Stream.Transcripts/twitch/2243337051 (2024-09-05) - Uncertainty 101_2 -- (5 Sept 2024)/2243337051 (2024-09-05) - Uncertainty 101_2 -- (5 Sept 2024).vtt

WEBVTT

00:21.684 --> 00:22.024
Test 1-2.

00:22.264 --> 00:22.744
Test 1-2.

00:22.804 --> 00:24.565
Should be live.

01:04.765 --> 01:06.746
Good morning, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

01:06.786 --> 01:11.507
Uncertainty 101, part two, starting understanding how science is broken.

01:11.567 --> 01:17.609
I'm going to switch right away to the video because I think I want to just get started right away.

01:17.669 --> 01:20.670
This is the second video from Mr. Briggs.

01:24.056 --> 01:25.956
Hello ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jonathan Couey.

01:25.976 --> 01:27.257
This is GigaOM Biological.

01:27.317 --> 01:28.597
We are doing Uncertainty 101.

01:29.137 --> 01:43.480
It's kind of a probability class that's loosely designed around the book Probability Theory by Jaynes, but it's also gonna use some stuff out of the book Uncertainty by William Briggs, and that is our tutor for this class.

01:43.560 --> 01:45.220
It is his class that I am auditing.

01:45.720 --> 01:50.841
You can find it on his sub stack, and so don't think that this is my work, this is me just

01:52.021 --> 02:00.229
giving you an excuse to audit his work, and we're doing it together so that you don't have to feel so silly about not understanding all the math that I won't also understand.

02:01.210 --> 02:04.453
Let's make sure that we understand where we are.

02:04.473 --> 02:15.744
We did Uncertainty 101, and basically what we talked about yesterday, rather Tuesday, was that if we have something that's uncertain, then there also must be certainty.

02:17.239 --> 02:28.991
And so the pursuit of that certainty or quantifying our likelihood of being certain about something is essentially what probability is attempted to be used for in science.

02:29.071 --> 02:31.253
Logic is not the finest type of thought.

02:32.276 --> 02:34.516
It's in induction, right?

02:35.157 --> 02:38.317
Philosophy of science is quantifying uncertainty.

02:38.357 --> 02:39.718
This is what they're trying to do.

02:40.718 --> 02:50.080
So if the basic notation is what we basically learned last time, and A in this notation is just a proposition like rain is wet.

02:51.360 --> 02:56.681
And so A, therefore A is just the most basic notation about how you know something.

02:56.781 --> 03:00.742
A is wet, rain is wet, and therefore A is rain is wet.

03:01.983 --> 03:17.730
Now the logic comes in when you start to put a subjectively chosen proposition as a consequence of another maybe subjectively chosen proposition.

03:17.770 --> 03:27.434
So if A, then B, and then do logic on this, there is the possibility of you starting to make assumptions based on assumptions, or in essence,

03:28.507 --> 03:33.488
executing logic on things and assuming that that logic makes these assumptions true.

03:34.288 --> 03:38.009
When in reality, those assumptions are subjectively chosen at the very beginning.

03:38.989 --> 03:42.150
And so if you do science this way, you can get lost very quickly.

03:43.030 --> 03:49.231
And so of course we haven't, that's not the perfect explanation for the first class, but it's just where my notes sit.

03:50.092 --> 03:51.932
And I thought I would try to bring you up to speed.

03:51.972 --> 03:56.853
And then now I can feel free to, um,

03:58.373 --> 04:05.703
to set this over here and turn this on and then I can get Matt talking, which is what I want.

04:05.723 --> 04:06.905
So let's listen.

04:08.194 --> 04:13.835
All right, my friends, welcome back to our class on certainty and probability theory.

04:14.536 --> 04:17.476
Last week, we started off with James.

04:17.516 --> 04:20.077
We started off with James, his book, Probability Theory.

04:20.117 --> 04:37.121
We got a full three pages into the book by examining, in a loose fashion, some very elementary ideas of logic, which I told you some people take as the epitome of all thinking, which I don't believe is true.

04:39.091 --> 04:43.452
And I'm going to start proving that to you today.

04:43.892 --> 04:49.654
We're gonna use my book today, Uncertainty, and I'm gonna have an excerpt of this stuff, the material that you'll need.

04:50.214 --> 04:51.815
It'll be on the blog post.

04:51.855 --> 05:00.738
It's either at my site, WM Briggs, I don't know where you're seeing this video, but it'll be on my site, wmbriggs.com or wmbriggs.substack.com.

05:01.698 --> 05:05.039
I'm gonna start off in chapter one in my book, which is about

05:06.149 --> 05:06.449
Truth.

05:06.529 --> 05:11.932
We talked about truth a little bit last week and uncertainty and so forth, but I didn't define any of those things.

05:13.172 --> 05:15.293
And we need to understand exactly what they are.

05:15.373 --> 05:17.654
So this is the title of today's lesson.

05:18.515 --> 05:21.816
The Most Infamous Question Ever Asked.

05:22.617 --> 05:27.879
And it was asked not because the speaker or the questioner did not know the answer.

05:27.939 --> 05:28.640
He surely did.

05:28.680 --> 05:30.420
He had truth right in front of him.

05:31.021 --> 05:33.382
It's because he did not want to believe

05:34.803 --> 05:38.244
the result of his cogitations or his deductions and so forth.

05:38.264 --> 05:39.505
So we have to talk about that.

05:39.845 --> 05:43.826
That's going to lead us to the topic of the subject of necessary and conditional truths and so on.

05:44.586 --> 05:50.188
Now, we have to separate, we have to, we seriously have to separate academia.

05:52.508 --> 05:54.069
Here's a mathematical equation for you.

06:04.207 --> 06:10.529
Academia certainly does not equal, mathematical symbol for you, does not equal science or knowledge.

06:11.189 --> 06:16.651
Now for a long time there was a strong positive correlation.

06:16.691 --> 06:25.133
We'll talk about correlation and its sense of causality or non-causality when we get to that a long time from now.

06:26.277 --> 06:32.921
But there was a positive correlation between academia and science and academia and knowledge.

06:33.902 --> 06:34.882
That's out the window now.

06:35.303 --> 06:36.924
The correlation is now negative.

06:38.345 --> 06:40.066
And Alan Saber, you've seen this video.

06:40.486 --> 06:41.767
I'll probably put a link up to it.

06:41.787 --> 06:44.248
You've seen the video in which he is discussing

06:45.909 --> 06:55.052
deficient thought of graduates of university, of academia, who are out in the field and he wants to discuss what works.

06:56.353 --> 07:01.174
Why does this land keep its water and why does this land lose its water and so forth?

07:01.574 --> 07:06.616
And he says the students literally will not believe anything unless it's in a peer-reviewed paper.

07:07.216 --> 07:19.303
Well, peer review, again, was one of those concepts that had a positive correlation with knowledge and truth, which has now turned either no correlation and even some fields a negative correlation.

07:19.843 --> 07:22.345
So we need to make sure we're not understanding academia.

07:22.665 --> 07:24.266
We're not trying to understand papers.

07:24.306 --> 07:29.269
We're not trying to understand the behavior of scientists now, because in science, in academia,

07:31.815 --> 07:38.159
What counts, of course, is bringing in money, prestige, but they also love to solve puzzles for themselves.

07:38.199 --> 07:39.200
So I'm gonna read you this quote.

07:40.681 --> 07:43.803
And they love skepticism, particularly in philosophy and so forth.

07:44.103 --> 07:52.789
They like to create these puzzles, they call them problems, and then try to solve them, solve these questions that don't need solving.

