Spock´s conclusions were perfectly logical. His premises were false.
@superagucova
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah! Any useful system of logical would probably arrive at the conclusion that it's not known whether the creatures operate by the same logical standards, and so lethal force may be adequate.
@unglaubiger5645
5 жыл бұрын
@@superagucova maybe it's not known whether the creatures operate by the same logical standards, but you have to take past experiences into account. Spock has a lot experience with all kinds of aliens. If most of the aliens operate by the same logical standards, it would be logical to assume that these aliens probably will too. So I'm not even sure if Spock's premises were false. If the premise was something like "up to this point most intelligent lifeforms operate by similar logical standards as we", Spock's decisions were perfectly logical. Thinking logical doesn't mean that you can't be wrong, because your information is limited.
@superagucova
5 жыл бұрын
@@unglaubiger5645In the context of Star Trek, when vulcans first found humans, by example, they were really surprised by their clear "irrationality" and afterwards vulcans had frequent contact with mostly "irrational" (meaning emotional as described by Spock) species especially due to The Federation. Furthermore, you can see that vulcans actually had extensive protocols for dealing with these types of races (including humans) and appealing to emotions over rationality when necessary in diplomacy. It seems to me that Spock had frequent and clear experience with creatures that didn't conform to those laws, and as such had no reason to extrapolate that they would behave as he did.
@unglaubiger5645
5 жыл бұрын
@@superagucova irrational doesn't mean unpredictable.
@superagucova
5 жыл бұрын
@@unglaubiger5645 It shouldn't, but I'm talking in the context of the vulcan "logic"
@mcbadrobotvoice8155
5 жыл бұрын
To win any argument you just have to throw a football at the other guy and yell “checkmate”
@DrMontgomeryMontgomery
5 жыл бұрын
No, that's a bogey. To really score a home run as such, you must say Uno! before it connects. If after, pick a penalty card and sit on the bench.
@Virtualblueart
5 жыл бұрын
@@DrMontgomeryMontgomery - Unless the person yells Yathzee just before they get hit of course, then they get to hit the wicket. But only on Wednesdays and days with an even number or else it would get silly.
@Nuclearburrit0
4 жыл бұрын
@@Virtualblueart I see you too are a fan of Calvin ball
@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646
4 жыл бұрын
I thought people were practicing Neo Voodo. Making strawmen of eachother to tear down.
@DarkViperAU
5 жыл бұрын
I sincerely hope you never lose the drive to make videos mate. Always a delight to see.
@wolfrandom9769
3 жыл бұрын
Always seems weird when a youtuber you watch regularly is commenting on videos of another youtuber you just happen to watch regularly, hah.
@knogleknuser
3 жыл бұрын
I didn't expect to see you here, but I am happily proven otherwise. My monkey brain just assumed you were the 'funny GTA Guy' end of story.
@Thomaas551
6 ай бұрын
This makes more sense if you remember that darkviper used to make atheism videos on another channel
@alexandercolefield9523
5 жыл бұрын
I got the vibe that Vulcans "Logic" was more of a religious concept than a solid philosophical concept.
@ebrahimalfardan8823
5 жыл бұрын
Solid and philosophical in the same sentence. 👏
@metholuscaedes6794
5 жыл бұрын
yep, it deffinitly is, they try very hard to impose it onto themselfes, they are really not very fit for it naturaly
@sptony2718
5 жыл бұрын
Enterprise did a better job of exploring the ambivalence of the Vulcans; shortly after the launche of the NX-01, a civil crisis broke out among the Vulcans as the "mainstream" sought cooperation with the humans, while logical extremists (yes, that term existed in the series) sought to isolate themselves. Also while a Vulcan would not outright lie into your face, they may omit information in order to manipulate you into working their favor. Logic is really just a substitutional religion to them more than anything else.
@pgoeds7420
5 жыл бұрын
Spock was only half Vulcan anyway. kzitem.info/news/bejne/t2Z_m6GDbYGop6Q
@daniscool5092
5 жыл бұрын
I love these animated videos, I think they're more fun than the meditation videos
@mgg7756
5 жыл бұрын
meditation videos?
@Alexman208GR
5 жыл бұрын
@@mgg7756 Yes, he means the "meditations on x" videos.
@thoperSought
5 жыл бұрын
well, they’re a clear, scripted presentation of something, rather than a conversation I dunno, I really like both
@thejogman
5 жыл бұрын
the longer format of the meditation videos make them good listening material while out on a walk
@mgg7756
5 жыл бұрын
@@Alexman208GR didn't know of them. I'll have to check that out
@miku4977
5 жыл бұрын
Oh gosh that 12+1=1 being part of how we tell time is something I had never thought of my mind feels blown but yeah totally
@bdf2718
5 жыл бұрын
Europeans know that statement is wrong. For them 24 + 1 = 1.
@DoctressCalibrator
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah, what the fuck? 12+1=13
@MadBunnyRabbit
5 жыл бұрын
Unless you live in a country that uses the 24h clock.
@dozog
5 жыл бұрын
@@MadBunnyRabbit The 24 hour clock is cheating. It secretly just goes around one time in the day, and one time in the night.
@guytheincognito4186
5 жыл бұрын
@@DoctressCalibrator Yeah 13:00 pm if it were 24+1 it would be 01:00 am 😝
@timothymclean
5 жыл бұрын
In my opinion, it would make more sense for a "purely logical" character's weakness to be difficulty making decisions with limited time or information. This reflects the actual weaknesses of logic compared to intuition; logic requires more time to process and requires accurate information. It also seems like an author exploring these weaknesses would likely create more interesting scenarios and dilemmas, though I suspect this comes from the comparative novelty of such stories compared to ones where the logician is foiled by being unable to properly apply logic to arbitrary situations.
@Laezar1
5 жыл бұрын
I remember reading "harry potter and the methods of rationality" which is an harry potter fanfiction about bayesianism. It's surprisingly great. And that's basically what the author did, subject the main character to trials which have a limited time to work them out. It's definitely quite interesting. Weighting between acting now or taking more time to think is an interesting dilemma because the time you spend thinking about that problem is time you spend not thinking about a solution
@johndoef5962
5 жыл бұрын
I also liked the problem depicted in the Star Trek excerpt. A purely logical being could not grasp the possibility that a response does not follow these principles of logic.
@gabrielleshull9106
5 жыл бұрын
John Doef Why? Also, give an example of a response that violates a laws of logic and state which law it violates. I worry that you didn’t watch the video.
@Cythil
5 жыл бұрын
What you describe Timothy McLean is a way more valid issue with someone acting on pure logic. It is not that often we see over-analytical people in fiction become paralysed when it comes to taking action as they try to figure out what is the best way to act. Something I can relate to my self. From the Swedish military I have heard that is better to take the wrong action then to take no action at all. And I do think there some truth to that. Many times is better to do something then nothing, at least you can learn from you mistake. But inaction leads can lead to dire consequences without you actually learning anything. And I know that many games I play, even very strategic ones, I often learn on a more intuitive level what to do you could say. Game that are time sensitive. As taking action, even when is a sub-optimal for the situation, is better then not taking action at all. Naturally is not being illogical. It just putting a greater context to you logical behaviour. You develop way to act fast, create doctrines, to learn the muscle memory, not because is the perfect action for that situation. But because everything you do has a cost to it and you therefore need to balance that with the goal of finding and applying the optimal solution. So I find that people more logical people also have better intuition of what to do sometimes. ;)
@Cythil
5 жыл бұрын
@@johndoef5962 A purely logical being should know that there information might be imperfect and plan accordingly I say. That is really the failure of Spock here. He makes a lot of assumptions about the world and then deduct what should happen. But when it turns out his assumptions are wrong he blames the world. Not his assumptions. And that I find very illogical.
