@academyofideas]

So my question to you is if you say that those presuppositions are not accepted merely by faith/suspended disbelief, by what method does one prove their truth? If it is not by the scientific method then the claim of scientism falls whether they are accepted as true by “faith” or another method. Cont. below…

[@patriot925]

The best use of science is technology. Edison and Tesla practiced a different form of science than Einstein. IMO, Einstein's most interesting theory is that gravity can bend light. Fascinating.

[@frankt5897]

The person who made the video did not deny the presuppositions of science. Also his critique of scientism made no use of religion, so am not sure the point of you comment. In fact one could be an atheist and find no problem with what was said in the video.

[@ayomaggots6147]

You should do more videos on Methodology.

[@cbone6754]

excellent

[@spenderg]

Science is the religion of materialism.

[@BaphomentIsAwsome666]

"What good is science to me, standing there naked and cold"- Kierkegaard. Science is great for some elements of life yet falls very short in others. No amount of statistics and chemistry will help someone understand losing some one or there place in life.

[@williamkoscielniak7871]

Great quote by Kierkegaard. That's my attitude exactly. I don't understand how the knowledge of whether the sun or the earth revolve around the other can be of any use to anything essential in my life. I am sentient and I love people and I fear and dread their inevitable sickness and death, and I fear my inevitable sickness and death. The movements of the planets or the atoms or the molecules or what-have-you is of no help at all in helping me through these extraordinary problems.

[@leto1449]

dam science used to be a way to discover things and question them amazing thing but now i never thought science will be the atheists' religion

[@yasyasmarangoz3577]

?

[@sunset2.00]

They are hijacking it as if that is their trust fund.

[@yasyasmarangoz3577]

wtf people

[@hellohuman6993]

Science has nothing to do with religion...science cannot prove or disprove God anyway. Doesn't matter if a cat is black or white if it catches mice. Similarly, it doesn't matter whether or not a scientist is religious as long as they make discoveries. BTW, science still makes incredible discoveries, but I'm pretty damn sure you're one of these folks who claims they know what science thinks without ever reading a single word from a scientific journal, so you probably don't know that.

[@projectmalus]

As in so many things it's not what you add to something but what you must take away to divulge its essence. It appears that in both science and religion what needs to be taken away is a human-centric imposition on the universe.

[@Theo-oh3jk]

Possibly. But both are human endeavors, and as such, such a project is doomed to failure. A rational person would realize that our senses, experiences, assumptions, and minds will limit what we can know and how much we can know about the world around us. A sciencist (a scientist who adheres to scientism) rejects this and hubristically thinks that humans can know everything and that there are no flaws in scientific methodology.

[@ex0gen]

It is a mistake to say that science must assume, for instance, the uniformity of nature, in order for the method to proceed. Rather science needs only to employ the uniformity of nature, as a sort of meta-hypothesis, for which all other theories logically depends, itself being tested by the method. Thus, if there is a uniformity of nature, it will be tested as an in-built hypothesis in any given experiment, which point collectively towards an answer. Of course, the conclusion is inductively derived and therefore probabilistic, but this is ok, because probabilities is all science calculates and measures.

[@ex0gen]

***** you should speak for yourself with respect to internet amateurs. If you look at my post, you will notice I never said at any point that science makes NO assumptions or presuppositions WHAT SO EVER. My comment was NOT GENERAL as you specifically suggest it is with your defense of what science i.e. the references to mathematics. I was actually defending science….you dummy. I was making a specific epistemic point about the uniformity of nature. It is not hard to see, that the idea that there are for instance cycles in nature, is itself an observation (data) but this would of course need to be tested anyway, submitted to pier review, etc, right? So It's not in any way a deviation from the scientific method to say that the uniformity of nature can be seen as a hypothesis for which other threes, which logically depend on that uniformity, is tested in the testing of those theories. That's not a presupposition, because it DOESN'T need to be assumed as true, to practice science. It is something that can be tested. And hell, it would have to be tested anyway. You can't just assume there are constants, for instance. If you say something like "well we would never be able to do science if there was no constants" than your making a metaphysical argument. You would NOT be using empirical evidence and putting it through the ringer of the scientific method. Now you may say again that we need to have this idea of uniformity as something we assume to be true in order to engage in the practice because it is just common sense that if nature wasn't uniform we could not even do science to begin with. And you would be right. But that's a claim about reality, which is subject to scientific scrutiny. It would be a prediction based on the hypothesis of the uniformity of nature. Hence it is testable.

