>>7839943 Look, faggot; if someone makes a video like that, they ought to make clear their own thoughts on the topic. VSauce is a channel about information; to make a video whose subject basically means doubting all that information, and not making a clear, concrete conclusion about such a delicate thing, then keep doing the usual videos as if that one in particular never existed, is ambiguity at its worst. VSauce basically just said "hey guys how do you know anything? think about it xD!" and nothing else. Not a single time did he say what *he* thought about the topic, other than letting us know that he has these thoughts. Then he enthusiastically speaks about something completely unrelated in the next video.
How people like you can like this guy is beyond me.
>Measuring intelligence by math abilities Pls. Lee Kuan Yew.I know that he died 1 year ago, but he is probably greatest mind of the 20th century. He raised his country from dirty Asian hole to the richest (in every sense) country in the world.
>>7840291 How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop? Bearing in mind the work of several independent investigators over many years has failed to establish an empirical lower bound greater than three.
>>7840596 Think about how many people are actually recognised for their accomplishments, then think about how many "geniuses" we're actually supposed to have in our society compared to Nobel prize winners and field medalists.
If you take the SB distribution, the people who are technically capable of being academics and even Nobel prize winners should be at least 120 (considering studies and people like Feynman etc.)
That's almost 9 million people. Do we have that many academics? Fuck no, even including CC, the third world and independent researchers I strongly doubt we have many in STEM total.
Now for genius level IQs:
>>> (2e-3 + 3e-4) * 7e7 161 000.0
>160+ >>> 3e-4 * 7e7 21000
Do we have 161000 recognised "geniuses"? It turns out most people utterly waste their potential and become bouncers who blog for a living. Most of them aren't working on anything important and are not even considered "intellectuals". So I.Q is not a reliable measurement for intellectuals. So why should we use it to compare top dogs in research?
Comparing REAL achievements in research is comparing apples and oranges, and there might be many researchers who are solving more difficult, but more obscure problems out of the limelight. It's really hard to know who is truly the greatest intellectual because we have no real way of measuring that. How do you say IUTT is more brilliant than some other publication in an obscure math journal? IF is mostly based on what other people understand and what is popular, not the true measure of your work. We only have the subjective opinions of the academic community.
>>7840975 It's not him, but his influence that angers me. People who have almost never thought about these things watch these videos, and they generally can't reach the same conclusions than those who are well experienced on the topic. So they make bullshit statements about existence without even having the slightest idea of what they're talking about. In other words, post-modernism. "lol everything is subjective!" "lol consciousness is an illusion!" "lol quantum physics means truth doesent exists XD!"
He presents a very important topic with ambiguously defined concepts and logical contradictions, then people interpret these words however the hell they want, even if this understanding varies greatly from others's or if it's nothing but semantics without good fundaments.
If you're going to talk about something similar, with normalfags, you need to start from zero. Define the concepts you're going to use. Avoid not making a concrete conclusion. Basically, the contrary of what your idolized husbando did.
>>7841333 Read the comments on the video, and tell me what good did his video do, if any. He made assumptions and contradictory arguments during his video (i.e he said you're alone in your own brain and thus you cannot know if everything else is "real", ignoring that the brain itself is a construct of our own perception), when the whole point was to doubt them all. So not only his logic is flawed; he's discussing a topic that is far too advanced for the masses to just take lightly.
He may be charismatic, he may have good intentions, but that doesn't mean he didn't make a mistake here. 11 minutes isn't enough time to explain all of that clearly, even if he's experienced at teaching. Either he should have avoided doing that video at all, or make a longer one where he can explain everything in more detail and with a better logical argumentation.
>>7841437 He doesn't ignore that at all. And while I'm sure there are many stupid people who will view that video as the conclusion of the matter for many others that video will be their introduction and they will do more research.
Disseminating knowledge to the masses is a good thing. I know you wanna feel like you're in a secret philosopher club and others can't understand but that's retarded.
>>7841537 Either he did, or it simply didn't go through his mind. Watch the video again: he *does* make assumptions in numerous ocassions, despite being discussing the very nature of knowledge.
Your second point can apply to pretty much any type of video. Anyone can hear a concept and do their own research. The point is, VSauce is a channel of information, and in this video, he failed to give enough information. And the little he gave, was not completely accurate or just plain contradictory. His channel revolves around sharing knowledge, and thus he should've given more emphasis on this video specifically, as it pretty much goes against all of his other teachings.
If you're going to disseminate knowledge to the masses, do it right. Don't fall into ambiguity. Be true to your point. Examine your arguments carefully. Else, people might understand exactly the contrary of what you actually wanted to state.
I don't feel superior to them, but I just can't deny that I have a "better philosophical understanding" than them, at least in this area. All I'm saying is that the way we express our ideas is extremely important and should be taken more seriously. In this case, it applies to this guy.
>>7841682 The problem is when people reach conclusions that involve the denial of an "external reality" (or a conclusion that involves not treating it as if it "existed") or simply make no conclusion at all, doubting literally everything. It's a dangerous behavior, as it challenges the facts our society is based upon. And we may stumble upon these people one day, and their behavior may also be perjudicial to our own lives. This is obviously an hyperbole when applied to a small group, but we're talking about millions of people, who also transfer their own ideas to others.
Or are you telling me you don't care if you find a pothead that replies to every single statement you make with "but how do you know?" Probably not. But what if he's doing something that goes against your values, or something that involves harming you directly or indirectly, and he uses doubtness as an excuse to uphold his own desires?
"Live and let live" is simpler said than done. Even if people can find their "own path" or beliefs in some regards, we need to find a common ground on which we can all agree on. And to do that, we all need to find at least one "truth", regardless of what other beliefs we have. Or else, you will have to deal with having no way to argue with people who call your arguments "opinions" as an excuse to do what they want without being called out on it.
>>7841739 Wanting to control what everyone believes is also a dangerous path.
Also keep in mind that what a person posts on YouTube isn't necessarily indicative of what they actually believe or how they live.
Its true that a large group of people embracing views that go against society can be dangerous but I don't think vsauce is doing that and at the end of the day you can't control what people believe anyways.
>>7840237 Colonel Gadaffi raised his country from your run-of-the-mill African shithole to a country richer than half of Europe. But he was evil because he did it along socialist lines as opposed to Hong Kong who are capitalist cocksuckers
>>7842092 There is danger on both paths, I agree. But I don't think realism would be harmful if everyone followed it. Quite the contrary actually, as it supports knowledge. But yeah, you can't really force people to believe the same things.
Nonetheless, we have to try to avoid the growth of groups with ideals against society as much as possible. Not by force, but by argumentation. That's where the correct use of semantics and logic is obligatory for the sake of sharing ideas, and sadly, this is what most people fail to do right, in the form of incomplete information, ambiguity of concepts, or flawed logic. I'm not going to exaggerate that VSauce was the worst case of this, but he certainly could've been... more efficient in this particular video.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.