5 жыл бұрын
The axioms might have been invented but the consequences were discovered.
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
Márton Boros I can agree with that.
@PhrontDoor
5 жыл бұрын
I would say that the 'axioms' weren't invented.. they are used simply as separators from other logics. For instance, there are logics while permit contradictions (paraconsistents) ... But we've realized that, in the course of our analyses and evaluations, that those other logics are either not useful in communicating/agreeing on definitions and such OR are not useful in constructing (or describing) a model of reality. So we use a set of axioms that distinguish THIS logic from those other logics. I find them not so much axiomatic, like fiat statements, insomuch as I find them to be descriptions of where our lawn ends and the other lawns begin.
@josemourinho2820
5 жыл бұрын
Hello AnticitizenX, I haven’t watched the video yet and I’m so grateful you’re still active. I’m a 16 yr old Muslim, boy I was born a Muslim and have watched almost all your videos. Even though they specifically target Christianity sometimes like in your philosophical failure series, I’d like you to consider doing series directly confronting Islam. Considering that your videos weren’t directly addressing Islam, and they still got me to not really believe Islam anymore at all, I’d like it for you to make a series to utterly destroy my belief in Islam so I can stop wasting my time on religion. You’d be doing me and countless doubtful Muslims across the world a great favour. Thanks
@lukostello
5 жыл бұрын
Perhaps you should challenge yourself to make a complimentary series for Muslims. Especially if you speak Arabic. I'm sure you know much more about the claims of Islam than him
@joalampela8612
5 жыл бұрын
If you'd be willing to make a complementary video series exploring the philosophical failures of Islam then I'd subscribe and watch. I love to see logical criticism of ideas on any level.
@josemourinho2820
5 жыл бұрын
Luke Costello I couldn’t make videos or write scripts as well though.
@lukostello
5 жыл бұрын
@@josemourinho2820 both of those are learnable skills
@thulyblu5486
5 жыл бұрын
@@josemourinho2820 There are other youtubers more familiar with Islam. check out "the masked arab", he does an excellent job
@jonassalk1387
5 жыл бұрын
Logic is for when you have the time otherwise just panic until the trouble disappears.
@HxH2011DRA
5 жыл бұрын
Learned more from this than my college logic 101 class
@greense65
4 жыл бұрын
AntiCitizenX wears a red shirt at the end of the video, yet he survives. Illogical.
@megathai
5 жыл бұрын
Yay! I missed you so much. Would you do a video on dialectical materialism?
@Nilsy1975
5 жыл бұрын
Agreed! I was pleasantly surprised to see one of his videos in my inbox 😀
@AvNotasian
5 жыл бұрын
If you want communist gibberish please go somewhere else that shit clearly doesn't work and has done nothing but corrupt academia.
@ericklopes4046
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah I would really like to see ACX approach to it.
@nunyabisnass1141
5 жыл бұрын
NotAsian its not the theorys fault that others have failed to make it coherent, by failing to understand that an ideal world is only a thought tool, not a material and obtainable goal.
@AvNotasian
5 жыл бұрын
@@nunyabisnass1141 Theory without a practical application is useless, you may as well ponder whether there are flargles in wargle. The only practical impact has been totally corrupting, corrosive and lead to tyranny and death of millions. Introducing lay people to crappy ideas is a bad idea, just look at how it pans out in religious institutions.
@tylertheultimatebadass87
5 жыл бұрын
Right off the bat Spock made the critical error of thinking that logic alone arrives to a sound conclusion, when in fact it can do no such thing. He should have backed up his hypothesis with evidence first before taking action.
@LukeLane1984
5 жыл бұрын
14:42 "If we can hit that bulls eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate."
@barnabasfuto5529
5 жыл бұрын
Can I somehow send you a portion of my surplus currency items in order to enhance your capabilities to generate such content?
@alamrasyidi9597
5 жыл бұрын
Ooh boy, what a wording 😃
@prophecynewt2250
4 жыл бұрын
Try hacking his bank account
@plasmaballin
5 жыл бұрын
That's a very good observation at the beginning about how logic is turned into a straw man by most media. I've noticed a similar trend in media when it comes to consequentialism. When the hero has a choice between doing the "right" thing or choosing the option that works towards the greater good, they always choose to do the "right" thing, and then it leads to a greater good anyway. This is usually intended as a moral against consequentialism, but it completely fails because it changes the rules of the game midway, making the consequentialist option have a worse outcome even though, by definition, the opposite is true. This is just like the straw Vulcan scene where Spok makes a bad decision that he would have avoided had he been more logical, even though the story is trying to make it seem like using logic led to the bad results.
@Nuclearburrit0
4 жыл бұрын
In a lot of shows I see this happen with the whole "power of friendship" thing. Particularly in anime and cartoons. Especially annoying because unlike with logic and consiquentionalism it's entirely possible to present cooperation and altruism as beneficial without some kinds of metaphysical manifestation of it or whatever because altruism exists in the real world for a good reason.
@Nuclearburrit0
4 жыл бұрын
@@williamspringer9447 I mean. In a world where in depth knowledge of how logic works is far too rare (this one) this video isn't useless.
@Nuclearburrit0
4 жыл бұрын
@@williamspringer9447 Ignoring the fact that neither of us is actually capable of holding the other accountable for such a bet. Yes I do.
@Nuclearburrit0
4 жыл бұрын
@@williamspringer9447 ok great. But this is a video about deduction, not induction. He does briefly touch on it with the truth assignment function thing. But it's simply not within the scope of this particular video. He does have OTHER videos that DO talk about it. Specifically his videos about what is "truth" go into what counts as evidence ect. Either way though. Why on earth would you reach the conclusion that he specifically doesn't want us to be able to think properly? I can MAYBE see a reason for the government having a motive to want that (even though incompetency is a better explanation for the poor education we have). But anticitizen in particular? He's some random KZitemr that posts anti-fundumentalist videos and occasionally more general logic videos like this one. And again. This is a video on language, not science. He has other videos that ARE on science. But this is not that video.
@valivali8104
Жыл бұрын
@@Nuclearburrit0 and Willy ran away...
@HenrikMyrhaug
5 жыл бұрын
I hate that Hollywood portrays emotions as illogical. In most cases, they are completely logical, and can be manipulated in certain ways. Spock is just stupid.
@lazergurka-smerlin6561
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah it is a bit annoying that is the case. But it is true to some extent that emotion isn't "logic" or well deduction itself. Rather it gives goals and premises. I'll put up an example with disgust. Disgust says spoiled food is undesireable. Leaving milk outside the fridge will spoil it. Therefore leaving milk outside the fridge will make it undesireable Or with fear. Fear says death is undesireable. Drinking poison will kill you. Therefore drinking poison is undesireable.