[@ex0gen]

***** I have a BA from Fordham university. If there is no such thing as a scientific method, why is it found in science text books in universities across the country? What your saying is just ridiculous. You learn this shit in school….your delusional. Your philosophical point on empiricism is really neither here nor there. String theory for instance. We could talk about Pierce or James and pragmatism, which is very much to what you are saying, but it's really not what I was talking about. Your just attributing shit to me I never even said, yet again. Your just crazy man. You can't have a conversation with people because you just read into what they way positions they don't even hold, and words they never even used. Your either bat shit or a troll.

[@ex0gen]

***** "AND SCIENCE DOES MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY WEBPAGE- EDUCATE YOURSELF." the is the kind of dumb shit I'm talking about. Why would you even say that, when it is a point I was never disputing? Man your dense dude.

[@ex0gen]

***** lol once again, do you see how I said NOTHING about religion and science being at odds? Notice again how you attribute positions to me I don't hold, and said nothing to imply. Your just insane man. Either that or a troll.. Either way, a fool.

[@dagodellavega5146]

ex0gen Science has considerable limitations. If there is a Multiverse we may never about it directly- only that it is there. We will be like fish in the river- never seeing our world - which is directly above the fish. There may have been important observables back 5 billion years ago that we missed that were essential to see.This may forever limit what we can even ask or know. The astronomers in the future will have a picture of the universe we now know to be incorrect- the same view pre- 1920. We may in the same position right now as the future astronomers will be in- limited and having the wrong information lastly, better check things next time. There is no such thing as "The Scientific Method." It is a laughable myth. Little, if any, science is actually done that way. The University of California at Berkeley has a fabulous website with an article called "Misconceptions About Science." It seems like you hold a lot of them............. Go fuck yourself. And educate yourself, you low intelligence Internet douchebag.

[@kderoder]

Really great video, however do you agree with the claim that the presuppositions from science are more reliable than the presuppositions from religion considering that the first based on expierence? Also can you make a video about free will sometime, it's the most interesting topic in philosophy.

[@LifeologyEducationProgram]

I'm resurrecting your near decade old comment to make the observation that some claims of religion may also have been based on experience as well. Someone truly believing that they were communing with angels or something to that effect. Science does go a step forward and (ideally) provides claims that are repeatable however

[@peterclark6290]

Case in point is Theoretical Physics (TP). There has never been a single paper produced establishing the basics of TP as a Scientific study. It is and always was a purely Mathematical model. Mathematics being a purely abstract representation of reality. With the apparent acceptance of the theory they have since embarked on a supernatural proof of concept involving computer-generated images (stained glass windows), descriptions of unknown phenomena described as 'Black' and 'Dark' with a ferocious capacity to kill everything (the god of the OT), a variety of prophets spouting contradictory claims (Hawking once described Black holes as capable of communicating with each other and exchanging material - what?) and even outright lies that can only be understood by the true believers (the recent time-dilation news followed by a picture of a Black Hole - complete with corona - (what?), the size of the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang, etc.) What dives them is the possibility of Time travel - presumably so they can get revenge on their parents/bullies/teachers/coaches... It is damaging to real Science and a waste of some serious talent.