07:53.670 --> 07:55.291
So this is a long time ago.

07:55.331 --> 07:59.454
This was six years ago or more than that, maybe close to 70, 80 years ago.

08:00.074 --> 08:00.455
He wrote,

08:01.275 --> 08:10.682
And he was exasperated even then over the pretended puzzlement that academics have over what truth is or whether truth exists and so forth.

08:11.243 --> 08:18.909
He said the Academy in its dread, superstition, and dogmatic reaction has been oriented purposely towards skepticism.

08:19.844 --> 08:40.608
and that a conclusion is admired in proportion as it is skeptical, that a jejune argument for skepticism will be admitted where a scrupulous defense of knowledge is derided or ignored, that an affirmative theory is a mere annoyance to be stabbed down as quickly as possible to a normal level of denial and defeat.

08:40.668 --> 08:45.049
Well, that's the way it is in academia.

08:45.069 --> 08:47.610
That's not the way it is for us, okay?

08:49.164 --> 08:53.828
We're not trying to shore up any kind of academic sense right here.

08:53.848 --> 08:56.270
We're trying to get at truth.

08:56.770 --> 08:58.292
And truth obviously exists.

08:58.592 --> 09:02.015
Some people will say, they'll say this, they will say this.

09:06.518 --> 09:06.899
True.

09:09.941 --> 09:14.205
Truth does not exist.

09:15.586 --> 09:16.587
They will say it is true.

09:17.067 --> 09:17.988
Truth does not exist.

09:18.615 --> 09:21.799
Jay, thank you very much for the idea about caffeine.

09:21.879 --> 09:22.760
It is not working.

09:25.784 --> 09:27.726
My screen still falls asleep, everybody.

09:28.046 --> 09:33.313
The problem is, long ago, this dumb laptop of mine, it had a problem.

09:33.373 --> 09:33.633
It was...

09:36.152 --> 09:38.653
using too much power when the lid was closed and so forth.

09:38.673 --> 09:41.835
So I went in and monkeyed with the BIOS to make sure it shut itself off.

09:42.495 --> 09:44.276
And now it's shutting itself off.

09:44.696 --> 09:48.798
And I have to go back in and unmonkey it, but I haven't done that yet.

09:48.858 --> 09:51.280
So I have to keep popping over to that stupid computer.

09:52.240 --> 10:00.524
Anyway, they won't say it in quite this form, but they'll say, well, they'll write long papers in order to try to tell you that truth does not exist.

10:01.005 --> 10:03.146
Or they will say, you know, it is certain.

10:04.333 --> 10:06.594
there is no truth, which is another way of saying it.

10:06.914 --> 10:15.138
But we're interested in truth and we're interested more, obviously we're always aiming for truth, our intellects are aiming towards truth.

10:15.918 --> 10:19.040
But there's a lot of things in which we have uncertainty.

10:19.980 --> 10:26.003
Uncertainty and probability necessarily point towards truth.

10:27.110 --> 10:29.672
We're uncertain about a truth.

10:30.452 --> 10:34.055
We're uncertain about a proposition that may be true or false.

10:34.515 --> 10:37.357
If we knew it was true or false, we would say it's true or false.

10:37.878 --> 10:39.199
But we don't, we're uncertain.

10:39.719 --> 10:44.422
But in order to have uncertainty, we need to have an underlying truth.

10:44.442 --> 10:46.304
So truth certainly exists for us.

10:47.506 --> 10:51.028
So we're not going to, we're not going to fart with that kind of thing too long.

10:52.288 --> 10:54.449
And the best definition, what do you want a definition?

10:54.489 --> 10:55.510
We're going to have a definition.

10:55.570 --> 11:04.754
Your common sense definition is probably good enough for most of this class, but we'll go back to Aristotle, rightly called the philosopher by the scholastics.

11:05.814 --> 11:07.515
We'll also call him the philosopher.

11:08.115 --> 11:12.057
Aristotle's definition, to say of what is, that it is not,

11:13.300 --> 11:24.586
or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true.

11:25.066 --> 11:25.647
Simple as that.

11:26.107 --> 11:32.070
Naturally, academics came along later and they have to give a label for this, very common sense view.

11:32.470 --> 11:35.372
They call it the correspondence theory of truth.

11:35.872 --> 11:37.433
Well, we can eliminate that theory.

11:37.733 --> 11:39.594
It doesn't make any sense because

11:42.413 --> 11:53.540
All theories are judged by this sort of dichotomy of true or false, the Aristotelian division of things in true or false.

11:53.740 --> 12:02.445
And there's even a mathematics, they have this, there's a subject called logic, which is treated with the true false binary, if you like.

12:04.949 --> 12:15.351
But they have all kinds of other logics where they invoke different numbers of conditions, not just true, false, but there could be three, there could be four, there could be more.

12:16.211 --> 12:31.374
But it's funny, in all the proofs of all these kinds of things, in order to prove these theorems about this and that, that correspond to all these things, they still use the binary true or false theory to prove these theories within these multivalued

12:31.974 --> 12:33.155
Logic sort of thing.

12:33.195 --> 12:34.795
So no matter what we can't escape it.

12:34.815 --> 12:39.157
All right I'm not going to go on and on about that any more than that.

12:39.217 --> 12:53.204
I think that's Exactly what it is and we're going to talk about eventually Realism we're going to hold with the philosophy of moderate realism, which is to say the external world exists and

12:54.218 --> 12:55.561
and we could know things about it.

12:56.282 --> 12:57.204
It's as simple as that.

12:57.284 --> 13:01.131
All scientists are realists in this way.

13:02.998 --> 13:05.579
But there's all kind of shades to that, which we'll get to.

13:05.919 --> 13:07.659
We don't need any more than that today.

13:09.200 --> 13:10.600
And so here he is.

13:11.220 --> 13:17.642
In mathematics, though, there is the idea of nominalism, that people believe that numbers are just creations.

13:19.743 --> 13:24.584
Our theorems are just creations, just products, like an artistic fever dream, if you like.

13:25.134 --> 13:27.481
And so in case he doesn't go there, I want to read this part.

13:27.541 --> 13:31.492
So modern realism is the common sense position that there are there exist.

13:31.833 --> 13:32.816
This is where I'm reading from.

13:34.266 --> 13:45.069
There exist real things and that there is an existence independent of our minds, that an external world is out there and that we can know it, and that we can know things that they are in themselves, to coin a phrase.

13:45.829 --> 13:52.691
Moderate realism holds that greenness exists apart from or in addition to individual green things.

13:53.451 --> 13:55.572
Exists in an intellectual idea, that is.

13:55.672 --> 14:00.273
Realism says that the idea of color exists independent of individual colored things.

14:01.073 --> 14:09.826
Mathematicians are realists when they insist all triangles have three straight sides and an interior sum of angles of 180 degrees.

14:09.987 --> 14:14.974
Individual approximations to or implementations of triangles also exist.

14:15.731 --> 14:20.994
But given the way the world is, all are imperfect representations of the universal ideal.

14:21.074 --> 14:21.875
Try drawing one.

14:22.595 --> 14:25.597
Catness exists, and so do individual cats.

14:26.117 --> 14:30.159
We can tell cats from dogs because we know the nature or essence of both.

14:30.780 --> 14:38.324
Knifeness exists, as do individual knives, even though it's not always clear if a given object is a knife or only acts like one.

14:39.701 --> 14:51.543
I think this is a really wonderful paragraph to try and get at the philosophical basis for understanding and how then probability is applied to realistic

14:52.557 --> 14:56.820
probabilities or not realistic probabilities of knowing things.