@HenrikMyrhaug
5 жыл бұрын
Lazergurka - Smerlin Not entirely sure what you are saying. What I meant to say is that spock should have reasoned like this: Anger is a response to certain unwanted behaviour from others. The Aliens want to display that they are the most powerful. Spock and the team displaying they are more powerful is unwanted by the aliens, and may therefore possibly make them angry. And Anger often leads to a creature wanting to harm those they are angry at. The aliens could respond with anger. Therefore it is certainly possible that the aliens will attack and intend to harm the crew if they get angry. I didn't say emotions are "Logic", just that they are logical, and you can operate logic using emotions as part of the premises or the conclusion.
@ValD98
4 жыл бұрын
Emotions are fickle, but they make plenty of sense.
@timothymclean
3 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't say that emotions are logical, so much as they're unrelated to logic-the way that velocity is unrelated to color. (Relativistic Doppler shift aside.)
@TB-pf5nt
5 жыл бұрын
I agree with your dismissal of logical realism. It follows that other logical systems, such as mathematics, are also just human concepts and are not literal parts of the physical world. When we use the language of math to talk about physical laws, it is not because math as we understand it is somehow magically baked into the very fabric of the universe. It is simply a very useful communication system that we have adapted over time to be (seemingly) ideal for describing macroscopic physics.
@MrNotSpecified01
5 жыл бұрын
I feel like I'm back in discrete math. Whenever I finish watching any of your videos, I feel like I've learned something new. Keep it up!
@Violent2aShadow
5 жыл бұрын
AntiCitizenX posts a video and I like and subscribe. It's a logical process that cannot be questioned.
@NirielWinx
4 жыл бұрын
It is wild to kill a king in the pig's illegal forest.
@AmaterasuSolar
5 жыл бұрын
"It is possible that a maximally great being exists..." IS it possible? We don't know that that is a true statement, so yeah, the question is begged.
@TheInevitron
5 жыл бұрын
Conflating "possible" with "conceivable" is a very common error in apologetics. I think William Lane Craig would be lost if he couldn't do it.
@AmaterasuSolar
5 жыл бұрын
@@TheInevitron | Indeed! Thanks for Your input!
@proton8689
5 жыл бұрын
@@TheInevitron True, inconceivable for humans to have wings but it's not possible.
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
It is not possible for a maximally great being to exist because maximal greatness is defined outright a existing necessarily. That’s literally existence by definition, which is the very thing the argument tries to prove. So yes, question begging. Also, it’s impossible because existence is not a predicate.
@AmaterasuSolar
5 жыл бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX | It is conceivable, however... LOL! Else religion would not exist. Haha!
@ozAqVvhhNue
5 жыл бұрын
14:39 I am somehow weirdly compelled to try that out.
@lostbutfreesoul
5 жыл бұрын
Hollywood has always been terrible at showing these concepts, particularly when it comes to non-human intelligence. They simply remove some 'human characteristics' and call it logical.
@gowingtd
5 жыл бұрын
You are under subscribed by a lot. Good work.
@cynicthehedgehog385
4 жыл бұрын
Also personality tests. Those always act like you can’t be logical AND impulsive and compassionate.
@violjohn
5 жыл бұрын
I want to say that I am amazed at how much time you take to answer questions or reply to comments that would just drive me mad. Congrats. As a mathematician working in a field near to logic I don't have any problems with what you said and you gave plenty of caveats. Why are people obsessed with Maths or logic being absolute and transcendent? Liked the video!
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment. The most frustrating part is when people claim that I'm espousing some sort of fringe viewpoint when you can clearly attest that I'm only summarizing mainstream logic and proof theory.
@violjohn
4 жыл бұрын
@@williamspringer9447 I am not sure where you are coming from or why you address these questions to me. In some sense, "classical" logic has been replaced by a much more concise modern description, which sets up just a few rules that cover (most of) natural reasoning. These rules often get mentioned in Mathematics courses where logical reasoning is the only kind allowed. So Aristotle's careful listing of all sorts of syllogisms and so on is now covered by these rules. I don't agree that the video eviscerates the science of classical logic. In fact it lists some of the rules very briefly right at the beginning and then posts some newer logics (modal logic). I think he shows quite a detailed understanding of the modern view of logic, but I don't think it was his intention to provide an extensive introduction to logic or "how to reason" and definitely not in the "classical" sense. Your last paragraph has got me; government and most societies use rhetoric (be it logical or illogical, often the latter) but I think most governments realize the need for their populi to be as educated as possible; uneducated people will probably lose out in the 21st century, but that is just my belief. (BTW, I am not a US citizen.)
@violjohn
4 жыл бұрын
@@williamspringer9447 Hi William. "To my knowledge , every first world nation dumbs down its people this way." Do you have evidence for this? An argument is no better than the premises it rests on, as you know. Is this not an argument from authority? Why should I believe you. You don't actually present arguments so much as statements of belief. I can't argue or discuss beliefs; they are yours but not mine. But I am interested in why you chose to speak to me. I don't get that at all. Do you want a conversation or do you want to be angry at someone? Or maybe just be rude? Claiming to know that someone else has been "dumbed down" is not exactly much of a basis for a conversation, so I guess you need to be angry. I wonder why?
@jujuplayboy
5 жыл бұрын
In fiction, being logical is being apathetic.
@cthellis
4 жыл бұрын
Not only IS Zarky a Snuffin, Zarky has been proved objectively the BEST Snuffin. There is no Snuffin more snuffiner.
@MenkoDany
5 жыл бұрын
1st year undergrad logic in one video
@contentsailor5764
5 жыл бұрын
This is my intro to logic class in one video honestly. with a little bit of intro to philosophy class.
@laffy7204
5 жыл бұрын
"So the next time you find yourself stranded on a distant planet surrounded by hostile alien monsters, just remember that it's okay to feel a little bit emotional" Good luck getting past the alien monsters surrounding the planet in their spaceships while maintaining to feel only a little bit emotional.
@DuetJay
5 жыл бұрын
I want to throw a football at a goalie and yell CHECKMATE.
@charkopolis
5 жыл бұрын
Please film this and post as a response to this comment please :)
@davidhoffman6980
5 жыл бұрын
I once got a homerun in checkers.
@elasiduo108
5 жыл бұрын
I love your videos. You are my N°1 source for epistemological arguments in youtube. As a mathematician, I have a minor point to argue, which is just a detail in the video. You say that mathematics is "invented", and not "discovered". I agree with that in regards with the axioms. The axioms are rules, and rules, are just inventions and conventions. But, the work of building theorems and deducing interesting results is an exploratory work which can be described (somewhat) as discovery. Let me clarify the point. The rules of chess are invented. That is clear. But the rules of chess, by themselves don't make clear immediatly all the possible chess games that can be played. Of course, if we want to be platonic, these rules by themselves contain ALL the possible chess games that can ever be played, but these games are not immediatly obvious from the rules themselves. So by playing a game of a chess, in a way you are discovering a possible game created by the set of invented rules. Mathematics is just like that. A mathematician is not "inventing" theorems, in a way, he is "discovering" theorems which are deduced from the axioms we are considering. It's a minor point in your argument, but I agree in principle with everything you said. Love your videos!
