CFI UK: James Ladyman on Pseudoscience and Bullshit
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2024
- James Ladyman, Former editor of the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science and and author of Understanding Philosophy of Science (Routledge 2002) and (with Don Ross) Every Thing Must Go (Oxford University Press 2007) speaking at the Centre for Inquiry UK event on science and pseudoscience at Conway Hall, London. Filmed by Jon Bagge.
I read your article that was published in Massimo Pigliucci's article "Toward the Demarcation of Science". I thought your take was inspiring. Because until I read your work I thought the entire discussion on pseudoscience was b.s. Now I am looking forward to learning more about the philosophy of science. I think the information there can solve some problems we are currently experiencing in public policy.
This is a very good talk. I think I'll look out for this guy in the future - Thanks for the post.
Utterly fascinating.
Very interesting talk, and fascinating perspectives on how science is actually done. Thanks!
Ladyman is the man!
Great talk about the need to be preserve the critical spirit and stay on the look out to distinguish ideas which are scientific from ideas which only sound scientific. It was a bit frustrating that we had to wait to near the end before many names were named. Two I would have mentioned early on are "scientology" (almost but apparently not quite unbelievable), and the more subtle "intelligent design".
However, the crucial distinction between science and pseudoscience will always be hard to pin down and the scientific hubris which James advocates includes the need to acknowledge that the history of science is littered with pseudoscientific ideas which ended up making a valuable contribution to science, such as the way that star gazing astrologers may have contributed towards astronomy, or ancient Greek numerologists may have laid the foundations for number theory.
I could listen to Jeremy Irons all night. Very good presentation in all seriousness.
😂😂
Social coordination theories of language (representation) show that the role of ‘bullshit’ in all its sundry forms are quite useful for quotidian interaction; and in some cases, even for making a living. Rationality, credulity, truth, reality tracking, correspondence to the world, whatever the namesake, is not the sole purpose of language. Ladyman (Ross etc.), who obviously turns a dime from peddling ‘Naturalised Hooey’, should be intimately aware of this faculty. I never quite appreciated why anyone would require intimate scientific knowledge when you’re not engaged in scientific activity.
do you work in marketing?
Scientific knowledge is different from scientific temper. If a believer in horoscopes has the freedom to judge my character based on my star sign or whatever, I should be able to judge their intellectual calibre, mixed with derision and pity even.. This is not to make myself feel better (although that will be implicit in most cases), but primarily to try and make the other person realize that they should reflect upon and improve their judgements to ensure better social survival (for the collective). Language is normative since utterances and thoughts occur within social contexts.
Enjoyed this talk being something other than sneering at people without PhDs
It seems to be about ten times longer than it needed to be. However, thanks very much for the effort.
@Temple of Ridicule lol fuck off
His closing comment about there not being any fact-free thinking is very insightful. I came to that same conclusion when my own children were very young.
I'm totally getting that haircut.
Hair "cut"?
What? Growing your hair long, putting it on an anvil and smashing it with a hammer to 'cut' it?
I love this guy, so reasonable :)
Carl Pilkington saw this all coming...
how is it that cooling and expanding air is caused to rise , and how is it that we think hot air is the cause of its rising ?
It's called 'higher or lower density' Marvin. Impress your friends and learn some science :0)
Cooling air never makes it expand or rise. That is not a thing. What are you talking about?
It has to do with density and displacement effects. I'm a non career scientist within a niche of fluid dynamics. In spite of the speakers opinions of average people who have regular day jobs and pursue science on the side. We do so because we can pay the bills without having to compromise our intellectual honesty.
Bullshit tolerance is closer to a scientific term than intro and extrovert
44:00 you have to teach kids the best information that we've got. The BEST. That is not as Dawkins has said 1 on one hand the sex theory of reproduction or 2 the stork theory of reproduction. That leaves out all the gibberish and pseudoscience and creationism etc....
Some of my teachers in the 1980s were onto this. Just because (at that time) Jim McMahon could play great football _he was not in any way an authority on investment banking_ yet TV advertisers would have you think otherwise. Al Gore was a politician - NEVER a meteorologist or climatologist. His highest education was St. Alban's High School. When Al Gore says 'We're heating up the planet.' Then offers his opinion and quotes only people who agree with him, THAT IS PSEUDOSCIENCE. When University of East Anglia got caught faking the data (no, we will not debate that, it's a confirmed fact) THAT WAS BULLSHIT.
That isn't a confirmed fact, you noodle.
Climate change is real, it is human-caused, it is serious, it is mitigable. It's pathetic to suggest that it's about Gore. Every major scientific organisation has been in astonishing agreement on this for a long time, among scientists of all political inclinations and all cultures in every region of the world. Not because they like to agree, but because scientific competence compels them to. Here they all are:
scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2017/01/07/statements-on-climate-change-from-major-scientific-academies-societies-and-associations-january-2017-update
Quoting people who only agree with you is NOT PSEUDOSICENCE -why? Because the people one quotes or relies onmay have a point or may be right. What you are talking about is a form of bias. Yes i heard about East Anglia faking climate change data, but is never talked about now. If a group of people ar caught faking data to prove a theory it is fraud and lying, pseudoscience could be used in an honest way that the person or persons believe it to be true.
@@Mulberry2000 It is pseudo scientific. _WHY?_ because REAL science relies on empirical evidence.
What's the point? Though whatever he said is not wrong but he has just described the common sense in an apparently PHILOSOPHICAL and dramatic tone to make it look sound a great lecture.
+dom ji "but he has just described the common sense"
Common sense is not so common.
The part about supposed sex addiction caught me off guard a bit. Any time someone cites an unnamed expert friend, I am wary. Also I've never seen or heard about sex addiction drugs for women. Almost all "addiction" treatment deals with non-medicine methods, if you will. I think he just might've been exaggerating there to make a point.
+SomethinJustAintRight "several anti-depressants for women were FDA banned or blocked because..."
"Did you know there are two clerics on every FDA board?"
Citations, please.
***** IOW, you're full of crap and the condescension is your way of evading being called out on it.
I can live with that.
He needs help with his hair. God, talk to him.
+5winder I think his hair is irrelevant to the points he is making in the lecture.
All the best philosophers have crazy hair :D
He shaved it all off this year.
Just read Popper ...
He's outdated.
@@CesarClouds who's the update?
@@stegemme There are many.
@@CesarClouds yes of course I am, but what I note is you employ a typical tactic of evading the question. If you want to start from a current position then lets have at it.
@@stegemme James Ladyman is one of the updates.
pound shop jordon peterson
Who?
Does he really know what he wants to talk about? Seems not.
Do you think you managed to squeeze in enough sweeping generalisations into you comment? You seem to be using this comment section as a way to rally against your own academic frustrations. If you don't like the way professional philosophers (or other academics) present information in a public forum or in the form of lectures, you can always read their publications either online or in printed form. Most being rooted in analyticity, there is plenty of clarity on many complex issues to be found. Moreover, you've stated that Ladyman is not competent at teaching and also called him a 'clown'. What contributions have you made to the field of intellectual thought that justifies such ridiculous assertions?
All you're doing is showing that you have little ability to comprehend his complex trains of thought. You won't agree with this, or understand what I'm saying, because it sounded like gibberish to you. It wasn't gibberish to other people, though. To most of his audience, it was a very insightful look at what science is and what pseudoscience is.
LADYMAN? WTF