How science is a narcissism
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 06. 2024
- Please people, don't come after me with a mob holding pitchforks. This is just a certain interpretation of narcissism, and the idea was meant to be playful. I wasn't trying to say that such a thing could actually happen.
The inspiration for this video came from an exchange I had with someone in my comments.
Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data. Which can change over period of time. The observation method can be improved the measurment and data storage increase. There is different gravity level in antarctica right now.
yes i think you are absolutely correct. The theory behind what makes measurement possible, and what constitutes a measurement are like the backbone of the experimental sciences
Just a somewhat mystical thought: it seems those scientists to whom the world most remarkably revealed herself were ones who maintained an awe at the mystery of the world. You can’t play guitar if your fingers are tensely contracted and stiff, and you cant see the world if you’re inflexible in your approach. Just my thinking on the subject. I enjoyed the presentation of this idea in this video.
Thanks 🙂. I agree with that analogy. Being aware of our narcissisms helps one be more sensitive to the movings of the world, i thought. Congratulations on the healthy baby :)
Thanks - she’s doing good, a lot of work and not much sleep right now!
@@bradzurcher2775 the economy of Z's. That can be a tough one
Scientific empiricism is based on a fragile but also strangely strong assumption. No amount of confirmatory evidence proves an empirical law but a single instance where observation denies the hypothesis is enough to discard the law. Tomorrow if the world starts behaving differently, science will have to be reviewed, it's not sacred.
Science is a method, not a set of results.
@jacobscrackers98 there can be multiple senses to words. in Biology class they even taught us that. On the one hand they said, its a method. On the other hand, a body of knowledge
I'm aware of that law. I hope people didn't take me to mean that science is not our best attempt at understanding natural phenomenon, since i can't really think of a better one tbh. My point was just that if science stops interacting with the absolute Otherness of the World then it truly becomes a kind of hall of mirrors.
This tends to be how things like “economic science”, the “science of economics” works . (It doesn’t ). In the financial markets, people are usually very wrong with their theories because of the effect of observation changing the outcome. It’s difficult to test. It seems to me that there are just things easier to test than others. I.e. If I hold my head underwater for 20 minutes I will probably die. Or if I pet a starving grizzly bear it will probably have me for lunch. Easy to test of course despite the risk. The world has a way nonetheless of providing statistical anomalies which can’t really be explained. This is why I prefer to look at things in statistical values rather than hard or absolute truths. - ie “dogs speak English”. Okay that can be true , but statistically most dogs do not write books, journal, or give fundraising speeches , etc. even if that statistical number is very low, we don’t know what will happen and the numbers may change
I see what you're saying. An expectation, that seems plausible, but then an experiment reveals something unexpected. Then one has to rework one's theory.
A sense of the probably, who knows where it came from, but we recognize in it something essential to our survival.
A modal operator may work to formalize this notion of "statistically likely". They use those in logic to represent things like possibility (with a diamond) and necessity (with a square) but one could postulate new ones. good analysis
Why do you think people would do that? That's the exact sort of thing scientists (say they) try to avoid.
Because knowledge is power. To do anything you need to know how to do the thing. So if you know how to do more things, you can do more things. Therefore People who have knowledge can achieve their goals easier than people who lack the knowledge.
The point is we can never totally prove science. The world can always surprise us. If we forget that then we might as well be dead.
Death? I mean my death is the only thing I can expect. Maybe we’re narcissistic becaus we want more than death.
but death of consciousness? I don't think there's any proof for that anywhere
@@Ryans_Science cool, continuation as unexpectedly coming back as say a ghost.
I would say as a human being with science.
I totally agree.People like Richard Dawkins just come across as these incredibly arrogant know it alls.
yeah, it seems like its hard to find people that are able to reflect on the philosophical assumptions behind science
Isn't science like a way of exploring concepts and truths of the universe through a specific systems and experimets which can be proven or played around with?
I think you're somewhat confusing the act of science with scientific arrogance.
words can have different senses yes. I assumed people out there were smart enough to distinguish the sense i was using from others. but the mindset that there is one "correct" sense is one i do not subscribe to usually