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
Diego Vicencio I completely agree. You can discover many things by doing math, but the math itself is fundamentally a human creation, just like chess.
@elasiduo108
5 жыл бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Indeed. You can discover things in math and chess. But math, chess and logic are human inventions.
@funkyflames7430
5 жыл бұрын
5 months bro. Way worth the wait! Your videos are amazing. I watched your meditation on logic and enjoyed every moment of the two hours! Normally, because of my adhd I can’t sit down and watch a documentary that long even if I broke it up over days, but it was really entertaining and educational.
@funkyflames7430
4 жыл бұрын
William Springer Maybe not the science, but at least the history and the modern way of how logic is done.
@madscientistshusta
5 жыл бұрын
So then it is possible for us to encounter a lost tribe or even an aliens species who uses a form of logic that escapes us and would require a cypher to understand? On top of the language its self. Wow.
@sasilik
5 жыл бұрын
This video made things little more clearer for me. I am always frustrated when someone offers logical arguments for god and as I understand logic (language made by humans to describe something) it is always for me as someone is literally trying to bring forward some physical object to reality using just words. Hear me, I say these words and because of that what I say is true and exist!. Or something like that.
@contentsailor5764
5 жыл бұрын
I recommend anyone watching this video to watch it with a grain of salt. For some reason while educating people about what logic is he is sprinkling his philosophical views to be objective. 12:40 for example he basically says what Descartes and co. believe about logic to be be objectively wrong, by using Hume's view on the idea and presenting it as being the consensus and the absolute fact. It seem disingenuous. Hume is one of the first people to view things in this way. Usually in Philosophy you have two main views. Rationalists and empiricists, which it's okay to be empiricists whatever, but he is presenting it as an absolute fact that everyone agrees upon and rationalists like Descartes and Leibniz are not using logic correctly. Rationalist generally believe that logic and reason exist and we have free will, we can come to conclusions on the world and thing and pounder about things, many also believe in innate knowledge. Empiricists generally believe that there is no actual free will, everything is determined, all knowledge is obtained by experience. You sir are presenting one view on the idea and belittling everything else by strawmanning them and criticizing some of the arguments Rationalists argue against themselves. Descartes believe that he couldn't come up with a perfect idea of God, it was something innate within him, but he isn't perfect so how could he come up with it. It couldn't be a deceiver because that is also imperfect. So it had to be put into him by God, The Perfect. Hume disagreed with this by saying that you don't actually have an impression of God and you don't have innate knowledge. If you want to cretc these arguments you have to go to there rootes and I could easily make a counter argument. Your video starting off on a criticism of how logic is used/portrayed in media to a strawman of a famous historical philosophical position held by many. I think you should delete the video if your sincere because you are lying to people.
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
Content Sailor You seem to be under naive impression that this is some fringe view I’m espousing here. It’s not. Everything in this video is concordant with mainstream academic consensus according to modern proof theory and introductory logic. The very definition I gave at the end of the video is practically lifted straight out of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. You’re the one who is lying to people by pretending that there is some sort of controversy over this topic. There isn’t.
@proton8689
5 жыл бұрын
I like before I even watch, because I know I'll already like it. Also, you need to seriously begin generating content much more often. Also, how do you make those drawing thingies of people?
@dozog
5 жыл бұрын
I like it before I even watch, because I know I'll already like it. Is not a very logical thing to say.. I suggest you watch first.
@proton8689
5 жыл бұрын
@@dozog I watched it last week, and you know what? My like remains
@dozog
5 жыл бұрын
@@proton8689 The bird I m going to observe is black, because all birds I have previously observed were black. All birds are black. Yep, the bird was black again.. therefore my prediction made perfect sense and it proves all birds are black. Besides that though, your "like" is ultimately subjective.. You literally acknowledged you are biased. You made a self full filling prophecy. I really hope you liked the video, but for actually liking it.
@proton8689
5 жыл бұрын
@@dozog I was just making a compliment. You're making a mountain out of an anthill.
@justronjay9226
5 жыл бұрын
Dozo G // That was a terrible analogy. The fact that the like is subjective should be accounted for. "Based on my history of liking blackbirds, I predict that the next blackbird I find, I will like."
@cuboegamer1887
5 жыл бұрын
You’re pretty underrated. Just throwing that out there.
@MouseGoat
5 жыл бұрын
because the things he say, takes a great deal of logical intellect to be able to understand. (ironically) Most people i know would not get any of what hes saying. A Other great channel like this is: TheraminTrees
@DarthCalculus
5 жыл бұрын
Have you ever read Eugene Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics"?
@thegoodlistenerslistenwell2646
4 жыл бұрын
My interpretation is people are taking it backwards. The math only works because we can transform information into that language from observations of reality. 1 +1 doesnt mean anything if there has only ever been one. Its effectiveness is equal to the understanding of language and ones own senses. Im speaking of all the senses possible not just the 5 basic ones.
@ahmedkassem5303
2 жыл бұрын
I have been on youtube for more than 20 years- this is my first time to comment; you are a lifesaver- your presentation is super and you made the philosophy of language and logic so handy that literally thousands of papers could not make it easy as you did. Thank you very much from all my heart. please try to speak more of philosophy of language in general- thank you again
@AntiCitizenX
2 жыл бұрын
wow, thank you!
@davidhoffman6980
5 жыл бұрын
One thing that causes much confusion is when people refere to actions or behaviors as "logical" or "illogical". A behavior is not and cannot be logical or illogical. Arguments and reasoning can be logical or illogical, but behaviors can only be effective/efficient or ineffective/inefficient. What determines whether a shot was accurate is the proximity of the bullet impact to the target. If there is no target, there is no good or bad shot. If I am hunting a deer with someone who doesn't like to be told what to do, and I tell him "aim for the head" and he aims for, and hits, the heart instead, would I be reasonable to say "you missed!"? No. If my hunting conpanion didn't want to kill a deer because he loves animals and so missed deliberately, he would be acting in accordance with his goals and thus his behavior is reasonable. I could argue that his motives were irrational, but I can't argue that his behavior was irrational. Likewise, I can't say his aiming for the heart, or even aiming to miss is illogical as behaviors are niether, and because there are no objectively correct goals. If your goal is to hunt, then there are objectively effective or efficient ways to accomplish that. But it is not objectively correct to wish to hunt or to wish to abstain from hunting. Thanks.
@dozog
5 жыл бұрын
People referring to actions or behavior as logical or illogical does not cause the confusion, it is indicative or a result of the confusion.
@lianav6234
5 жыл бұрын
Agree
@IzzetRight
5 жыл бұрын
Great video. It really clarified some things for me about what logic is and how words are used.
@markallenbialik
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah, but what does god need with a starship?
@caladbolg8666
5 жыл бұрын
I love how there's a bunch of logically illiterate people in the comments saying that the video is wrong without offering any counterpoints.
@vapourmile
4 жыл бұрын
AntiCitozenX is logically illiterate. To people who are literate there's no need to sit around KZitem arguing about it with idiots.
@magickgeminid2944
4 жыл бұрын
@@vapourmile or you're logically illiterate and aren't capable of argument so you posture like some sort half dead rooster instead?