14:57.020 --> 14:58.621
So that's really where we are with this.

14:59.221 --> 15:00.022
I know it's hard.

15:00.142 --> 15:01.183
I know it's hard for me.

15:02.123 --> 15:04.345
But we're going to get through it and we're going to keep doing it.

15:04.365 --> 15:06.306
Maybe we have to do it again, but we're going to keep working.

15:06.486 --> 15:07.747
Don't hold with nominalism.

15:07.807 --> 15:09.448
I hold also in mathematics.

15:09.708 --> 15:13.631
There's an Aristotelian sort of realistic approach to mathematics too.

15:13.671 --> 15:14.511
It's not as well known.

15:14.531 --> 15:16.693
There's sort of a platonic version, which is similar.

15:17.413 --> 15:23.137
that a lot of mathematicians hold, that hold numbers are real, and they exist in some kind of Empyrean.

15:24.718 --> 15:25.879
That's almost right.

15:25.939 --> 15:29.301
I think the Aristotelian version is better, in which we'll get to.

15:29.641 --> 15:31.722
Jim Franklin's got a great book on that.

15:31.842 --> 15:34.584
I don't know where it is, at the tip of my fingers.

15:34.624 --> 15:36.085
But James Franklin, you look it up.

15:36.145 --> 15:40.448
The Aristotelian Philosophy of Mathematics, or something like this.

15:41.519 --> 15:43.000
All right, well, there are truths.

15:44.260 --> 15:47.842
That much I think is probably agreed to by all of you.

15:48.042 --> 15:49.183
But can we know truths?

15:50.144 --> 15:51.064
And I say, yes.

15:52.064 --> 15:54.866
If you disagree, you agree.

15:55.786 --> 15:59.568
If you say it is certain, I know it's a fact, we can't know any facts.

15:59.849 --> 16:03.190
Well, you've just created a fact which you say you know.

16:03.590 --> 16:05.612
So you have contradicted yourself.

16:05.632 --> 16:07.312
So yes, we can know truths.

16:07.693 --> 16:08.193
And in fact,

16:11.579 --> 16:23.448
Ladies and gentlemen, it is official on November 3rd, like it or not, Giga Home Biological is going to do a live live stream at the local community center in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania on November 3rd.

16:23.468 --> 16:27.571
I just got official word that the reservation was accepted.

16:27.631 --> 16:29.013
That means I have the whole place.

16:29.733 --> 16:31.674
We have enough room for 250 people.

16:31.714 --> 16:32.974
I'm going to be live on stage.

16:33.014 --> 16:35.976
I'm going to do a live stream right after the Brownstone event.

16:36.836 --> 16:47.181
And I want everybody that wants to come to be there, to meet in person, to start to network, and just to generally celebrate how much ass we've kicked over the last four years.

16:47.741 --> 16:51.803
So November 3rd, Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, from 2 p.m.

16:51.843 --> 16:52.643
to 6 p.m.

16:52.783 --> 16:54.224
on Sunday, November 3rd.

16:54.384 --> 16:56.685
Be there, be square, and let's get back to class.

16:59.221 --> 17:01.623
In philosophy, usually, we keep this word.

17:02.563 --> 17:03.364
Look at this dumb thing.

17:04.904 --> 17:06.505
He keeps going to sleep.

17:06.666 --> 17:07.406
I'm staring at it.

17:07.426 --> 17:08.767
When it happens, I can catch it.

17:08.867 --> 17:10.528
But if I'm not, it does this.

17:11.789 --> 17:14.190
We can only know what is true.

17:15.611 --> 17:16.732
We can know what is true.

17:17.152 --> 17:18.853
But we can, of course, we can believe anything.

17:18.873 --> 17:19.833
And we'll get to that.

17:19.853 --> 17:21.975
That's just one of my tag phrases.

17:23.283 --> 17:26.484
All right, so we're talking about epistemology.

17:26.524 --> 17:36.307
We want to get into epistemology because we want to understand how we know things, what we can know, because if we're aiming after truth, we don't always hit it.

17:36.767 --> 17:38.068
That much is obvious enough.

17:38.448 --> 17:42.269
And we're going to use probability, not always in its quantified form.

17:42.309 --> 17:49.232
Not all probability we'll see can be quantified, but a lot of it can, and that helps us understand exactly what probability is.

17:49.312 --> 17:49.972
Last week we

17:50.512 --> 17:56.094
We looked at logic, and we use logic to prove that probability is a branch of logic.

17:56.134 --> 17:59.556
And we'll do more in-depth proofs of that when we get to it.

18:01.457 --> 18:01.797
All right.

18:03.871 --> 18:05.373
You know, it's not possible to doubt.

18:05.713 --> 18:06.474
It's not possible.

18:07.035 --> 18:13.203
We're not going to go into this too much because none of us, I think most of my audience don't follow this line of thought.

18:13.223 --> 18:20.793
But I have a nice little quote in here from David Stove too about how we all can't be hallucinating or illusions or anything like that.

18:20.833 --> 18:22.255
It's just not logically possible.

18:22.702 --> 18:25.863
Now, I wanted to comment on something that's in the chat.

18:26.523 --> 18:43.168
It is possible that the first stream that I did that was two hours long, the biology 101 underscore two, was too long for my own server to fully transcode before I started this one, which is actually a good test for the server to see how it works.

18:43.828 --> 18:50.390
But that might be why the traditional address to this live stream has changed because it may have assigned a new one because I

18:51.050 --> 18:52.631
the other one was still being transcoded.

18:52.671 --> 18:56.213
I don't know, but anyway, I'm glad to hear the report that I'm live on both of those.

18:56.914 --> 19:00.536
If anyone else wants to confirm that, where you're watching and that I'm live, that would be great.

19:00.956 --> 19:06.500
All doubt terminates in, you know, our sense impressions.

19:07.321 --> 19:19.969
Peter Krupp, this is Peter Krupp, the philosopher Peter Krupp, he says, as Aristotle showed, again Aristotle, all backward doubt terminates in two places, psychological and indubitable immediate sense experience,

19:21.024 --> 19:43.103
and logically indubitable first principles such as x is not not x or not x the principle of non-contradiction well what is the principle of non-contradiction this is a good one to start with A is going to be some proposition as we had last time

19:50.011 --> 19:53.518
cannot both be simultaneously true.

19:54.380 --> 19:56.684
Either A is true or not A is true.

19:57.452 --> 20:01.695
They can't be based on the same evidence, based on the same evidence.

20:01.755 --> 20:02.535
Aha, what's that mean?

20:02.575 --> 20:03.896
Well, we'll come to that in just a second.

20:04.236 --> 20:07.418
They cannot, based on the same evidence, be simultaneously true.

20:08.039 --> 20:09.640
It is not possible to doubt this.

20:09.920 --> 20:18.906
It is not possible to doubt the principle of non-contradiction, that something can be known to be true and also known to be false at the same time.

20:19.506 --> 20:23.989
You can claim, a lot of people claim that they believe that this is doubtful.

20:25.728 --> 20:27.489
But nobody really believes it in real life.

20:27.549 --> 20:30.851
It's just one of these academic problems that people create for themselves.

20:33.593 --> 20:45.101
You ask a professor who doubts about truth and then tell him his parking pass has expired and it can no longer be used, and you'll suddenly learn from this skeptic just exactly what truth is.

20:46.182 --> 20:48.143
Well, the principle of non-contradiction.

20:49.264 --> 20:50.264
That's an easy one to see.