[@mhadiscientia]

Exactly! It is true most of it is only mathematical construct which is forcefully interpreted into physical world without considering the basic logic of physical world's limits (like they talk about time travel at speed of light as if 3 dimensional body can travel in 1 dimensional time). Meanwhile the so called pop science writers use it for their fictional stories just to make it look "mesmerizing" so they can sell their books and tv shows. It is a different kind of supremacist cult following where scientism is taken as science without understanding basics of scientific methodology. They always target religions without taking into consideration anything related to moral philosophy. I've MSc in Physics and understand very well that for many decades now theoretical physicists have not come up with something revolutionary so just to make themselves relevant compared to scientists in other fields with some practical solutions to humanity, some of them interfere into areas beyond their expertise such as metaphysics, ontology, neuroscience/psychology etc and become ambassadors of scientism I highly recommend you a book called “The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee”

[@peterclark6290]

@@mhadiscientia Thanks, we are not alone then ( I thought I was going nuts) LOL

[@stevenhunter3345]

A wonderful video! I'm curious, though, what other methodologies might be advocated in order to understand the natural world? It seems that while as a matter of logical rigor, "scientism" falls short and cannot even establish itself, science is self-evidently is the best methodology we have for understanding the natural world. At the outset, you pit faith against reason and demonstrate that there are certain presuppositions which science must accept axiomatically before it can begin, but surely you don't mean to suggest that faith, as such, gives us any insight into the natural world? It seems to me that these presuppositions are reasonable and derive from universal human experience, not a blind and faithful shot in the dark. Where I think scientism (and science itself, for that matter) falls short is in the human realm, in which value judgments and moral reasoning must take place. I agree with Wittgenstein, who wrote in the Tractatus, "We feel that when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life will not have been touched at all." This is where philosophy (particularly ethics, aesthetics, and politics) have more to teach us about life than science could even attempt.

[@divvy1400yam600]

+Steven Hunter As you recognise the problem of understanding nature is philosophical Your introduction of aesthetics (etc) is IMO a red herriing. The basic question to be answered is 'why is there something rather than nothing' ? Scientism cannot answer that.. Doesn't even try. The best that can be done is to observe what 'is' and use reason to work backwards so as to discover 'how' it may have developed If followed rigorously I think it's necessary to conclude that phenomena outside the realm of human intellect must have existed and may even still exist. Such an approach is labelled DEISM Scientism works backwards to a point where an axiom or self evident truth is introduced. If reasoning from that point produces results that are consistant with nature then the naive and the unwary think science explains nature. FALSE.

[@nsp74]

concise but brilliant

[@Fafner888]

OK, this is a fair argument. I agree that scientsim taken by itself is epistemologicaly useless, because the scientific method must presuppose a broader epistemological framework like for example some kind of foundationalism. But if it does, it's not clear how one can claim that science is the only source of knowledge. After all, scientific observations depend on direct observations(i.e seeing a cat) that themselves are a distinct species of knowledge that have nothing to do with science per-se.

[@wurutechnologies6616]

What he is trying to say is that our claims about the universe has to be taking by faith at infancy but claims are just claims that can be true or false, until proven true with the scientific method. You need faith to begin reason in order to obtain truth.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

There is no way to overcome skepticism except by faith !

[@martinwilliams9866]

Science isn't the only valid source of knowledge, for example the Benzene molecule from a dream, but I do think it's the only valid method for verifying knowledge.

[@Fafner888]

Cont. Someone who holds scientism can adopt a modest empiricist epistemology which could potentially answer the skeptical problem about induction and the external world, so I think one should put those problems aside. Now, your last critique is valid and it is real problem, though I think it's answerable by claiming that scientism itself is not really a piece of knowledge about the world, and so it doesn't require any scientific proof.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Faith alone does not give you knowledge, instead it only opens the door to the possibility of acquiring knowledge

[@rentstoohigh1587]

What did you guys know? This is so relevant

[@estevanhammondsanchez4768]

I won't make the claim that science is the only way we can learn objective knowledge about the natural world, but it is the only way that we know of. If you have a different method, then I'd like to hear it.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

I'll gladly tell you of not just one but TWO other sources of knowledge (or more accurately, understanding): Philosophy and art.

[@estevanhammondsanchez4768]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 Those arent sources of obtaining knowledge about the natural world.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@estevanhammondsanchez4768 what counts as the natural world?

