I accept scientific consensus and you prob should too
video description
Date: 2020-03-03
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
David
The only thing in science to trust is that which is built up deductively and validated inductively, not pure inductive science (like experimentation) which is what's done in compensation for a fundamental lack of understanding in something. Until we have an interdisciplinary understanding of the world from which our biological systems have emerged and every part of our nature has evolved, there's always going to be a very thin balance to strike between professed scientific knowledge and the generally much more intricate reality (often more nuanced even by the standards in which whatever studies are conducted. There is a principle understanding in math called reduction without the loss of generality. Science consistently fails to do that (this would be factoring in the intricacies which branch out into different outcomes that no inductive practice can account for) where furthermore, the objects themselves which science is trying to capture in its measurements doesn't reduce them properly to what can actually be considered their essential parts (which when science does do, is where we've actually been able to develop by connecting those inducts with what someone who was thinking outside the box was able to deduce (not an expert. Critical reasoning is key (that which you have Adam, and that's really the best any human can do. Unfortunately, we don't live in a system that's founded on trust (in fact quite the opposite, so trust is out of the question for anything you find that's a product of society, regardless of the source, unless you're really able to narrow things down to an individual level where you come to completely understand a person's drivers and motives (able to recognize their own critical function which matches or exceeds yours in a clear way. VERY very rare and hard to find an individual of this such a caliber (once again, in the context of this system and all the ways in which people are unconsciously and subliminally influenced. Then as far as faith in science, well honestly you made all the arguments against that. In conclusion, I find that whatever balance there is to have within the present paradigm in trying to understand the nature of any given reality doesn't bias you in any direction, in favor or against scientific consensus. The point would to be to use your intuitive sense (not to be confused with that which is common) and simply proceed cautiously by not connecting that sense to any points of prejudice (using a critical compass for when deep inside you actually know when your opinion is earned or not) - basically to consistently remain agnostic and go with the best that you can possibly arrive at for the time whilst continuing to actually live your life (keeping whatever matters on the shelf until you have more internally or externally derived data to work with for a reexamination of whatever facts.
reply
The only thing in science to trust is that which is built up deductively and validated inductively, not pure inductive science (like experimentation) which is what's done in compensation for a fundamental lack of understanding in something. Until we have an interdisciplinary understanding of the world from which our biological systems have emerged and every part of our nature has evolved, there's always going to be a very thin balance to strike between professed scientific knowledge and the generally much more intricate reality (often more nuanced even by the standards in which whatever studies are conducted. There is a principle understanding in math called reduction without the loss of generality. Science consistently fails to do that (this would be factoring in the intricacies which branch out into different outcomes that no inductive practice can account for) where furthermore, the objects themselves which science is trying to capture in its measurements doesn't reduce them properly to what can actually be considered their essential parts (which when science does do, is where we've actually been able to develop by connecting those inducts with what someone who was thinking outside the box was able to deduce (not an expert. Critical reasoning is key (that which you have Adam, and that's really the best any human can do. Unfortunately, we don't live in a system that's founded on trust (in fact quite the opposite, so trust is out of the question for anything you find that's a product of society, regardless of the source, unless you're really able to narrow things down to an individual level where you come to completely understand a person's drivers and motives (able to recognize their own critical function which matches or exceeds yours in a clear way. VERY very rare and hard to find an individual of this such a caliber (once again, in the context of this system and all the ways in which people are unconsciously and subliminally influenced. Then as far as faith in science, well honestly you made all the arguments against that. In conclusion, I find that whatever balance there is to have within the present paradigm in trying to understand the nature of any given reality doesn't bias you in any direction, in favor or against scientific consensus. The point would to be to use your intuitive sense (not to be confused with that which is common) and simply proceed cautiously by not connecting that sense to any points of prejudice (using a critical compass for when deep inside you actually know when your opinion is earned or not) - basically to consistently remain agnostic and go with the best that you can possibly arrive at for the time whilst continuing to actually live your life (keeping whatever matters on the shelf until you have more internally or externally derived data to work with for a reexamination of whatever facts.