20:52.694 --> 20:54.175
We need to get a little bit deeper into it.

20:54.756 --> 20:58.459
So now we're going to talk about something I think is extremely important.

21:00.421 --> 21:01.381
Extremely important.

21:02.262 --> 21:07.046
One of the most important things we could do because it's going to turn out all knowledge is conditional.

21:08.387 --> 21:10.009
All probability is conditional.

21:10.769 --> 21:13.512
And so that leads to the

21:17.058 --> 21:20.760
And what he means in his book, he says it very well.

21:20.820 --> 21:25.743
In one sentence, he just says it, that all truths are based on assumptions that underlie them.

21:25.763 --> 21:26.144
Where is it?

21:43.373 --> 21:44.394
Come on, where did I read it?

21:44.614 --> 21:45.835
I just read it, darn it.

21:55.324 --> 22:19.709
When we say the latter is necessarily true is never meant to imply that the proposition is true in or because of some theory the proposition is necessarily true for reasons in the proposition itself and The evidence which supports it the proposition is not true in or because of a theory and it is true because it is true That wasn't the quite the part I wanted to read but I do know I'll find it in a second I'm just gonna hit play and then I'll look for it in the

22:20.435 --> 22:26.577
that there are necessary and conditional truths and necessary and conditional probabilities.

22:26.617 --> 22:27.497
So let me write that up.

22:39.660 --> 22:42.621
A necessary truth is a truth that

22:44.775 --> 22:46.456
cannot be disbelieved.

22:46.857 --> 22:53.361
A necessary truth is a truth that is true because the way things are are the way things are.

22:54.182 --> 22:59.826
The way the Lord created the universe, or if you don't believe in that, it's the way the universe is and it cannot be doubted.

22:59.846 --> 23:01.027
There are necessary truths.

23:01.047 --> 23:05.750
There's a fund of them in mathematics, as probably most people would agree.

23:05.990 --> 23:20.118
And this is very important because a lot of paparian science and a lot of the things that happen in biology are based on the idea that every proposition is subject to uncertainty, that we can never know something for certain.

23:20.998 --> 23:30.604
That is the principle by which paparian reiteration of testing of hypotheses has ruined science, that we can know nothing for certain.

23:31.482 --> 23:32.585
And of course we can.

23:33.106 --> 23:39.341
Of course we can know something for certain, to the best of our knowledge, to the best of our observations.

23:40.882 --> 23:47.448
We can also know something is false given the data or the observations or the experience that we've had.

23:47.908 --> 23:48.869
And that's the point.

23:49.289 --> 23:57.376
Science has instilled in us the idea that nothing can ever be proved because nothing, things can only be falsified.

23:57.516 --> 24:09.106
And then the falsification is never 100, that's what this is about and why we need to get to David Stowe's destruction of Popper and his contemporaries.

24:10.811 --> 24:11.831
That's where we're going here.

24:12.752 --> 24:15.753
Conditional truths, however, are even more common.

24:15.773 --> 24:19.315
There's an infinite variety of these, and we use these in every day.

24:19.355 --> 24:24.137
So let me give you a good example, just to make sure that dumb thing stays away.

24:24.337 --> 24:26.499
Let's use a logical argument like we had last week.

24:26.879 --> 24:37.824
If we have f, x, y, z are natural numbers, and we have, make sure I quote myself right,

24:44.844 --> 24:46.705
You can give that to me if you want.

24:48.566 --> 24:49.666
Or did you open some already?

24:50.227 --> 24:52.868
OK, so here's our list of premises.

24:53.368 --> 24:57.210
Always remember, we always have our premises on top.

24:59.111 --> 24:59.831
We're accepting this.

24:59.871 --> 25:02.492
We're accepting that x, y, and z are just some natural numbers.

25:02.772 --> 25:13.417
We're accepting that x is larger than y. We're accepting that y is larger or greater than z. And from this, we can conclude with certainty that x is greater than z.

25:15.993 --> 25:17.256
This is a conditional truth.

25:17.858 --> 25:22.028
It is conditional on these premises.

25:23.635 --> 25:28.116
It's conditional on these premises, and if we remove some of these premises, it's no longer going to be the case.

25:28.136 --> 25:38.139
For instance, we can't just take two numbers, x and z, any two numbers everywhere in the world, and have that x is greater than z. It's not going to happen, always.

25:38.479 --> 25:41.140
So this is a conditional truth.

25:41.540 --> 25:43.600
It's conditional on these premises.

25:44.521 --> 25:47.561
And if we change some of these premises, why then we have

25:51.294 --> 25:52.535
we have a different conclusion.

25:52.815 --> 25:54.116
The conclusion may be false.

25:54.176 --> 25:55.557
The conclusion may be uncertain.

25:55.577 --> 25:57.879
The conclusion may be anything if we change these premises.

25:58.459 --> 26:10.227
Make sure you see that, like it or not, what he is still doing is he's teaching us the notation of Bayesian logic and Bayesian probability right now.

26:10.287 --> 26:12.569
This line still means therefore, right?

26:12.609 --> 26:19.074
So if x, y, and z are numbers, and x is greater than y, and y is greater than z, then

26:21.488 --> 26:30.457
Therefore, x will be greater than z. This is not true for all numbers, as he said, but given these premises, then this is a conclusion.

26:31.898 --> 26:34.461
If you change the premises, you change the conclusion, right?

26:34.481 --> 26:35.622
That's a conditional truth.

26:36.368 --> 26:49.578
Now, the principle of non-contradiction, which we did, a proposition cannot be true and false simultaneously based on the same evidence, conditioned on the same evidence, given the same premises, accepting the same assumptions.

26:49.879 --> 26:52.180
All of those are the same way of saying the same thing.

26:52.950 --> 26:59.832
So now that starts, like all arguments start, which we're going to learn in more detail.

26:59.852 --> 27:11.494
I'm not going to go on and on about it today, but we're going to learn in more detail when we talk about intuition and intellection and induction, that all arguments are conditional.

27:12.194 --> 27:14.315
They may come down to sense impression.

27:14.355 --> 27:18.156
They may start at sense impressions, but those sense impressions,

27:20.357 --> 27:27.479
and the logic we use to build them together, to come to universal beliefs and logic and so forth, and to come to necessary truths.

27:30.139 --> 27:33.740
Those things, we have to understand how they come about.

27:33.780 --> 27:37.341
We have to understand how they're a higher form of thinking, the logic and all that.

27:37.401 --> 27:38.641
We will come to that.

27:39.061 --> 27:41.542
So for right now, we're just going to press on.

27:43.222 --> 27:49.664
Now there's lots of, I'll give you one quick example, just one quick example before we,

27:51.929 --> 27:55.170
Little self-addressed stamped envelope from Josh in California.

27:55.250 --> 27:57.271
One which you know, just to give you a little teaser.

27:57.351 --> 27:58.172
Gonna send some stuff.

27:58.192 --> 28:00.873
For all numbers, for all numbers, all natural numbers.

28:00.973 --> 28:02.593
Stuff will be in the mail in a day.

28:03.534 --> 28:05.795
Self-addressed stamped envelope will be filled.

28:06.735 --> 28:18.920
Then... For all natural numbers, if X equals Y, then Y equals X.

28:21.084 --> 28:22.105
It's obviously true, right?

28:22.125 --> 28:29.449
This is an axiom in arithmetic or basic mathematics from Pinot.

28:30.610 --> 28:31.491
It's a belief.

28:32.791 --> 28:36.654
You believe that this is true and it cannot be proved true.