@peppermintgal4302
4 жыл бұрын
@@vapourmile So instead you waste the same amount of time and effort to stir beehives? How constructive. Believe it or not, but literate people do find practical reasons to teach the illiterate. I think what's happening here is that you are afraid to put your cards in the table.
@prophecynewt2250
4 жыл бұрын
@@vapourmile AntiCitozenX is probably logically illiterate, but that's just speculation. I believe the topic at hand is AntiCitizenX, though, so I fear you've gotten a bit turned around...
@Sebastian-hg3xc
4 жыл бұрын
@@prophecynewt2250 He's "probably logically illiterate"? What about the fact that he made various videos explaining how formal logic works? I'm not following what you based this speculation on.
@philswiftreligioussect9619
5 жыл бұрын
This man should run for president
@j.a.greene3523
5 жыл бұрын
That'd be like going from Pee Wee Herman (Trump) to Carl Sagan.
@philswiftreligioussect9619
5 жыл бұрын
@@j.a.greene3523 Tru
@generalcodsworth4417
5 жыл бұрын
Math being circular logic is like how the size of a wrench and its bolt may follow circular logic. The wrench is, say, 1cm because the bolt is 1cm. The bolt is 1cm because the wrench is 1cm. It doesn't really matter how big either is so long as it can do what we want: hold things together. The bolt and wrench may be 5mm instead and still work, but it may be easier to use one or the other in different scenarios. Similarly, math just needs to work within itself so that we can apply it to the real world in such a way that allows us to complete tasks. Using addition in a base 10 or base 5 system may give us the same real outcome for how many things we added, but one may be easier than the other when adding different numbers or if you have more experience with one system than the other
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
That's an interesting analogy.
@siddsen95
5 жыл бұрын
*Existential Crises challenged and successfully evolved to the next stage.* This video deserves a thousand times more views and you, good Sir, deserve as many subscribers as can possibly exist.
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
Sidd Sen Thank you!
@Boss-_
4 жыл бұрын
I can hold a game of baseball in my hand. I just need to find the Atari 2600 cartridge of it. Ha! Checkmate, atheist!
@paulcooper8818
5 жыл бұрын
The defeat of 23rd century tech by Stone Age tech at 0:34 is hilarious.
@ragg232
5 жыл бұрын
No, they were defeated by bad logic.
@animorph17
5 жыл бұрын
Heh, always remember that Vulcans are not obsessed with logic as a means to derive truth from the universe. Rather, as a means of controlling their emotional responses so as to not immediately attempt to kill everyone they see in a homicidal bloodlust of endless rage. By natural evolution the Vulcans are extremely violent habitual murderer's who's instincts and emotional responses demand they respond to most situations with brutal savagry, and as a culture they found out through experience that everyone trying to kill each other all the time leads to not much getting done. So to curb this they instilled a purely cultural focus on what they call "Logic" as an almost religious method of strictly enforcing their behavior to curb any and all emotional responses. Because for a Vulcan "Being emotional" is the same as "trying to spear my thumbs through your eye sockets" The thing about humans that leaves most Vulcan scientists scared shirtless is the fact that humans actually have functioning and fully formed emotional responses with a wide variance in which scenario provokes which emotion. A vulcan acting on their intuition is a vulcan who's best idea is 'kill all the things' while a human acting emotional can do all sorts of mostly unpredictable actions that draw heavily from pattern recognition and guesswork, which may end up succeeding as often as it fails.
@animorph17
4 жыл бұрын
@@williamspringer9447 Classical logic? Wouldn't that be heavily outdated and ridiculously limited to only a few subsets of pre-coded epistemology? What use could anyone get out of that without the broader foundation of epistemological study to ground their ventures? .... Neat to hear that Star Trek didn't predict cell phones though, usually I'm hearing the opposite.
@caygesinnett6474
5 жыл бұрын
I concede that axioms are invented, but how is it that theorems are invented? Theorems are discovered. If theorems were invented, then they would be axioms. I think it's misleading to say mathematics is invented, when only part of it is invented and most of it is discovered. "We don't have to adopt a binary set of truth values" While true, it is again misleading. Increasing the number of truth values is undesirable because any system of logic with a set of truth values greater than 2 can be translated semantically into a system with only two truth values. Bivalent logic is stronger than all other many-valued logics and is unavoidable as long as you intend to speak coherently.
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
A good analogy is chess. The game of chess is fundamentally a human invention. However, you can still discover things about it by trying out different strategies and seeing how they work. I think that's mainly where the confusion comes from. But you have to remember that, at any moment, I can always go back to the drawing board and create a whole new set of mathematical rules out of nothing.
@caygesinnett6474
5 жыл бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX I think we are thinking about this in the same way then
@matthewleitch1
5 жыл бұрын
The axioms of logic are not just arbitrary conventions. The systems that have caught on and that we use most are the ones that actually work in the real world. They agree with reality. Obviously, there are still debatable points (dare I say 'fuzzy' areas), and it's a work in progress but in principle there is a guiding criterion and logic is not just a matter of convention.
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
Matthew Leitch I explained in very laborious detail why that exact viewpoint is unfounded. Why are you just repeating that which was painstakingly shown to be wrong?
@matthewleitch1
5 жыл бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX Since your conclusion on this point is wrong I know you must have gone wrong somewhere in your arguments. I was reacting in particular to the assertion at about 18:29 and preceding material on sets of truth values and how they are just arbitrary choices. There does not seem to be any reason given for this idea, though perhaps you were thinking that, because alternative systems have been proposed and published it must be true that they are also equally valid. If the argument you have in mind appears somewhere in the preceding video and I missed it please give me a time reference and I'll gladly have a look. By the way, I recalled the Star Trek episode you featured and how annoyed I was by it decades ago when I first saw it.
@Boss-_
5 жыл бұрын
Great video, and it was a treat to see another one pop up, but something specific I wanted to comment on: The onthological argument for god isn't just begging the question, every single premise is either wrong or unsubstantiated. It's honestly a worse argument than "I saw the face of Jesus in my coffee"
@Funnysterste
5 жыл бұрын
6:45 You forgot to put Jordan Peterson in there
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
Funnysterste Does Peterson claim logic is a magical construct of the universe?
@Funnysterste
5 жыл бұрын
@@AntiCitizenX He claims alot of silly stuff. I have lost track.
@MateusAntonioBittencourt
5 жыл бұрын
I just had a uni final on logic. What a coincidence (I know that mathematically speaking it's not that surprising. Ok?). BTW... getting people to understand that logic is not about finding the TRUTH... but just a tool, was very frustrating for the teacher. She would say "X is true" and people would ask how she knew that. She had to explain several times this was not a philosophy class... and that she's just giving a exemple, and to assume for the sake of the exercise X is true. Biggest problem arose when she used as example something like "premisse 1: All men have a Y chromosome", and people said that was untrue, and didn't, and poor thing just had to explain again she's not saying that is TRUE... but to accept the premisse it was true, and the the text book is 20 years old. BTW... before the bigots say something... this is not to complain about SJW and feminists... it's just am example of what happened in the beginning of the semestre. This is not about the premisse, but the fact people couldn't dissociate saying something is logic valid, with saying "This is true in the real world".