[@estevanhammondsanchez4768]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 The material world is what I mean

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@estevanhammondsanchez4768 do emotions and experiences count?

[@EuropeanQoheleth]

Experience is not reason and the sooner the militant atheists get off of their high horses and accept this fact the better.

[@JohnDoe-xc5kn]

Neither are dogmatic philosophies like christianity. Who is on a high horse here?

[@Javier-il1xi]

Christianity is far from a dogmatic philosophy. You're judging the whole religion based on the shallow understanding the average man has of it. Nice straw man

[@TheQuantixXx]

Javier Bustos Troncoso well didn't the original commenter do precisely the same thing?

[@makeshiftaltruist7530]

Javier Bustos Troncoso Nothing dogmatic about an ideology which claims you MUST accept the premise that Jesus is the only way to obtain eternal life. Christianity is authoritarian by nature. Hard-line Natural Materialism is dogmatic as well. Skepticism is the only rational position to hold.

[@GB-fk7eq]

Gra Ra5 You missed that he was answering a previous comment and didn't punctuate well. For instance the first paragraph missed a question mark. You guys actually very much agree i think

[@SynomDroni]

9:19 if at that time measuring the distance of planet would have been possible the whole model would have collapsed. Therefore this example is purely anecdotal and the success of experiments does retroproof the initial accepted species truth.

[@worframtimoth9781]

Even science research begins by act of faith. Scientists believe the intelligibility of the world ,

[@troychavez]

Disagree. Begins by the doubt.

[@richardjehl1455]

@@troychavez Having faith in the doubt IS having faith. Nobody likes doubting and it is the case for scientists who don't really doubt. When we consider scientists doubting we confuse doubt with questioning. Doubting does not allow to affirm or expose any idea : it is a non-creative state. Scientists claiming they like doubting are not totally honest (they clearly have little knowledge about their own thinking process) and they always tell that with an astronomical faith...;-)...Ideas are always founded in faith. Doubt is destructive and the contrary of thinking, it has no constructive value in itself. Science and thinking process are based on prolegomenas which don't require or call for demonstration, but only faith and acceptation. Everyone is free to choose its own prolegomenas, its own beliefs/principles, and try to obtain satisfying applications using them. Science and its applications, are entirely based on beliefs.

[@academyofideas]

Thanks for the comments, you make some great points! In terms of belief by “faith”, my point was that the scientific method cannot prove the validity of sense experience nor the regularity of nature/species-individual structure. However, in order for one to utilize the scientific method to gain knowledge that is objective (true for everyone/everywhere), as some proponents of scientism claim possible, those presuppositions must be accepted as true. Continued below…

[@mobiditch6848]

Godel’s theorem at the end…also noting that psychoanalysis is not psychology, since it treats the basis for the belief in what psychology hangs its claims.

[@RevDevilin]

Well said, although science doesn't deal in truths nor is the assumption that universal constants are in fact universally constant held as necessarily true

[@richardjehl1455]

I always wonder as a kid, why universal constants are called constants, as they show different values when we measure them...nothing is static in the universe my friend. Things are constant because we WANT them to be so. Consider them non constant and you'll see they are not. Universe does not contain "fixed truths", truths observed depend on how we look at things, they are inside the observer : inside the tool (the intellect) we use to analyse things, and not outside ourselves.

[@hardcorpssfor]

Presuppositions that are not supported by experiment are no longer valid. So if you can produce wood that doesn't burn or water that doesn't freeze, you could easily refute these scientific "presuppositions." But in order to do that, you'd have to conduct experiments... otherwise known as science.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Is this a religious apologetics channel? I have not watched it yet, and the positive comments appear to come from primarily superstitiously motivated people.