28:37.799 --> 28:39.440
You cannot check this for every number.

28:40.000 --> 28:40.721
You cannot check.

28:40.961 --> 28:42.782
You could check it for a good number of numbers.

28:42.822 --> 28:43.443
You can go one.

28:43.483 --> 28:46.345
Yeah, that's true for one, two, three, four, and so on.

28:46.745 --> 28:49.707
You can go all the way up to, but you can't go out to infinity.

28:49.747 --> 28:50.487
Nobody can do this.

28:50.807 --> 28:52.188
We have to believe that this is true.

28:52.228 --> 28:53.089
It's obviously true.

28:53.169 --> 28:55.410
I think it's true, but you can't prove it's true.

28:55.450 --> 28:56.751
So empiricism is out.

28:59.113 --> 29:04.896
Dear Dr. Cooey, many thanks for specifically mentioning the murder and lies related to COVID treatments in the hospitals.

29:04.956 --> 29:27.870
My sister and brother-in-law spoke to my dad's hospital at the Moonship CHD vaxxed bus tour, and since seeing your show and the Housatonic show, specifically the Leslie Batts interview, my sister and I went through our dad's hospital records, and the oxygen treatment alone is enough to send someone's shivers down someone's spine.

29:29.144 --> 29:35.390
I'll share the details in an email or ask my sister to, as she's the storyteller, record keeper.

29:38.092 --> 29:47.941
I made these stars for you and your wife with mindful intention and love.

29:49.802 --> 29:51.484
I hope I'm not too late to get a sticker.

29:59.770 --> 30:01.752
They killed a lot of people with that oxygen.

30:03.134 --> 30:04.896
I'm gonna put something in the mail today, Jen.

30:08.260 --> 30:09.902
Wow, you live in Pittsburgh, Jen.

30:09.963 --> 30:13.207
I hope you're gonna come on the 3rd of November and we can meet in person.

30:14.829 --> 30:15.129
Wow.

30:16.090 --> 30:17.892
Just opening the mail while doing some...

30:19.144 --> 30:20.426
while doing some probability.

30:37.551 --> 30:41.494
There's our intellects, there's our intuition, there is our induction and action.

30:42.235 --> 30:45.317
And remember, induction is not of one kind.

30:45.638 --> 30:49.781
There's at least five, we'll get to them, different kinds of induction.

30:50.622 --> 30:53.744
So we need to be very careful about which kinds when we come to it.

30:53.764 --> 30:53.944
Okay.

30:55.926 --> 30:56.366
All right.

30:56.386 --> 31:04.493
Now, we need to understand how scientists talk and how they toss around theories and so forth.

31:05.126 --> 31:07.607
And I'm going to use another equation.

31:07.627 --> 31:10.148
I'm going to erase all of this.

31:10.168 --> 31:11.608
Some stuff coming to Susan.

31:11.868 --> 31:12.868
Got another envelope.

31:14.009 --> 31:15.629
Sending immediately.

31:16.689 --> 31:20.371
Again, talking about the difference between necessary and conditional truths.

31:21.031 --> 31:23.872
A necessary truth works like this.

31:25.612 --> 31:26.652
Necessary truth.

31:26.993 --> 31:28.333
Premises or arguments.

31:28.553 --> 31:29.793
Premises 1, premises 2, premises 3.

31:35.455 --> 31:38.538
We have all these different premises.

31:39.679 --> 31:50.310
Somebody just sent us a $200 gift certificate for Labor Day and from Omaha Steaks.

31:52.152 --> 31:57.958
And it's $200 worth of steaks, which is really, that's pretty crazy, Christy.

32:00.148 --> 32:03.991
Wow, thank you very, very, very, very, very, very, very much.

32:04.111 --> 32:07.633
My protein eating basketball playing sons will freak out.

32:08.414 --> 32:10.836
They've been complaining about the lack of steak.

32:12.637 --> 32:14.198
Wow, I don't know what to say, Christy.

32:16.139 --> 32:16.700
I wish I could.

32:18.348 --> 32:22.692
I wish my whole family could afford to go carnivore.

32:22.732 --> 32:23.232
Holy cow.

32:23.252 --> 32:25.774
Okay, so we're working on necessary truths here.

32:25.834 --> 32:27.215
Okay, premise, premise, premise.

32:27.235 --> 32:28.917
I'm going to go back a little bit because I missed that.

32:29.297 --> 32:30.738
Necessary and conditional truths.

32:31.399 --> 32:34.221
A necessary truth works like this.

32:34.241 --> 32:38.705
We have a bunch of premises or arguments.

32:38.925 --> 32:42.068
Premises 1, premises 2, premises 3.

32:45.831 --> 32:47.132
We have all these different premises.

32:48.470 --> 32:50.751
and of them, however many there are, in some conclusion.

32:51.211 --> 33:00.794
The conclusion is conditionally true based on these premises, given these premises, accepting these assumptions, however you want to say it.

33:01.034 --> 33:07.816
Now I want to be sure everybody that's paying attention here, especially those of you that said yesterday or Tuesday you were afraid of the math,

33:08.936 --> 33:17.804
Please understand that what I see here, I could be completely wrong, but what I see here is him dumbing this down for us to the point where I can even follow along.

33:18.285 --> 33:33.099
He's teaching us a notation, and this notation will of course get much more complicated when there's real math involved in these premises and real relationships involved with premises on premises to get down to this conclusion, but this is how science is done.

33:34.639 --> 33:44.584
He said this wasn't about academia, but it is the twisted version of this kind of reasoning that allows academia to use p-values to create the illusion of knowledge.

33:44.624 --> 33:46.045
And so that's why we're doing this.

33:46.585 --> 33:50.567
And that's why we are very blessed to have someone like William Briggs helping us.

33:52.048 --> 33:57.891
And to make it a necessary truth, each of these is also necessarily true.

33:58.591 --> 34:00.512
A necessary truth, a universal truth.

34:00.872 --> 34:02.753
This may be a sense impression.

34:02.773 --> 34:03.774
It might start out to be,

34:05.939 --> 34:13.361
x equals y, then y equals x. In fact, this is exactly how mathematical theorems are proved.

34:13.461 --> 34:14.741
We start with these axioms.

34:15.941 --> 34:28.144
Now you've got to be careful in math because some axioms are obviously universally true, necessarily true, and sometimes people will use the word to mean this is what I'm accepting, where they don't necessarily believe it.

34:28.184 --> 34:28.504
There are

34:31.533 --> 34:33.314
branches of mathematics in which they do that.

34:33.354 --> 34:35.456
We're not going to get into that kind of stuff for us today.

34:36.156 --> 34:58.713
We're saying, if this is a necessary truth, which I think it is, then we have another necessary truth, which we can supply, and we have three, four, five, we have n of them, and finally we deduce this conclusion, which is also a truth, and if all of these are necessary true, necessarily true, and the implicit premises that we have, there's always implicit premises, which

34:59.372 --> 35:13.506
tells us what the word if means, what the symbol x means, what the double horizontal lines mean, what this comma means, all that stuff, the definitions and the grammar and any other implicit premises we have tossed in there.

35:13.526 --> 35:18.631
If all those are true, necessarily, then the conclusion is true.

35:19.574 --> 35:31.366
Now, scientists will have this habit of saying, well, we now know, you'll hear this all the time, even from people who don't know, they say, we now know, you know, I use the example of Flippenberger's theorem is true.

35:31.727 --> 35:34.009
Okay, well, here's Flippenberger's theorem.

35:34.770 --> 35:37.173
You can prove it by following these steps.

