King Crocoduck
In this video, I develop the core of the Naturalist Nuke, the Big 4 Operational Criteria, and explain my naturalistic, pragmatic understanding of the relationship between science and philosophy.
Here was the introductory video, which you should watch if you haven’t yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLqmrYUIPCo
Source
Nuking Social Constructionism {1}
Idk if you had considered this before but is there a relationship between science and absurdism, and if there is what is your viewpoint about it?
Im not expert in ANY of this themes, but a social construct is what you are discribing Ian Hacking has adressed your points (I take a course in University where we study this theme). The big four in 22:21 that you are pointing as your base is a social construct because all scientist or at least the naturalist science abbiding model are bound to navigate the world as you discribe . This four premise are not isolated ideas but a finding in our hability cope to our world. This make it a social construct , you would never agree this or come to the same ideas by your own but with the consensus of the rest comunity that you are part of. We agree in principle that this big 4 are the best way to navigate the world but first this wasn't the case in all history . Second this principles was no agree by all people (see kent hovind videos to see this isn't even true now).We need consensus to come to this conclusion, an norms impose by consensus are social constructs.
I as a engineer I was on your view some time ago , but when a research this themes I realised that I was wrong. Im not saying that what crhist has said had ANY true , but I recomend you to futher explore this ideas.
You remind me of Sheldon off the Big Bang Theory.
It's taken me several views to sufficiently grasp what's being said (English isn't my first language) but it's worth every view.
13:46 Big 4 breakdown
I wouldn't have devoted my life to higher abstract hard math with hopefully one day application to solve practical problems
if I didn't agree with everything KC says in his videos. My success or failure at achieving that is irrelevant.
KC: I'm a hardcore antinatalist animal rights vegan (AAR = the specific animal rights applied to not bringing / forcing more sentient beings into existence to suffer, as opposed to the rights of wildlife, for example) who would kick or kill a wild animal who attacks me for no reason. I would tell these humanities social constructionists that they are all speciesist and obsessed only with human-created culture, societies, etc
What others call philosophy, I prefer to call mathematical modeling, or, at least, I wish to mathematically model all philosophy, or as much of it as I can. To start, social constructionists calling someone or something "racist" or "sexist" or "Western biased" begs the questions: So what? What next? What should I do about it? Or, what should be done to/about me?
Give me an algorithm of what should or should be done next – by whomever. But, now, I will analyze and question the cost-benefits of that algorithm just as the social constructionist did a cost-benefit analysis of someone or something before calling them racist, or sexist.
At the end of each of your videos like these, KC, give the listener a surprise quiz, to see if they had really listened.
This is a dis track without a rhyme or a beat. It's still on fire.
Isnt it called Social Constructivism? Or is that a pun?
кукечи на месте
16:28 you are describing Critical Race Theory right there.
Ahem! The “doodies” of scientists? The “DOODIES” of philosophers!? Good day, sir!
Reminds me of anticitizenx stuff, which is good stuff. It boils down to, for me, it doesn't matter what the fundamental nature of reality is if I cannot determine how to. Whether I'm a brain in a vat, some kind of solipsistic world, an actual simulant as part of some simulated world, or something else is all meaningless. I have deal with the world as it appears to be, as I am limited to perceiving/interacting. Trying to go deeper without tools is futile.
I am in the process of trying to understand post-modernism. I'm doing this because every attempt so far has fallen short due to my loss of interest caused by my rejection of the ideas. I consider rejection of post-modernism unwarranted if I do not have sufficient understanding of it, so I'm revisiting it so I can gain a sufficient understanding to uncover my mistake and benefit from it or reject it fully. Applying the Big 4 to my readings thus far, I feel safe saying post-modernism fails on all counts.
Post-Modernist must HATE you .:)
Ok, so I enjoyed this and interesting to see where this goes in part 2. Your knowledge of this is an entire order of magnitude beyond mine which makes this a very compelling watch. I am listening to what you laid out here and I am thinking back to my considerations on this from a few years ago. At the time i very much took the same position that (unless i misunderstand the thrust of your position here) that science is effectively the more deliberate application and formalisation of things we already do naturally (things such as you outlined here). So i am interested to see where this goes next. The point I made at the time, that I still find compelling (maybe you will disabuse me of it in pt2…. my ageing brain hopes not!), is that this not only applies to us but that the processes of experimentation, extrapolation, interpolation, expectation of repeatability and giving value to repeated observations apply not just to us as humans but to my pet cat and beyond; that this form of understanding and interacting with the world arose from unremitting and inescapable evolutionary benefit (:it works) long before even the possibility of philosophising it into being even existed.
Ok, on to part 2, hope for more of this heady mix of thoughtful content and metaphorically bloodying the nose of one of the smuggest people I have had the displeasure to meet in my years on YouTube
Amazing how she can even think that science is a social construction completely depedant on the existence of humans when evidence demonstrates times and again that it's a discovery of prexisting circumstances that existed independent of our discovery of them.
The irony of the chart @12:00 is that KC didn't place himself as far to the right as he deserves to be.
12:00 I take it the scientist in you just couldn't stand to leave it at labelled axes, and made you unable to leave the graph untitled.
It was so close to being perfect.
Have you read The Case Against Reality? I think you'd find it very interesting.
You a fan of Ayn Rand's work at all btw? Her views on epistemology and ontology are quite similar to yours.
I have some guesses on what your naturalist nuke is going to be. This should be great.
I just realized Kristi Winters is like the Kent Hovind of feminism.