reply
Gungywamp
I've gotta say, about common sense, that in my experience that term is typically only invoked as a way of insulting others. Most people only say the words common sense when they mean to belittle anyone who opposes them or to infer that something is so simple that no one should be messing it up; or to say someone lacks common sense. It's honestly a phrase that I wish would stop existing because of how lazy and dismissive it is at times, as well as being a concept that kinda just doesn't exist in the real world. There is no common sense that everyone would supposedly have. There are definitely some cultural constants that most people of a society would learn while growing up, but if you grow up outside of any given culture, your own common sense could differ greatly from the norm. Now, I'm not saying I've earned this opinion. I'm really just generally misanthropic and don't like a lot of the people I see in my daily life so I attack the things that stand out to me; but that's mostly because of working with the public in a small town full of people with asshole opinions. I just feel like a lot of what people say casually is just garbage (I think of them as old-memes or pre-internet memes. Common sense, another day another dollar, a whole ton of overly sarcastic and depressing/defeatist phrases. they're all trash. Even when people are being entirely unserious/sarcastic when saying things, it can still have a real affect on their mindset and outlook. Believing in the concept of common sense, for instance, typically leads people to feel like they're one of the only few people who have it: It's like no one's got any common sense anymore. Another day, another dollar type of talking just dismisses how much money you actually make. I worked in a gas station with a paycheck shy of 400/wk and I'd have people making 50k/yr complaining like they work in a coal mine for half my pay just because they've convinced themselves that the problem is the world they live in and their lack of pay, not the fact that they got a new house and new car without considering what that meant financially because they're too given to following the expectations of tradition; meanwhile I've only had financial woes upon being fired from my job. It's all ridiculous. Down with the old memes, thank you for coming to my TED talk.
reply
I've gotta say, about common sense, that in my experience that term is typically only invoked as a way of insulting others. Most people only say the words common sense when they mean to belittle anyone who opposes them or to infer that something is so simple that no one should be messing it up; or to say someone lacks common sense. It's honestly a phrase that I wish would stop existing because of how lazy and dismissive it is at times, as well as being a concept that kinda just doesn't exist in the real world. There is no common sense that everyone would supposedly have. There are definitely some cultural constants that most people of a society would learn while growing up, but if you grow up outside of any given culture, your own common sense could differ greatly from the norm. Now, I'm not saying I've earned this opinion. I'm really just generally misanthropic and don't like a lot of the people I see in my daily life so I attack the things that stand out to me; but that's mostly because of working with the public in a small town full of people with asshole opinions. I just feel like a lot of what people say casually is just garbage (I think of them as old-memes or pre-internet memes. Common sense, another day another dollar, a whole ton of overly sarcastic and depressing/defeatist phrases. they're all trash. Even when people are being entirely unserious/sarcastic when saying things, it can still have a real affect on their mindset and outlook. Believing in the concept of common sense, for instance, typically leads people to feel like they're one of the only few people who have it: It's like no one's got any common sense anymore. Another day, another dollar type of talking just dismisses how much money you actually make. I worked in a gas station with a paycheck shy of 400/wk and I'd have people making 50k/yr complaining like they work in a coal mine for half my pay just because they've convinced themselves that the problem is the world they live in and their lack of pay, not the fact that they got a new house and new car without considering what that meant financially because they're too given to following the expectations of tradition; meanwhile I've only had financial woes upon being fired from my job. It's all ridiculous. Down with the old memes, thank you for coming to my TED talk.