35:38.234 --> 35:38.574
Okay.

35:39.735 --> 35:41.677
There'll be somebody else who hears about this.

35:42.799 --> 35:44.701
And he says, yeah, I think these guys are right.

35:44.761 --> 35:46.783
I think Flippenberger's theorem is true.

35:47.023 --> 35:50.226
But he hasn't gone through these steps, and in fact, probably cannot.

35:50.707 --> 35:53.449
Not everybody, I can't do all these mathematical proofs.

35:53.509 --> 35:56.773
Who's got time to sit down and read all these mathematics?

35:56.993 --> 36:00.236
There's so many papers that come out nowadays, nobody can get through them all.

36:00.276 --> 36:00.957
It's impossible.

36:01.677 --> 36:02.738
It's just not possible.

36:02.758 --> 36:04.019
It's not physically possible.

36:04.420 --> 36:11.366
That's so weird about Rumble because I use the same link all the time on Rumble and I don't understand why sometimes it kicks off and sometimes it doesn't.

36:11.386 --> 36:18.412
I use the exact same code all the time and it worked for like a month and a half and then it didn't work for a few weeks and now it works again.

36:18.432 --> 36:18.812
I don't know.

36:18.832 --> 36:19.513
That's strange.

36:19.553 --> 36:20.414
I gotta look into that.

36:20.454 --> 36:21.555
He has this kind of a time.

36:21.955 --> 36:23.657
So somebody else may reason like this.

36:23.697 --> 36:27.100
Well, let's have a couple of other premises.

36:30.074 --> 36:30.974
to make an important point.

36:31.014 --> 36:42.418
This premise might be that I heard C is true from experts.

36:44.839 --> 36:50.461
And second premise is experts always right.

36:55.203 --> 36:58.784
We have the same proposition at the end here.

37:00.014 --> 37:03.396
We have, it's true, we've proved it's necessarily true.

37:03.436 --> 37:05.957
We're supposing we've proved this necessary truth.

37:06.597 --> 37:16.122
We have somebody over here who doesn't understand these premises over here, doesn't follow them, but he also believes because he has accepted these premises.

37:16.202 --> 37:19.444
I've heard that it was true because I heard it on NPR or something.

37:21.005 --> 37:26.007
And I think experts never lie or they're not wrong or they can't possibly be mistaken.

37:28.356 --> 37:32.877
To this fellow who thinks this, C is a conditional truth.

37:33.417 --> 37:35.798
It's a local truth, I should say.

37:36.178 --> 37:37.278
I'm giving him the wrong terms.

37:37.658 --> 37:40.039
I want to call this a local truth.

37:40.199 --> 37:41.359
All truths are conditional.

37:41.379 --> 37:42.379
This is a local truth.

37:44.420 --> 37:46.040
It's local based on these premises.

37:46.100 --> 37:49.481
Whereas over here, it's necessary.

37:51.022 --> 37:52.322
It's a necessary truth.

37:54.742 --> 37:56.463
So the same proposition.

37:57.759 --> 38:04.504
either be locally true or necessarily or universally true.

38:05.144 --> 38:07.346
So we don't know.

38:07.506 --> 38:10.768
We don't know until we examine the premises, until we examine the argument.

38:11.749 --> 38:14.351
Here's another thing that tells us.

38:16.472 --> 38:24.038
We do not know, when we're talking about knowledge and logic and so forth, why it is.

38:24.966 --> 38:26.467
that C is a necessary truth.

38:27.207 --> 38:29.049
We can explain it to ourselves.

38:29.929 --> 38:31.010
We can understand.

38:31.050 --> 38:34.552
We can say, we can come to an understanding why C is true.

38:35.493 --> 38:41.197
But we don't know why it is true, how it is true, what cause.

38:41.697 --> 38:42.778
This is another teaser.

38:43.018 --> 38:49.482
So for instance, pi equals 3.14 and an infinite number of numbers after that.

38:51.442 --> 38:53.804
There's all kind of formulas, which we'll get to.

38:54.644 --> 38:58.888
As a teaser, we'll give you some examples of these kind of formulas that we can come to pi.

38:59.268 --> 39:03.491
We can prove to ourselves the value in this same kind of way.

39:04.172 --> 39:14.800
But why pi has to be this value and not in the 18th billion digit, which is a seven, is instead of six?

39:15.120 --> 39:15.340
Why?

39:16.861 --> 39:17.162
Don't know.

39:17.799 --> 39:20.200
We don't know why it's the case, all right?

39:20.260 --> 39:26.181
We don't know why, you know, how this was, the universe was created such that this is the case.

39:26.981 --> 39:28.942
And so we have to be careful about this.

39:32.823 --> 39:34.944
We have to be very careful about this for the next reason.

39:36.104 --> 39:38.625
So let me, I trust that you have all this.

39:38.665 --> 39:39.645
I don't hear any questions.

39:40.322 --> 39:42.385
And I can't see anybody.

39:42.505 --> 39:48.132
It's funny that you mentioned that sooth spider because he said it earlier that somebody mentioned caffeine, but it wasn't helping him.

39:48.192 --> 39:49.914
So I think he tried to use that once.

39:51.116 --> 39:54.199
Nor can I see where somebody put the chalk.

39:55.020 --> 39:55.781
It's in your hand.

39:55.801 --> 39:55.842
Oh.

40:05.578 --> 40:08.099
Let's talk about how all this fits in with science.

40:08.159 --> 40:09.219
What's it have to do with science?

40:09.519 --> 40:11.800
There's all kind of propositions in science like this.

40:14.601 --> 40:15.842
Another letter from Brian.

40:16.142 --> 40:17.843
Always a nice letter from Brian.

40:18.383 --> 40:19.703
He sends a lot of nice stuff.

40:20.724 --> 40:26.966
Brian sent Alan Watts' books today, which are something that... Yeah.

40:27.546 --> 40:28.166
Thanks, Brian.

40:28.606 --> 40:29.367
I got them right here.

40:31.007 --> 40:32.008
Volumes 1 through 3.

40:34.389 --> 40:36.031
There's all kinds of propositions like this.

40:36.551 --> 40:41.035
The speed of light is C, the atomic weight of radium is R, whatever it is.

40:44.779 --> 40:52.906
Sometimes they'll call these things, some physicists will call these things, maybe radium's not, but the C definitely is, constants.

40:53.747 --> 40:54.808
Constants, nice.

40:58.972 --> 40:59.973
I think parameters,

41:03.885 --> 41:07.607
which is also in use, I think it's a better word.

41:08.127 --> 41:08.927
It's a parameter.

41:10.028 --> 41:30.658
We don't know why the speed of light is C. That is to say, there does not exist an argument with premises, premises one, that's necessarily true, premises two, and so on, that comes to, I'll call this proposition A. We can't deduce

41:32.810 --> 41:33.490
the speed of light.

41:34.351 --> 41:36.792
It's experimentally given.

41:37.512 --> 41:37.832
All right.

41:38.492 --> 41:41.494
So this is a contingent truth.

41:41.534 --> 41:43.275
This is another way to say these kind of things.

41:47.782 --> 41:51.225
It's contingent on the premises of the argument that we bring to them.

41:51.806 --> 41:53.668
We don't have a strict deduction of it.

41:53.828 --> 41:55.850
If we did, it would no longer be a parameter.

41:56.110 --> 42:01.595
For instance, there may be an argument that gives us the atomic weight of radium.

42:01.635 --> 42:09.763
The periodic table is such like this, and we can deduce elements that should be there, and that's how some elements were discovered, and all this kind of a thing.