[@JustinFlowersPlus]

I understand the argument for the trustworthiness of sense perception, in that there are no ways to prove your senses are telling the truth with only them. The argument about the uniformity of nature assumption troubles me, though. I'd agree that in order to do science you must assume uniformity of nature but I'd argue that science can disprove the uniformity of nature. If there's ever a case where what we've defined as a water droplet (however many H20 molecules which constitutes a "droplet") reacts differently in the same environment with the same procedure, then I'd say science would disprove the uniformity of nature. On those grounds, couldn't you say that science is assuming the uniformity of nature, and with every test moves towards proving or disproving it? Additionally, if science could test every possible action and reaction in nature, and they discovered that all were uniform, would it prove the uniformity of nature? Or is there an argument here I'm missing? Not a philosopher, these are actual questions looking for real answers from real philosophers.

[@Theo-oh3jk]

Unless you can be all places and all times and simultaneously testing, then you cannot prove the uniformity of nature. You can only induce it. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it's the truth, and science cannot fix it for you.

[@martam4142]

Well said Theo.

[@turkishwithcigo4842]

Science does not describe how, it describes the order of natural events. The fact that a plant grows after raining does not mean that it grows thanks to it. We cannot say that. If we say something like that, that is not something, but a belief.

[@Mcgif21]

If we mean by science the search for all truth, all wisdom and all knowledge then that is (at least intellectually) the meaning of life. However if we mean by science the dogma of the materialists (religious or secular) then that is not science to begin with, only an idolized ignorance.

[@OtsileM]

This is the most useful KZbin channel I've found in donkeys years, kudos!.

[@SagaciousBoothe]

Faith based idea that science holds is the speed of light, this is because the speed of light has been measured in two directions due to the complexity of measuring it in one directions far as we know the speed of light in one direction could be instentaious in one direction and the current agreed speed in the other. this faith based belief has only recently been discussed by scientists around the world

[@wezzuh2482]

Triggered STEM majors in 3.. 2... 1...

[@Theo-oh3jk]

It's really fucking bad. All these goddamn autistic shitlords. If they had their way the world would be a miserable, drab, nihilistic place.

[@greenboarder89]

i am a stem major and am fed up with the excessive emphasis on empiricism. you can't get a college degree without having it forced down your throat.

[@thinkingclearly1671]

@@Theo-oh3jk the world is already like that.

[@MrJenpaul123]

There's realism and scientism, sometimes, our irrationality tend to swallow our capacity to reason, making science in turn, not a method, but to sustain facts, facts that can be used to create delusions.

[@badushathahir5263]

There are no perfect systems thanks we have created but science so far gets the job done!. If we find something better we'll go for that it's that simple you can split hairs with science but if you compare what faith and science have contributed to the well being of humanity, that's where you'll realize this system although not perfect, faith can't even compare.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

You are stuck with the notion that this is purely a science V religion debate. Its not, you may not realize it, but Scientism also attacks art and philosophy. When it comes to your "betterment of humanity", both art and philosophy have contributed far more than science both to humans as a species, and on an individual level. When you embrace science as the only source of understanding in life and you cut yourself off from all other sources you are denying yourself the ability to reach self actualization. For self actualization needs more than just one source of understanding.

[@hellohuman6993]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 at last, someone who agrees with the video that distinguishes between science and philosophy. The others think that you can establish facts about natural phenomenon without science.

[@richardjehl1455]

Don't you really realize science is a religion, and is also based on faith ? Every assumption is based on the faith we place in it. Scientists are not superior nor different from poets or philosophers. That is a lesson they sould learn, a lesson of humility. They are obsessed by the macromatter state and its statistics/predictions (that is : by material POWER) but there are other things in life than macromatter ! If they do not accept the irrationality of their own science (and of all ideas and of the thinking process), they won't accept the irrationality of other domains. They condemn themselves in a fatuitious state, thinking they have more value or knowledge of life than non-scientists have, which is completely wrong.

[@martam4142]

Now priests wear lab-coats...

[@hellohuman6993]

@@richardjehl1455 faith: belief without reasons to believe. Scientific theories are supported by the fact that the predictions made by them are accurate, and in the case of those made by modern physics, they account for large amounts and varieties of phenomena. "There are other things in life than macromatter" And that's why social science, philosophy and art exist.