reply
Dominik
Look, I do also mostly trust in science and scientific consensus. However I also look at the political and sociological environment of science. And I trust in reasonable common sense. So the notion that preseared steaks could have some correlation to juicier steaks, doesnt seem to me like a direct causationThere is a very interesting episode of John Oliver (Scientific Studies) which is extremely helpful to understand the controversy in science I am hinting towards. If there is the scientific consensus, that cured meat is suddenly not very bad for your heart health, it could be a) the latest amazing neutral studies or b) the heavy handed research lobbying of the agriculture and meat industry The same by the way I am suggesting for food additives like MSG. I think that in most of these cases common sense is really a middle ground opinion. E. g. MSG isnt immediately poisonous to you, but you probably shouldnt overdose it like a crack addict (there are very few long term studies out- and data in Africa, where the MSG stock cube took completely over as common spice, shows quite scary health effects, which cannot be directly be connected with MSG, but have a reasonable connection with MSG nonetheless)My idea of common sense is, that you should not overestimate what common sense is.
reply
Look, I do also mostly trust in science and scientific consensus. However I also look at the political and sociological environment of science. And I trust in reasonable common sense. So the notion that preseared steaks could have some correlation to juicier steaks, doesnt seem to me like a direct causationThere is a very interesting episode of John Oliver (Scientific Studies) which is extremely helpful to understand the controversy in science I am hinting towards. If there is the scientific consensus, that cured meat is suddenly not very bad for your heart health, it could be a) the latest amazing neutral studies or b) the heavy handed research lobbying of the agriculture and meat industry The same by the way I am suggesting for food additives like MSG. I think that in most of these cases common sense is really a middle ground opinion. E. g. MSG isnt immediately poisonous to you, but you probably shouldnt overdose it like a crack addict (there are very few long term studies out- and data in Africa, where the MSG stock cube took completely over as common spice, shows quite scary health effects, which cannot be directly be connected with MSG, but have a reasonable connection with MSG nonetheless)My idea of common sense is, that you should not overestimate what common sense is.
reply
zxqwerxz
What if its not an issue of knowledge or respect for expertise but a fundamentally incompatible world view? What if that anti-vaxxer believed that vaccines make us weak and that by letting children fight off infections it leads to stronger more evolutionarily fit people? They can believe that vaccines work, but refuse on the grounds that it interferes with the natural order? Maybe they believe that your son ought to have died so the strong survive? Or those who believe that climate change will cause society to collapse and look forward to the inevitable strife that comes with it? These intentionally self-destructive beliefs can't be changed with more knowledge or expertise and those are the types of people who will end up causing the most damage to society.
reply
What if its not an issue of knowledge or respect for expertise but a fundamentally incompatible world view? What if that anti-vaxxer believed that vaccines make us weak and that by letting children fight off infections it leads to stronger more evolutionarily fit people? They can believe that vaccines work, but refuse on the grounds that it interferes with the natural order? Maybe they believe that your son ought to have died so the strong survive? Or those who believe that climate change will cause society to collapse and look forward to the inevitable strife that comes with it? These intentionally self-destructive beliefs can't be changed with more knowledge or expertise and those are the types of people who will end up causing the most damage to society.
reply
Mr.
I went vegetarian for 4 years and vegan for 1 but now att 24 I see things differently I Cook and eat meat, it started by cooking for others, I Still do it at a maximum of 2 a week(including all meals, typically one of them is fish) as It's a cost saving measure as a student and to keep my moral compass about responsible meat consumption at bay. This is an asshole opinion but consuming local and seasonal stuff is far more sustainable and can made healthier than all the great super foods, was just taught to make borcsh in the country I currently reside in, it's a pretty decent tasting dish(especially with herbs, cheap and nutritional too: D
reply
I went vegetarian for 4 years and vegan for 1 but now att 24 I see things differently I Cook and eat meat, it started by cooking for others, I Still do it at a maximum of 2 a week(including all meals, typically one of them is fish) as It's a cost saving measure as a student and to keep my moral compass about responsible meat consumption at bay. This is an asshole opinion but consuming local and seasonal stuff is far more sustainable and can made healthier than all the great super foods, was just taught to make borcsh in the country I currently reside in, it's a pretty decent tasting dish(especially with herbs, cheap and nutritional too: D
reply
Coal
Deleted old comment because you are attempting to make an old argument new in a somewhat poor fashion. First, appeal to emotion, this does not help anyone make a rational argument when saying science should be our go to for truth (I know you said mostly because of scummy people. Second, truth doesn't just come from science but it also comes from religion, philosophy, or where ever else. We seek the truth to make us live longer. Third, for your child, you gave him to other hands that hold different truths to you, and those other truths made him live longer. The truths of the other hands made him live. Thank those doctors.