42:11.181 --> 42:18.883
So, the idea in science is to try to remove as much contingency as possible.

42:19.223 --> 42:27.586
In other words, to make these premises in our arguments as close as we can get them to necessary truths themselves.

42:28.266 --> 42:29.066
like mathematics.

42:29.467 --> 42:36.390
So that in mathematics we have all sorts of necessary truths as premises and we just build on that and we see what follows from it.

42:36.730 --> 42:38.051
In science we can't often do that.

42:38.091 --> 42:40.272
A lot of times it's just reliant on observation.

42:40.292 --> 42:42.113
We have these contingent operations.

42:42.793 --> 42:43.053
Okay.

42:43.113 --> 42:50.857
If I was going to ask Matt a question right now I would say that then do contingents, contingent truths have

42:53.803 --> 42:54.884
contingencies.

42:55.024 --> 43:01.467
So in other words, what somebody was saying in the chat is the speed of light contingent on what substance it's traveling through.

43:02.007 --> 43:11.191
And so then the speed of light is still not deduced, but it can be measured and it might be contingent on certain factors.

43:11.232 --> 43:15.273
And so then not having premises, but having contingencies.

43:15.334 --> 43:16.374
I wonder if he would say that.

43:16.534 --> 43:21.877
So the better the science is, the more the sounder it is, the less contingent it is.

43:22.765 --> 43:25.367
the more it's relying on necessary truths.

43:26.348 --> 43:27.849
The opposite is also true.

43:27.929 --> 43:47.966
The more contingent it is, like we're going to see with ad hoc probability models, which swamp certain fields like sociology, any of the so-called soft sciences, the cellar of science and so forth,

43:49.992 --> 43:59.557
So in other words, where he's going with this is that we don't have a deductive explanation for why the speed of light is the way it is.

44:00.217 --> 44:02.958
We just have to kind of use it as a contingent truth.

44:04.179 --> 44:16.825
But if a contingent truth of our science is created and used and perpetuated, that contingent truth could be used incorrectly, right?

44:16.845 --> 44:18.686
Because if it's not true, we have a problem.

44:20.095 --> 44:27.541
And ad hoc probability in academic science, especially in the soft sciences, is often used to create contingent truths.

44:27.862 --> 44:33.687
Or, even worse, experiments based on accepting or assuming conditioned truths.

44:33.747 --> 44:34.928
I think that's where we're going.

44:34.988 --> 44:35.468
Conditioned.

44:35.928 --> 44:37.170
Contingent, excuse me.

44:37.690 --> 44:38.651
Contingent truths.

44:40.663 --> 44:43.185
Well, they rely on all these ad hoc models.

44:43.225 --> 44:46.087
I'm not going to get, I don't want to insult anybody unnecessarily.

44:46.787 --> 44:49.069
Necessarily, I would like to insult a lot of people.

44:49.629 --> 44:51.210
But for right now, I'll just leave it as that.

44:51.290 --> 44:54.752
The more ad hoc we become, the more we just make up premises.

44:55.273 --> 44:57.834
I think the model is a normal model that looks like this.

44:57.894 --> 44:59.716
Well, that's highly contingent.

45:00.416 --> 45:01.577
and in no way certain.

45:02.278 --> 45:12.871
And so that we just, if we have a bunch of questionable, questionable one, questionable two, premises, questionable M, and we have some conclusion, call it B.

45:14.474 --> 45:16.895
I hope you can see that this is questionable, and this is questionable.

45:16.935 --> 45:19.335
We did this last week as the homework, and this is questionable.

45:19.655 --> 45:25.777
Well, then, this conclusion has to be even more questionable, because we're building question upon question upon question.

45:26.497 --> 45:32.439
Of course, it doesn't work that way in the university's PR office and so forth.

45:32.759 --> 45:39.581
This is presented as just as sound as a mathematical theorem or something like this, so we have to be very careful.

45:46.674 --> 45:48.895
I think I want to leave us with a quote.

45:49.415 --> 45:50.456
This is all we're going to do today.

45:50.476 --> 45:51.796
I want to talk about scientism.

45:53.557 --> 45:55.878
I'm going to talk about scientism again and again and again.

45:56.298 --> 45:58.519
We're not trying to be good academics here.

45:58.719 --> 46:01.801
We're not even trying to be good scientists per se.

46:02.081 --> 46:06.683
What we're trying to be is trying to be people who understand the way the world works.

46:07.443 --> 46:25.128
the best of our ability and what a fantastic statement we're not trying to be scientists here we're not trying to be academics we're just trying to be people that understand how our world works as best as possible what a spectacular statement that is today i want to talk about scientism

46:26.958 --> 46:29.281
I'm going to talk about scientism again and again and again.

46:29.701 --> 46:31.924
We're not trying to be good academics here.

46:32.104 --> 46:35.169
We're not even trying to be good scientists per se.

46:35.469 --> 46:40.095
What we're trying to be is trying to be people who understand the way the world works.

46:40.836 --> 46:47.160
to the best of our ability and not beholden to any given system or anything like this.

46:47.240 --> 46:50.803
We're trying to figure out what's going on, what truth is, okay?

46:51.023 --> 46:56.507
Or what things are, not what truth is so much as what things are true, what things are false, which are uncertain.

46:57.127 --> 46:57.387
Okay.

46:57.708 --> 46:58.308
There it is.

46:58.748 --> 47:00.049
We need to know what's true.

47:00.109 --> 47:03.071
We need to know what's false and we need to have what's uncertain.

47:03.171 --> 47:04.112
It's really wonderful.

47:05.133 --> 47:07.514
Jacques Brazant said that about scientism.

47:07.554 --> 47:09.375
He said, scientism is the fallacy

47:10.632 --> 47:16.233
Believing that the method of science must be used on all forms of experience and given time will settle every issue.

47:16.754 --> 47:19.754
That leads to different types of scientism which we'll talk about.

47:20.755 --> 47:29.737
But the most... So, Jacques Brazin said that about scientism, he said scientism is a fallacy.

47:31.025 --> 47:36.639
believing that the method of science must be used on all forms of experience and given time will settle every issue.

47:37.160 --> 47:40.127
That leads to different types of scientism which we'll talk about.

47:41.138 --> 47:44.360
But the most pleasing one to me is Pascal.

47:45.261 --> 47:46.182
This is Pascal.

47:46.302 --> 47:48.163
He said, and I'll leave you with this.

47:48.544 --> 47:49.804
I don't have a homework for you.

47:51.866 --> 47:57.770
Unless I can think one up, I'll put it on the blog in writing.

47:57.830 --> 48:01.333
I can't think of something except to read all this stuff.

48:01.693 --> 48:04.796
Read the material I'm going to give you because it's going to be crucial.

48:05.176 --> 48:06.177
We're going to go from here.

48:06.237 --> 48:07.478
We're going to talk about faith.

48:07.878 --> 48:10.120
We're gonna talk about the difference between belief

48:11.098 --> 48:15.881
and knowledge, and then we're going to go back to logic.

48:17.082 --> 48:29.451
We started with a teaser of logic, we talked about all this, now we have a firm foundation that yes, truth exists and so forth, and we're going to go back to logic, and then from there we're going to move on to probability.

48:29.491 --> 48:35.155
It's going to be a couple of weeks before we get to probability, that's the juiciest subject, but because it's so contentious,

48:36.499 --> 48:43.625
The foundations of probability and the interpretations of probability are so contentious, we need this absolutely firm foundation before we get there.