@joalampela8612
5 жыл бұрын
I read the last paragraph and okay, fair, but that is still to this day the medical definition of a man (a human male adult) so who would disagree with the professor?
@MateusAntonioBittencourt
5 жыл бұрын
@@joalampela8612 Trans men are men who do not have Y chromosomes. Trans woman are woman who do have an Y chromosome. Intersex people can have an Y chromosome and not be a man or a woman. Someone with XX male syndrome, are men, and lived their entire lives as men... and died without ever knowing they had 2 XX chromosomes. And these are just a few examples... But that's not really the point is it? Do you call yourself a men or a woman? Did you do genetic testing to see if your genotype matches that description? Because I'm pretty confident that you didn't. Also 99.9999% of people didn't. ALSO, the concept of man and woman exists for thousands of years... and we didn't know what chromosomes were. So clearly you can see you're wrong in saying the male are people with Y chromosomes. Wouldn't you? Saying men are people with Y chromosomes is just as valid as saying man are people with short hair. In both cases you are classifying men based on a physical atribute that most men share... but not all of them, so both definitions are wrong.
@hans-joachimbierwirth4727
5 жыл бұрын
@@MateusAntonioBittencourt Reproductive functionality is the context of reproductive roles which are determined genetically and that's the realm that got referenced by the terms male and female. Male or female is defined by the chromosomes and that's it. Your drivel is absolutely baseless.
@MateusAntonioBittencourt
5 жыл бұрын
@@hans-joachimbierwirth4727 You're biologically speaking wrong. There's XY men, and XX women who can't reproduce. They don't produce gametes, so according to you, they aren't neither male or female. Since with we go with your definition, male is a person who produce moving gametes, and female a person who stationary gametes. But as I said... not everyone can produce gametes, so where that takes us? Then you may say "Sure... but only XY can produce moving gametes, therefore, even if XY can't produce gametes, they are still male" To which I reply, so you now left the realm of clear and defined categories, and are making trait associations. Which is exactly what I was doing... except one step further. And then I ask you what I did ask the person before... how about someone with XX male syndrome. There's thousands of people alive, with XX chromosomes, but are males. Since birth they had a penis. They develop as men. Their parents treat them as male... and unless they do a genetic test... they never will know they don't have an Y chromosome. You my friend... may be one of those people... so unless you go make a genetic test to see if you are indeed XY... shut up and stop bring chromosomes to a discussion that has nothing to do with them. I know... I'm a biologist.
@MateusAntonioBittencourt
4 жыл бұрын
@@williamspringer9447 No... I don't think you know what formal logic is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Formal_logic It has nothing to do with truth. For example. Premise 1: All Glibs are Trubs Premise 2: Some Trubs are Visha Conclusion: Some Glibs are Visha. Is the conclusion sound or not? That's what formal logic cares about. We accept the premises as true... in order to study if the syllogism is valid. BTW... in the example... the conclusion is not sound. This is the basics. We transform these sentences and premises in "equations" almost. The first premise can be expressed like Ɐx(P(x) → Q(x)). That way we learn to evaluate if a syllogism is sound or not, without caring about words.And just like math we teach that 2 apples + 2 apples equals 4 apples to children. We start teaching logic using premises like my example. Get it? That is the opposite of brainwashing. That is teaching how to evaluate the soundness of an argument without caring about the content. Just like calculus doesn't cares if you are calculating the orbit of mars or the trajectory of an artillery shell. Formal logic doesn't care about the content. Only of the argument is sound or not.
@GAPIntoTheGame
5 жыл бұрын
This type of videos are the best I’ve found on youtube, I really wish you could upload more frequently
@GAPIntoTheGame
4 жыл бұрын
William Springer sure buddy
@GAPIntoTheGame
4 жыл бұрын
William Springer because it’s an introduction to what logic is about. It’s aim is to begin to understand what logic is about by, amongst other things, dispelling myths about it.
@typical3477
5 жыл бұрын
I like your content, subbed
@gamerboygaming
5 жыл бұрын
Walks up to guy in golf outfit. *Throws football* "CHECKMATE! Did I play rugby correctly?" Baseball coach: "No. You threw a soccer ball at the skier's face and said the ping pong scoring system." "Oh."
@creeperizak8971
5 жыл бұрын
Great, now I'm interested in studying logic.
@phyrofox1641
5 жыл бұрын
I can hold a game of baseball, not in my hand though I need players and a baseball diamond with all the equipment. 10:20 If the car is self driving, is the car the driver?
@zeeteepippi275
5 жыл бұрын
You just need some tiny people and lil' mitts.
@AlessandroRodriguez
5 жыл бұрын
Wow glad to hear you again AnticitizenX, you knowledge is so missed those days.
@trollop_7
5 жыл бұрын
Really? By whom?
@nickwoo2
5 жыл бұрын
Beautiful, I was recently given the transcendental argument by a creationist but didn't have a good response. Thank you.
@ZeeDrakon
5 жыл бұрын
I Cringed so fucking hard when in Star Trek Discovery Spock is reciting the "laws of logic" and literally gets the shit wrong.
@Vearru
5 жыл бұрын
It took me way too long to figure out why I found the comparison at 14:40 to be so hilarious. I realize now it’s because you’re basically like “hah, I mislead you and threw a football at your friend! CHECKMATE!!”
@nunyabisnass1141
5 жыл бұрын
Well theres some illogical assumptions about logic in that sense. A purely logical being void of hampering emotions would also having encountered emotional beings, and less logical and more emotional primitive cultures would or should logically take those emotions into account. Imagine a sociopath, often highly logical, has emotions but a diminished conection to them, can easily manipulate others by analysing and mimicking their emotions. The premise of that epissode was rather naive and simplistic.
@louisng114
5 жыл бұрын
KZitem uses the like/dislike/no vote logic. I think this video should be labeled "like."
@trollop_7
5 жыл бұрын
Why? The video contains inaccuracies, and commutes opinion into fact.
@louisng114
5 жыл бұрын
@Trollop 7 Care to point out those inaccuracies and opinions that you talked about?
@trollop_7
5 жыл бұрын
@@louisng114 I'm sorry, I cannot, but I will say that it's very misleading to present logic as being a mere social construct, or to portray it as though it were just another kind of language. Natural languages, and formal languages are not the same, and should not be categorized together simply because they both contain the word 'language'.
@louisng114
5 жыл бұрын
But that's how logic works...
@prophecynewt2250
4 жыл бұрын
@@trollop_7 well, I consider it very misleading to make a claim, admit that you have no evidence to back it up, and then continue to stand by it. Could you please provide a timestamp to where he says that natural languages and formal languages are in the same category of "language"? Because I so happen to have this timestamp of 7:35 where he directly states formal languages contrast with natural languages and goes on to explain why the difference is important, so just where, exactly, are you getting your notion that he considers them both the same kind of language? And I would also like you to timestamp where he uses the phrase "social construct." As far as I can tell, he always refers to formal languages as social conventions, which carries a different connotation. Of course, surely you had no idea that saying social convention doesn't help with fearmongering as well as saying social construct does? No, of course you're not trying to stir up baseless concerns and paranoia when there is no reason for it by stating misleadingly presented opinions. I hope that you grow up eventually, I really do.