[@dragosoprea8354]

it uses fancy words like "for everybody, etc" or "objective"..or "everywere"...and it trapes you in accepting the wholw statement...that is logical to say "what it was not demonstraded/proven...does not exist...ONLY because they don`t know about it" ...and the same using the term "logical" near the "positive" ...but THAT does mean is TRUE...or LOGICAL:)

[@notperfect101]

I'm not sure about the term scientism and who its proponents are but I can just say that any self-respecting scientist should be well aware of the limits of science and the necessity of assumptions for developing any scientific theory. Ironically it is science who has proven exactly that fact (Gödel's incompleteness theorem). Pretty big omission from the video in my opinion. Furthermore even if there are many flaws in the way science is executed/managed/funded/publicized in the real world the scientific method itself is vastly superior to any other. Certainly beats "I saw it on the internet".

[@joemahma3017]

Try watching the video. It’s not about self respecting scientists nor of it claiming to have a better method.

[@wk3960]

Human 4 defect 1. Commit mistakes 2.Tendency to cheat 3. In illusion 4.imperfect senses. These are also the defects of scientist but not science.

[@muskodine]

Nutshell version... Men of science categorize and divide things Men of faith gather and unite things Apply to your life however you deem fit

[@VaughanMcCue]

If you are sucked into the wrong faith - you are doomed by the others, and they will crucify you, with love, of course. Happy equinox

[@SP4CE.4RC]

Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine Power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the Sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this System to an intelligent Agent- Isaac Newton

[@alanmacification]

So what is your " other " means for obtaining knowledge? Revelation?

[@TheRudraCool]

Philosophy

[@nissanalgaib]

Empirical knowledge is not the only valid form of knowledge. Experiential knowledge is just as real, though it covers a different domain.

[@delgande]

@@nissanalgaib isnt empirical and experience the same, sorta One easy alternative is mathematics Mathematical theorems are unfalsifiable once proved We can confidently claim to know math as truth

[@nik8099]

@@delgande Err, Godel would like a word. Incompleteness Theorem.

[@delgande]

@@nik8099 i do not understand it so i cannot comment on it, however before godel mathematics was considered a hard truth Is that the one about how we can't know everything or something? I refuse to try and make sense of it without the aid of a qualified instructor

[@armandot9137]

Good point about critique of scientism. However, the video fails to explain that science knows to be an approximation of explaining our world, and it operates under an iterative process and the assumptions are revisited if they seem to lead to inconsistent outcomes. I think this is important to say because some watching the video might extend this critique from scientism to science, which would be wrong. For instance, dennisyerger84's comment below seems to be leading into that direction. Science does not rely on "faith", but on initial assumptions, acknowledged as such and revisited if necessary. In other words science works as a search algorithm, it needs a starting point. The entire process is scientific, having educated guesses as a starting search point is part of the scientific method.

[@mhk5272]

The assumptions seem pretty basic. However, I have yet to hear and viable alternative sources of knowledge, where you can distinguish truth from a lie

[@LifeInsightsjk]

Even with science still now.we could not provide the minimum necessity or basic needs of the humanity.

[@Fafner888]

Well, now I'm not really sure what scientism even means and how it's different from empiricism. If we take for example an empiricistic foundationalsim which says that every justified belief is if either derived validly (via deduction or induction) from another justified beliefs, or is based on sense perception. But obviously one can form all kinds of beliefs on the basis of perceptions that aren't derived from a scientific investigation, so even given empiricism scientism is false.

[@criticalxxthoughtxx2916]

One thing. You mean universal, not objective. Universal is something that applays everywhere and what have you. Objective is something independent of individuals thoughts, feelings, ect. You might mean both. I can't be sure.

[@academyofideas]

I would agree with your comment if I was critiquing the scientific method, however, I am not. I am critiquing scientism, the claim that only science can provide objective knowledge of the world. In order to critique such a position one route philosophers have used is to show that the presuppositions of science are not discoverable by the scientific method. I believe one would be promoting ignorance if they believed that the presuppositions of science should never be examined.

[@sues3218]

Science should always be able to be questioned and pressed. When that isn't allowed, then it has become a religion, which a lot of it has seemed to become in recent times.