48:43.685 --> 48:47.709
So the things I say about it will be understandable in that context.

48:48.129 --> 48:49.951
Anyway, here's Pascal on scientism.

48:50.512 --> 48:52.093
He said, the world is a good judge of things.

48:53.574 --> 49:00.901
For in its natural ignorance, which is man's true state, the sciences have two extremes, which means.

49:01.977 --> 49:08.161
The first is a pure natural ignorance, which all men find themselves at birth, some a long time after.

49:08.701 --> 49:16.546
The other extreme is that reached by great intellects, who, having run through all that men can know, find they know nothing.

49:17.426 --> 49:20.028
And they come back again to the same ignorance from which they set out.

49:21.029 --> 49:24.250
But this is a learned ignorance, which is conscious of itself.

49:25.291 --> 49:31.155
Those between the two, which Pascal, he didn't invent the term midwit,

49:31.872 --> 49:34.213
But Pascal was the first who defined midwit.

49:34.253 --> 49:37.114
This is the definition of a midwit right here for you.

49:37.214 --> 49:38.595
So Pascal and midwittery.

49:39.075 --> 49:56.702
He said, those between the two extremes at birth and the conscious ignorance, the Socratian ignorance, if you like, those between these two who have departed from natural ignorance and not been able to reach the other have some smattering of some vain knowledge and pretend to be wise.

49:57.743 --> 50:00.924
These trouble the world and there are bad judges of everything.

50:02.597 --> 50:05.699
The people and the wise constitute the world.

50:07.260 --> 50:09.061
These despise it and are despised.

50:09.101 --> 50:12.843
They judge badly of everything, and the world rightly judges of them.

50:13.423 --> 50:14.384
All right, thanks for listening.

50:14.644 --> 50:18.266
Next week, on to faith and belief versus knowledge.

50:19.113 --> 50:19.573
See you next week.

50:20.153 --> 50:22.014
What an exciting end that was.

50:23.554 --> 50:25.095
What an interesting guy this is.

50:25.215 --> 50:26.515
Oh, no, no, don't shut that down.

50:26.575 --> 50:28.176
Just close this.

50:28.196 --> 50:29.316
What an interesting guy this is.

50:29.336 --> 50:34.338
You know, some person, crazy person, in the chat sent a flute.

50:34.498 --> 50:41.080
I don't know why you would send a guy like me a flute who's trying to figure out what instrument I'm supposed to play badly.

50:41.120 --> 50:44.001
But I've got drums, and I've got a piano, and now I've got a flute.

50:44.541 --> 50:46.961
And so I learned a couple of things about the flute.

50:47.001 --> 50:48.002
The first one is that,

50:49.582 --> 50:51.183
It's like blowing over a bottle, right?

50:54.205 --> 51:06.292
But what I didn't know about a flute before I started playing the flute that was sent to me in the mail is that a flute's octave register is completely dependent on your arbitrary.

51:06.332 --> 51:06.932
I didn't know that.

51:07.012 --> 51:12.615
In a saxophone, which I know how to play, it actually has an octave key and you push that key down and then you go up an octave.

51:12.655 --> 51:13.295
But the flute...

51:20.370 --> 51:21.671
is actually all with your lips.

51:21.731 --> 51:23.912
And the crazy part is I already kind of figured it out.

51:23.972 --> 51:27.934
So I just wanted to let the person know who sent the flute that I'm not wasting it.

51:28.074 --> 51:32.056
I'm actually, I wanted to play a flute before I played the saxophone.

51:32.076 --> 51:34.957
And my dad said that, you know, girls play the flute.

51:34.997 --> 51:38.999
So I didn't play the flute and now I have a flute and surprisingly I can play it.

51:39.019 --> 51:44.862
So anyway, thanks for sending it and helping me to clear my mind a little bit on something like music.

51:45.602 --> 51:47.503
And I really like learning new instruments.

51:47.543 --> 51:49.424
So this was like the best gift you could have given me.

51:49.904 --> 51:51.908
Thank you very much for joining me for this afternoon.

51:51.948 --> 52:00.085
I know this is not my wheelhouse and it's probably not as exciting maybe as hearing me yell at the slides that I've created, but I don't think...

52:01.187 --> 52:05.772
that's the way forward for us and it's definitely not the way forward for GigaOM Biological and my family.

52:05.792 --> 52:22.990
I need to figure out a way to create a living course in biology and a living course in uncertainty that will apply to biologists so that we can collectively have a way to introduce people to life sciences without them being bamboozled by

52:23.550 --> 52:35.300
the system of mythologies that was created in the 50s and the 60s and the 70s and the 80s by these same people that have tried to get us to coerce us into teaching pandemic biology to our kids.

52:35.320 --> 52:37.662
So thanks very much again for being here.

52:37.682 --> 52:41.445
I'm going to play the same song on the way out because that's how lame I am.

52:44.657 --> 52:46.919
It has been very, very fun to be here today.

52:46.939 --> 52:49.421
I'm glad that this is starting to build a little momentum.

52:49.442 --> 52:50.282
I'll be here tomorrow.

52:50.783 --> 52:55.467
Yesterday I was actually online with a guy by the name of Andrew4America.

52:56.208 --> 53:00.572
And Andrew4America and I had a three hour conversation that should be online soon.

53:00.612 --> 53:02.553
I did record it, so if I have to I'll put it up.

53:03.294 --> 53:10.262
And today, after the server is done transcoding this stream and the first one, then I'll upload the Levine show.

53:10.282 --> 53:16.088
And if you haven't seen the announcement on X because you're taking care of your consciousness and not going there anymore,

53:18.131 --> 53:30.960
Then have it be known that on the 16th of September at 8 o'clock Eastern Time, Denny Rancor and myself are going to join Jason Levine on his show and have a conversation.

53:31.181 --> 53:32.301
And I don't know what's going to happen.

53:32.341 --> 53:33.302
I don't know what will be said.

53:33.342 --> 53:34.363
Maybe it's a trap for me.

53:34.403 --> 53:35.464
Maybe it's a trap for Dennis.

53:36.785 --> 53:39.086
Maybe it's a trap for Denny or for Jason or for all of us.

53:39.126 --> 53:47.091
I don't know, but I'm gonna be there and I'm hoping that some progress will be made in getting people to talk about the murder and lies.

53:47.191 --> 53:48.692
So thanks very much for joining me.

53:49.232 --> 53:51.394
Mark Kulak will probably be on later this afternoon.

53:51.434 --> 53:52.994
Watch for his notification.

53:53.855 --> 54:03.101
And if you haven't already signed up as a follower for him on Twitch, please realize that Housatonic Live is now on Twitch and also the replays are on GigaOM.

54:03.802 --> 54:05.225
at stream.gigaohm.bio.

54:05.245 --> 54:07.230
If you like what you saw, please go to gigaohm.bio.

54:07.250 --> 54:07.591
Gigaohm!

54:09.884 --> 54:11.045
biological.com.

54:11.065 --> 54:14.028
I don't even know my own websites and find a way to support the stream.

54:14.448 --> 54:17.230
You can send mail to P.O.

54:17.270 --> 54:20.713
Box 802 Bethel Park, Pennsylvania 15102.

54:23.235 --> 54:30.001
And if you get lucky and the mail comes while I'm online, then I'll open it up and you'll see what you sent.

54:30.041 --> 54:33.985
And if it's a big puff of smoke or something like that, I guess it'll be online, too.

54:34.025 --> 54:35.005
Thanks very much for joining me.

54:35.026 --> 54:35.486
See you again tomorrow.