@davidh.4944
4 жыл бұрын
"The hill had a telescope" is ambiguous. Does the hill support, or does it possess, the telescope? And "snuffin" is too a valid word in English! "Whazzat?" "Snuffin."
@Sebastian-hg3xc
4 жыл бұрын
Your interpretation may be ambigious, but the logic is free from ambiguity. There is no definition of "support" and "possess" in that logic. "has/had" are axiomatic / propositions. They can't be further broken down.
@ShinySpinarak
3 жыл бұрын
This video is kind of old but I wanted to say something anyway. I agree with what you say on how media traditionally treats logic, but in this case, specifically understanding both Spock and the world he grew up with, it makes a little more sense he'd act the way he does in that episode. Considering Vulcans in specific, suppression of emotion is important. That's what separates them from their brutal past. Considering Spock in specific as well, Spock is a character that has always actively forced himself to get rid of any emotions he feels as quick as he can, obsessing over it even more than a typical Vulcan as he is trying to mitigate the embarrassment he feels of being half human. He is bound to logic in a sense, sure, at least according to himself, but you can tell his character is a lot more motivated by the notion of apathy. All that aside, being unable to recognize your premises were flawed and getting agitated for the world not acting as you wanted it to is a very emotional reaction to the situation, and completely illogical. If you wanted to give credit to the writers and say this was purposeful, it may have been that overly logical character of Spock breaking, frustrated that his ideas weren't working and under immense pressure from the situation at hand. It wouldn't be the first time that Spock feels himself give in to his emotion under duress.
@skaughteygames3263
5 жыл бұрын
Woohoo! Ive been waiting for this to come out. Thanks for your great content!
@martijnbouman8874
4 жыл бұрын
It seems like people confuse 'logical' with 'rational'. But Spock was not even behaving rationally; it is not rational to assume everyone else is rational.
@jasonjames5382
5 жыл бұрын
I thought this was about the rapper. 0/10
@scottlott3794
5 жыл бұрын
Why are the canadians speaking spanish?
@bujamad5359
3 жыл бұрын
Why do many of your videos have Russian subtitles? Is it someone from the Russian fans who add them?
@jacobborgmann7762
5 жыл бұрын
Welcome back Was starting to get worried about you. Well explained as always Like the improved animation
@imreplyingtothiscomment2378
5 жыл бұрын
Your channel is gods work
@banelemqobi3917
5 жыл бұрын
How ironic
@wes6363
5 жыл бұрын
I just wanna say that before I eat h all of this, I would just say in that star trek episode: the most logical thing for Spock to have done is factor in itself theborobability of an emotional reaction
@cthellis
5 жыл бұрын
Oh gods, you! I need more of you! 😭
@cthellis
5 жыл бұрын
I am adopting the “the old lady says so” method of truth assignment from now on. It is obviously the easiest system to follow, and therefore best.
@az426
5 жыл бұрын
"Logic helps us understand ZA WARUDO"
@CaptainMonkeyFez
5 жыл бұрын
Ha funny za warudo ha ha read the manga
@az426
5 жыл бұрын
@@CaptainMonkeyFez I did
@VyktriBell
5 жыл бұрын
I'll be honest my KZitem was just on autoplay and I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about but you seem to put lots of work in it so good job👍👍👍
@germancuervo945
3 жыл бұрын
This has to be the most illuminating video I've seen in a while. Thank you.
@CRITICALHITRU
11 ай бұрын
22:34 is for me.
@tavorliman9286
3 жыл бұрын
Good video
@LokiScarletWasHere
5 жыл бұрын
NGL, at the beginning I thought this was gonna be a rant about Spock and I was prepared to comment that what you were saying about Vulcan philosophy was the entire point of Vulcans in Star Trek.
@lostbutfreesoul
5 жыл бұрын
I hate all-inclusive: Had a quick conversation with my Sis concerning the whole 'for every car on the highway, there is a driver' statement. We had to conclude there are possible ways for a car to end up on the highway without a driver. None of these are good situations, some are hilariously implausible, but they would led to a car absent a driver. I think my personal favorite will be 'fell out of the back of a cargo plane, crashed into the highway...' over the obvious 'rolled down a hill, onto the highway.' PS: Fuzzy logic all the way, obviously!
@charkopolis
5 жыл бұрын
What about a car being towed? Or a freight truck with 8 cars as cargo? How about a 2-dimensional logic comprised of binary logic in one dimension, and fuzzy in another: {T , F} X [0,1]
@nicolaiveliki1409
5 жыл бұрын
Vulcans have later been portrayed as being somewhat crazy, which is good. Anything can get warped if you make a religion out of it and stop thinking for themselves, and the Vulcans revere logic in a religious fashion (in the context of this fiction), instead of viewing it exclusively as a powerful tool
@aaron9828
5 жыл бұрын
That transcendental argument is the biggest bullshit I have ever read
@owen-cu6gr
5 жыл бұрын
In the Spock example, Spock would have been acting logically, had the aliens been logical agents. However, they were not, and there was no reason to think that they would have been given their actions. Therefore, Spock was not acting logically.
@AntiCitizenX
5 жыл бұрын
owen alioto Funny how you can use logic to describe illogical agents. :)
@kazsura9812
5 жыл бұрын
Wow a upload
@mjallen1308
5 жыл бұрын
I like snuffins!
@annielauriehenderson5022
5 жыл бұрын
ME TOO! They're so snuggly.
@matron9936
3 жыл бұрын
Everyone likes snuffins
@jankgoabit
4 жыл бұрын
hope children stopped watching before 17:25
@Cythil
5 жыл бұрын
Oh yes. I often find Vulcans to be highly Illogical.
@herzglass
5 жыл бұрын
- AntiCitizenX videos are great. - You like things that are great - 2 people disliked this video ....totally illogical
@nocturne7397
5 жыл бұрын
It is logical, because those 2 (now 9) people don't like things that are great.
@herzglass
5 жыл бұрын
@@nocturne7397 The joke --------> You
@ericklopes4046
5 жыл бұрын
Haven't watched it yet, just wanna say that I missed your videos.
@thomasderp8434
5 жыл бұрын
You uploaded!
@TheScrewbucket
5 жыл бұрын
Welcome back, man! Here's hoping for more content!
@brandish_0003
5 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much! These videos helped me learn how to think and I really enjoy them. I'd still be a religious fundamentalist (jehovahs witness) if it weren't for your efforts so thank so much! Literal life saver!
@brandish_0003
4 жыл бұрын
William Springer 1. Its better than nothing and I use stuff like this as starting points for further research. Critical thinking was a completely new concept to me not that long ago and I was just starting out. 2. I think I can speak from experience when I say this is not brainwashing. Your use of the term dilutes the meaning and isn’t helpful. Real brainwashing is harmful and so what if he left out one or two things, the ones who are interested will go on to do more research.
@brandish_0003
4 жыл бұрын
William Springer ok well from my understanding you have a burden of proof since you are claiming there is a massive conspiracy going on in america ( I’m australian by the way so none of that applies to me ). Eg the moon landings, can you provide evidence that the moon landings didn’t happen. I know I have strong evidence it did occur which is the retro-reflectors that were left on the surface of the moon by the astronauts. Myth busters even featured it in an episode. Can you provide evidence that the landings were faked? Until evidence is provided I’m able to reject the claim without evidence since it is your job to substantiate the burden of proof. I am of the null position as is everyone else who believes the landings occurred.
