No video
Should We Trust a Theory? - Professor Joseph Silk FRS
Рет қаралды 4,121
Күн бұрын
@coastwalker101 7 жыл бұрын
Worrying about whether the multiverse exists is probably a question like "how many angels can fit on a pin head". I suspect that if we keep on plugging away at the problem a change of perspective will render the answer from a different perspective.
@thedeester100 7 жыл бұрын
Coastwalker Much of Astrophysics is a waste of time. In my lifetime scientists have discovered the age of the universe three times and each time was different. Did the years they took and the millions they spent actually benefit mankind in any way? Science can be just as irrelevant as religion or philosophy.
@davidwilkie9551 7 жыл бұрын
If philosophy, by its definition of "love of words/communication of ideas", starts all theorizing with only the accepted established principles of connection, then the measurements used to verify/falsify theoretical probability, has some relative meaning - in principle. The techniques and technology of physical measurement do not take precedent over selection of principles. Words/languages of communication are not as basic a reason for trust in methodology as principles, so it is a "vertically integrated" mix of knowledge and experience that dominates scientific research.
@thedeester100 7 жыл бұрын
How do they know the universe isn't rotating? Isn't it difficult to measure without an external point of reference?
@jonathonjubb6626 7 жыл бұрын
Not being able to see the screen makes this unwatchable - unfortunately...
@WorthlessWinner 7 жыл бұрын
Where is he getting the idea that i am "so complex" that it would take an uncountable infinity to clone me exactly? I am made of a countable number of parts aren't I? I live for a finite time? He seems to be trying to jump strait from "uncountable infinities exist" to "therefore i am an uncountable infinitely unlikely thing"
@rahowherox1177 7 жыл бұрын
unassumption because some people do not actually know what infinite means and use it to describe finite but large numbers, eg sand grains on earth, stars, etc. the same type of person , usually, who would try to conflate science with philosophy, and theories without the research to back them up. gresham seems keen on religious pseudo science, for some reason, probably financial reasons.
@robertleonard7834 2 жыл бұрын
It's a idealist if you think about .. The two will always argue there point 👉
@jospehhute5203 4 жыл бұрын
hmm..
@rahowherox1177 7 жыл бұрын
philosopher of science is, imo, a contradiction of terms - a non sequitor....
@alancrabb 7 жыл бұрын
"philosopher of science ...a contradiction of terms". Why so?
@rahowherox1177 7 жыл бұрын
Alan Crabb 1 relies on evidence based research and inferences from reality, 1 on the abstract, opinion, etc.. this is why science is... well a science, whilst philosophy is considered an art
@rahowherox1177 7 жыл бұрын
philosophy, simply isnt science.
@davidwilkie9551 7 жыл бұрын
If philosophy, by its definition of "love of words/communication of ideas", starts all theorizing with only the accepted established principles of connection, then the measurements used to verify/falsify theoretical probability, has some relative meaning - in principle. The techniques and technology of physical measurement do not take precedent over selection of principles. Words/languages of communication are not as basic a reason for trust in methodology as principles, so it is a "vertically integrated" mix of knowledge and experience that dominates scientific research.
The Royal Institution
Рет қаралды 221 М.