reply
Deleted old comment because you are attempting to make an old argument new in a somewhat poor fashion. First, appeal to emotion, this does not help anyone make a rational argument when saying science should be our go to for truth (I know you said mostly because of scummy people. Second, truth doesn't just come from science but it also comes from religion, philosophy, or where ever else. We seek the truth to make us live longer. Third, for your child, you gave him to other hands that hold different truths to you, and those other truths made him live longer. The truths of the other hands made him live. Thank those doctors.
reply
John
The way i handle these things is i listen and accept them to a point. Like the whole meat and cancer thing, that i ignore because well the numbers are so small that frankly it's meaningless. But stuff like sugar is bad and all that, there is enough to so that the normal consumption is to much. So cutting back to just getting sugar from say 1-2 sodas a day is a good step. Then there are the other paths like with climate change, where I know it's a thing and will cause problems. But I know we can't back pedal, no matter what we have to keep advancing, thus the only reall solution is to out science nature.
reply
The way i handle these things is i listen and accept them to a point. Like the whole meat and cancer thing, that i ignore because well the numbers are so small that frankly it's meaningless. But stuff like sugar is bad and all that, there is enough to so that the normal consumption is to much. So cutting back to just getting sugar from say 1-2 sodas a day is a good step. Then there are the other paths like with climate change, where I know it's a thing and will cause problems. But I know we can't back pedal, no matter what we have to keep advancing, thus the only reall solution is to out science nature.
reply
Suparockr
My problem with science is its use in power dynamics. I don't like red meat, I don't usually eat it, all hail chicken. That said, when I first heard about the research surrounding it, it was at the same time I heard that people were trying to suppress the findings because they didn't like the possibility of it encouraging more red meat consumption, or distrusting science. If the powers that be try to hide research that challenges a narrative, science loses its inherent trustworthiness to me. Earned opinions are more just enforced opinions because you can just shut down evidence to the contrary.
reply
My problem with science is its use in power dynamics. I don't like red meat, I don't usually eat it, all hail chicken. That said, when I first heard about the research surrounding it, it was at the same time I heard that people were trying to suppress the findings because they didn't like the possibility of it encouraging more red meat consumption, or distrusting science. If the powers that be try to hide research that challenges a narrative, science loses its inherent trustworthiness to me. Earned opinions are more just enforced opinions because you can just shut down evidence to the contrary.
reply
Caty
Adam, I never did believe that searing seals juices, largely because juices run out of the meat during cooking, be it seared or not. Just an observation. However, fond does add flavor. My food/science question has nothing to do with overall health, or longevity. It covers nothing that is of vital concern: I HATE cilantro I've heard/read, that there is an enzyme. present, or lacking, in my brain. that translates the flavor of cilantro, to that of a common bar of soap. I say that's hooey. It tastes like soap. I wonder about the hygienic practices of those who love it. What says science?
reply
Adam, I never did believe that searing seals juices, largely because juices run out of the meat during cooking, be it seared or not. Just an observation. However, fond does add flavor. My food/science question has nothing to do with overall health, or longevity. It covers nothing that is of vital concern: I HATE cilantro I've heard/read, that there is an enzyme. present, or lacking, in my brain. that translates the flavor of cilantro, to that of a common bar of soap. I say that's hooey. It tastes like soap. I wonder about the hygienic practices of those who love it. What says science?
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