@brandish_0003
4 жыл бұрын
William Springer better yet I’d recommend another channel that helped me out of my brainwashing. Potholer54. He was a geologist and science journalist who tackles conspiracy theories and scientific misrepresentation. I’d highly recommend it to you. He has helped me out a lot as well as AntoCitizenX
@brandish_0003
4 жыл бұрын
William Springer this isn’t evidence, these are all assertions, and I can tell you why all of them don’t stand. By the way this isn’t me trying to be an asshole its just that we know the answer to all of these things and I’m trying to honestly show you the evidence. The reason I don’t accept your evidence is because as I previously stated, these are anecdotes and unsubstantiated assertions. The plural of anecdote isn’t data and quoting people is not substantiating your assertions, thats just an appeal to authority. So now onto the assertions: Why didn’t the astronauts make some visible signs? Short answer, they did! I’ll break down the quote into the separate assertions and ones I can group together. Hypergolic Chemicals / Create a pattern with lightweight dust / 100 foot diameter A: The reason we didn’t litter the lunar surface with dust or perform spontaneous and dangerous experiments with rocket propellant on the surface is due to the fact that scientists make a considerable effort to preserve not just the lunar environment but all extraterrestrial environments from potential contaminates that we introduce just by landing and interacting with interstellar bodies. Have you ever wondered why the mechanics and people working on space craft are dressed in those white gowns? Its to mitigate skin particles and hairs being left in the craft and they also try to sterilise all craft so no viruses from earth are brought to other planets. Graffitiing the lunar surface with a giant ‘A’ or setting off a propellant bomb so to speak would potentially compromise future observations and could possibly interrupt the natural cycles present on the moon ( if there are any). Scientists presume there are to be on the safe side and out of respect. I’ve included a link to the NASA website on this subject. Not only that they actually need the materials to perform such a task on the surface. Astronauts are fundamentally limited by the carrying capacity of their craft and this fact extends all the way down to the design office. Its why the engineers and designers are so weight conscious. So asking them to bring potentially hundreds of kilograms of black powder to scatter on the lunar surface or chemicals to blow up in front of vulnerable astronauts doesn’t make sense from a scientific viewpoint or design viewpoint, it also doesn’t make economic sense and is a bad costly design of the craft and mission. That weight could be utilised for instrumentation, equipment, sample/cargo space, more supplies for the astronauts life support or better ways of proving the astronauts set foot on the moon (more on this in a second). Also I’m going to reiterate this about the hypergolic chemicals. Why on Earth would you perform such a dangerous experiment in front of venerable astronauts where the slightest perforation in their suit would mean the inevitable death of said astronaut? If you wanted to make it safe you would then need to bring safety equipment which means more weight, more cost, etc. Another thing to remember with weight limits is that the oxygen supply is also limited. Astronauts also have experiments to run on the lunar surface and because of limited oxygen don’t have time to scatter dust on the surface for potentially hours of laborious work which would use more oxygen up, all for a futile exercise when you can do it better ways. Why didn’t they shot a laser from the moon to the Earth and back? The weight limit and oxygen limit. Think about all the equipment you need for a laser. The ground base ones we use on Earth to shot lasers at the moon are the size of small observatories! How are you supposed to ferry a laser of that power up onto the moon? You need a power supply, you need the laser itself, you need a computer system to manage it, you need an aiming/tracking system, you need a protective system from dust and potential meteors. Etc. Now think about how long it will take for 2 astronauts on the moon with limited tooling and oxygen are supposed to assemble such a piece of equipment. Thats also assuming all piece of equipment arrive safely with no damage. Its a highly expensive piece of equipment all on its own without the cost of transport to the moon that you are going to leave on another celestial body to break down due to lack of maintenance. That means you will get maybe two or three uses out of the thing. Which is why we have ground based laser that shot the retro reflectors that are on the moon, the ones the Apollo 11 left. It makes economic sense, it makes sense in terms of the mission, it means the astronauts can do more important things and leaving a retroreflector that weights 77kg is much better than the alternatives of powder, explosive chemicals or giant laser installations that will be neglected and unnecessarily laborious and dangerous to construct. We still use the retroreflector to track the movement of the moon. I’ve linked the NASA page of the reflector below. No stars in photos / no photos of Earth / no photos of detailed landmarks or features on Earth (atmosphere,lights etc) Short answer - the cameras aren’t designed for that This has to do with the mission the astronauts are on, equipment limitations and weight limitations. The cameras they use are specifically designed for certain expected exposures on the mission and in the environment. They are there to do science not a scenic photo shoot. As an example exposure, have you tried to take a photo of the night sky with your phone? I’d recommend you try it. What you will find is a black screen, why? The exposure isn’t high enough to capture the faint light. If you have better equipment you can set long exposures and only then you will be able to take a photo of the stars. This fact is why certain cameras, in this case the astronauts cameras can’t take a photo of the stars. They aren’t designed for it. Other cameras are however and I’ve linked an article by the planetary society explaining this and other reasons why there are no stars in some photos. I highly encourage you to read it. Like I’ve said the astronauts are there to do science, they have the camera that they need to perform one task. Bringing more cameras or over engineering the camera is a waste of time, a waste of resources and a waste of precious weight. Your probability rant: It is immediately void because we have left the Apollo 11 retroreflector on the moon that we still use! But anyway you are using hypothetical numbers and I’m not even sure how you would arrive at any number of probability. The probability of it happening is 1/1 because we know the retroreflector is there! Pulling numbers of probability out of thin air isn’t evidence, you need to substantiate that probability! I’m also not sure what the lunar rocks and the other reflectors have to do with what I said before so I’ve ignored them as they are irrelevant. Here is a quote from Potholer54 I’ve found useful and I will paraphrase. When I’m confronted with something in science I don’t understand I’m left with 3 options: 1 that scientists are all incompetent 2 that scientists are all in on a conspiracy 3 that scientists know something I don’t and I should try to find out what that is The best option is to go with option 3 first! Planetsry Society article on how and why stars are not visible in most space photos: www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2019/why-are-there-no-stars.html Nasa’s page on the retroreflector left by Apollo 11: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experiment/display.action?id=1969-059C-04 Interplanetary contamination page on NASA: www.nasa.gov/feature/new-report-addresses-limiting-interplanetary-contamination-during-human-missions/ For good measure here is that myth busters clip: kzitem.info/news/bejne/t6OM3od8p5yKdnY
@carne_verde
5 жыл бұрын
BTW, by Star Trek away-team red shirt logic, you were supposed to not survive the visit to the planet of savages.
@Nilsy1975
5 жыл бұрын
Statistically, wearing red in Star Trek wasn't what put a person in danger, not being a main character was! 😉
@charkopolis
5 жыл бұрын
To be fair, he was wearing a next gen red with a rank of captain. So, I think the anachronism was intentional.
@DarthAlphaTheGreat
4 жыл бұрын
Logic is the structure of reasoning. The content needs to be verified externally.
Пікірлер: 844