I thought that this might be a much needed and enlightening critique of scientism. It appears to be of someone who has been unable to remove a chip from their shoulder. 🌻
Agreed - This seems to be a very heart-felt, frantic rebuttal of science's lack of care about his emotions. There is nothing which can't be discovered, if it has an influence no our reality.
I didn't waste my time watching the whole thing. Notice that Massimo was pushing HIV as if the science presented is absolute truth; it's not: (czcams.com/video/tQCKb1JV-4A/video.html). Taking someone else's word-whether it be the word of one person or one billion people-is faith, not science. Actual science requires personal observation and testing.
There are times when an arguer simply feels disingenuous to me. This is such a time. Are there some things that we shouldn't put under the microscope, or ought not have scepticism applied to them?
Anytime I see someone mention the word "scientism" I wonder if that person is going to carry water for creationists. Because it often turns out to be the case. Other times it seems philosophers are upset that scientists, as in those who practice in acquiring knowledge through methods generally accepted as "scientific", are so derisive of philosophy as a discipline. I think that latter may apply here with Pigliucci.
While you mention "creationists" with disdain, not only do you not understand the corporate profiteers that prop them up for their greedy forms of denialism, you also don´t demonstrate understanding that spirituality, religion, and God issues are knowledge and phenomena domains, areas unnecessarily thus confused, as if secular values are obliged to be anti-spiritual and anti-theist. Nope.
sci·ence 1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. That's a noun there by the way not a verb.
A festival of logical fallacies. Half baked rebuttals of poorly set straw men. This was infuriating to listen to. He has enough knowledge to sound convincing at face value. He keeps attacking points that no actual scientist would agree with. In science, we make sure to define our terms at the start so we know what we are talking about, maybe he should do the same.
Good to see Neil deGrasse Tyson and Sam Harris called out here by name. Fundamentally shallow thinkers who have reached a troubling level of influence
Oh buddy you’re not lying. So true. Hard to listen to those two.
This lecture deserves more views than what other videos uploaded by CFI have.
I thought that this might be a much needed and enlightening critique of scientism. It appears to be of someone who has been unable to remove a chip from their shoulder. 🌻
Agreed - This seems to be a very heart-felt, frantic rebuttal of science's lack of care about his emotions. There is nothing which can't be discovered, if it has an influence no our reality.
I didn't waste my time watching the whole thing. Notice that Massimo was pushing HIV as if the science presented is absolute truth; it's not: (czcams.com/video/tQCKb1JV-4A/video.html). Taking someone else's word-whether it be the word of one person or one billion people-is faith, not science. Actual science requires personal observation and testing.
Great stuff! :) Thank you :)
His quote - "my plumber is not a scientist" - is an example of scientism.
There are times when an arguer simply feels disingenuous to me. This is such a time. Are there some things that we shouldn't put under the microscope, or ought not have scepticism applied to them?
Massimo great as always!
Amazing!! :) Thank you Massimo :)
Anytime I see someone mention the word "scientism" I wonder if that person is going to carry water for creationists.
Because it often turns out to be the case.
Other times it seems philosophers are upset that scientists, as in those who practice in acquiring knowledge through methods generally accepted as "scientific", are so derisive of philosophy as a discipline. I think that latter may apply here with Pigliucci.
While you mention "creationists" with disdain, not only do you not understand the corporate profiteers that prop them up for their greedy forms of denialism, you also don´t demonstrate understanding that spirituality, religion, and God issues are knowledge and phenomena domains, areas unnecessarily thus confused, as if secular values are obliged to be anti-spiritual and anti-theist. Nope.
So you didn’t watch the video lol
@@overtonwindowshopper For real 💀💀
I am curious about the flip side. What are the limits
Philosophy and an equivalent word for it?
Eugenics, bad science or psuedo science?
sci·ence
1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
That's a noun there by the way not a verb.
I agree with the point... Disagree with the delivery.
This is the first talk that I recall clarifying specifically that Science is a form of Philosophy, although it is not just because it came first.
23:22
97 to infinity
A festival of logical fallacies. Half baked rebuttals of poorly set straw men. This was infuriating to listen to. He has enough knowledge to sound convincing at face value. He keeps attacking points that no actual scientist would agree with. In science, we make sure to define our terms at the start so we know what we are talking about, maybe he should do the same.
I 100% agree with you. It is almost like he 'hates' the scietific method. I wonder if h's a flat-earther or a conspiracy nut.
@@_Stin_ Hi. Isn't that missing the point? As Pigliucci points out there is no (one) "scientific method" or do you disagree?
Stin do you realise the speaker is a scientist as well and he is one of the expert in philosophy of science.
Stin I doubt if you really listened to the speaker at all🤦🏿♂️
Can you offer a specific claim he makes that you disagree with, and why?
Rizoto is not even morality adjacent. Bad example.