Submitted 17 hours ago by not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world to videos@lemmy.world
New from Framing Logic, who quickly became one of my favourite channels.
I agree with him, but he’s wrong imo on a few of things so far, I’ll keep editing.
You do have faith in science, they’re called theories
This is a common fundemental misunderstanding of the word “theory” when used in science. It does not mean a guess. It does not mean someone reckons that this might be how stuff works. It’s used in the same way as, for example, “music theory”, which is a well-substantiated, structured, formal description of the facts and collective knowledge on a topic. “music theory” is not a guess about how music might work: it’s a formal description that lays the foundational knowledge of the topic that all musicians are expected to learn as basics. the “theory of gravity” is not speculation about whether or not gravity may or may not exist; it’s a formal, mathematical description of how gravity is known with certainty to work. Similarly, the “theory of evolution” is a structured description of the known, studied, well-substantiated mechanisms of evolution. So dismissing science as “just theories” relies on misinterpreting the word, using it to mean “ah science is all just guesswork anyway” which is simply incorrect.
No, I’m not saying it’s a guess. I’m saying all the evidence points to the Big Bang Theory as correct right now and we will have faith in that theory unless it changes or more information comes in.
Just because you choose to be lazy and accept theory as it stands, doesn’t mean everyone else has to. Faith is something different to that.
I disagree, we all have faith that there are things in science we don’t understand and that also that certain things exist until proven wrong. You have to to do the process of science. I love this guy, but I think he hasn’t thought this through completely.
Religious faith is equatable to blind unwavering belief and trust.
That is absolutely NOT equivalent to a scientific theory that resulted from the scientific method of analysis and discovery
You’re getting a lot of pushback here, and I’m not sure if you truly don’t understand why or if you are trolling/being disingenuous on purpose. Webster’s definition of faith:
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty "lost faith in the company's president" b(1) : fidelity to one's promises b(2) : sincerity of intentions "acted in good faith" 2 a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God a(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof "clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return" b(2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs "the Protestant faith"
None of these definitions of faith fit science. Scientific theory is not faith in the slightest. Scientific theories cannot exist without evidence and observation. Faith does not.
b(2) : sincerity of intentions
this one
cmbabul@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
If anyone wants more like this Cody Johnston did a really short and concise breakdown of why Peterson is both made and full of shit on his Showdy(aka Some More News)
sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
Don’t look at the timestamps!
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
There’s another more recent one that just breaks down his performance on surrounded to show how he’s playing calvinball with debate
rbos@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
It really is as short as it could have been.