(German Accent) You must believe the Peer Reviewed Papers!! I have debated atheists for several years. Trust me when I say, "Faith is the biggest part of their arsenal!". Most of them haven't got the slightest clue what they are talking about. They parrot the Peer Reviewed Papers and claim they gave me proof of evolution, old age cosmology, climate change, vaccines, etc. They don't realize they don't have any evidence at all. They don't know the difference between critical thinking and faith.

This triggers me, because it seems to conflate science with "The" science. We either believe in the FINDINGS of quote unquote science, (scientism) or we have FAITH in the Scientific METHOD, regardless of what is found. I think the difference boils down to purpose: While the purpose of The Scientific Method is to eliminate BIAS from the evaluation of data, the purpose of "The" science (scientism), is seems, is to PROMOTE bias, like we saw with the HORSE PASTE debacle. Faith does not BELONG to religion, rather if you have ANY AT ALL, then it can only belong to YOU. ❤

Define the strongest science as the highest probability explanation of the empirical observations. While i have faith in my Doctor, i like it best when he explains the cause, effect and if/when to employ a treatment plan. Just like everyone should have their go-to Rabbi/Rav when a question comes up, so too good to have their go to scientist for respective fields of science. If we are ready, willing and able to, and do investigate on our own, we are more likely to discover who the most knowledgeable scientists are.

Belief/faith are non-negotiable, because we all have to exist within a comprehensible story of our world and our place in it. The question is, then (I think): does religion or science give us a more justifiable story to believe in?

The founder of the modern scientific method, Kepler, had this belief in the same thing: "To read the thoughts of God" (by the way, the same thing for Newton and Einstein). However, theologians, to whom nothing human is alien, envied the new method and left: they have a monologue of a person, and now a dialogue (a physical experiment) with reality. I think the issue will be resolved when both sides rise to the third level: the monologue of reality.

Let me guess. You're upset that scientists agree about anthropogenic climate change.

let me guess, you think trans people aint real? get a load of these " im a bigot but dont wanna say it with my "chest" types

let me guess, your a liberal democrat, just keep your hands off the children

​@IndianArma i do but not to the degree it is being screamed

It could happen. Just like the Big Bang

really,when? 13.8 billion years from now?@@DrBrianKeating

Brian Keating was actually the guest here. So, in that light, I don't think it's that awkward.

@@alazrabed False.They had him on their podcast and now this is him interviewing them. Pay attention to the background(his diplomas etc) if you need to clarify your error. It might appear the other way because Brian Keating is trying to be a pop-sci guy and suffers a bit of solipsism in that autistic attempt, but this was supposed to be him interviewing them and the shared mic was awkward af

@@ConversationswiththeAII mean, it's not that crucial of a point anyway but if you're referring to the locale, I'm well aware that the discussion took place in Brian's office. But DemistifySci started the conversation and posted the exact same discussion on their channel, two weeks prior this here video. Either way, it was all in all a fairly balanced back and forth, so roles of host and guest become pretty blurry. And, once again, I didn't find that shared mic particularly awkward -- just my opinion.

Bouncing classic Model doesn't require unrealistic hypothesis like cosmic inflation, neither singularity.

Kirchhoff from electrical circuit law? Or another Kirchhoff?

@@mr.needmoremhz4148 primarily dealing with black body radiation.... Alexander unzinger has recently published a book about the nature of the sun... he has KZfaq channel...also Pierre Robathai ' the sky scholar ' has in depth videos on kirschoff's law and the sun

@@mr.needmoremhz4148The same I'm pretty sure. Kirchoff also produced laws of radiation that are used in astrophysics.

Tool making probably predates stone tools. Anyway, creating tools does not imply forming the abstraction to creating things in general, there is no way of knowing precisely when that happened, and even when it did, the reasoning "We are creators that create things, therefore everything requires creators to create them." is incorrect, so use of the term "awareness" instead of "belief" is also incorrect. Something needs to be uncreated, otherwise you end up in an infinite regress of "well what created that creator?", and if something is uncreated it may as well be the universe itself.

I'm talking about geometry's roll in understanding our environment, not belief. @@paulfoss5385

Sounds familiar, covid

"We are the science!" New Zealand PM

What specifically is wrong with the current scientific method and what alternatives do you propose? You jumped into what you called the problem of bad hypotheses as something that could be stalling science, but you didn't offer a systematic way of developing better hypotheses or how be gather and structure data to test them, but rather offered another hypothesis to a specific problem. The double ballooning hypothesis is fine and all, but if I am a region of space on one side of the double balloon, by what mechanism is my preferred synthesis of matter correlated to the reverse preference for matter synthesis in a region of space in the other balloon? The double balloon hypothesis isn't a simplification as it requires an additional mechanism to correlate matter production in the balloons and still requires a mechanism for regions of space having a preference for type of matter.

@@paulfoss5385 To start off with the two spheres; A typical structure at the start of the big bang would be a charged spinning disk from where at its centre, pure energy (‘as the grid’) would be converted into matter and antimatter splitting off randomly in either of two opposite beams at either side. Notice, the same rotation of the disk (electrospin) would appear clockwise at one side yet counter-clockwise viewed from the other side. This is the sorting mechanism for how matter and antimatter would eventually be re-sorted at either side. How? Well obviously matter of opposite charge relative of the ‘ electrospin’ of the disk would be drawn back to the disk, ending up at the other side and next be propelled away form the centre at the other side (now same charge). Just the same as ‘antimatter’ would be pulled back from the other side and propelled into the far side. So during initial ‘inflation’ of the big bang it would be an extremely fast collimated firing of charged particles at either side, following by a partial return and partial collapse of the beam (into the 3D grid?) as half of the particles on their way back would bump into the particles of the out-streaming beam. With respect the weakness of the scientific method in complex questions; The issue is that it always starts with human made ‘hypothesis’, which may appear defendable in isolation, but falls short when we combine this outcome with other hypothesis solutions to other issues we try to solve. This causes what scientists call ‘paradoxes’ which are next ‘blamed’ on Nature. But Nature works just fine. It has no paradoxes. Paradoxes are ALWAYS an indicator of erroneous human thought. To correct these mistakes we must forget about the scientific method for a moment and instead make good use of precisely the paradoxes. This is done via reversed engineering. We start out with NO hypothesis at all! We synthesize the correct process in reverse by carefully avoiding the known paradoxes. How is this done? Regardless the subject 1) we collect all known ‘paradoxes’ like the matter anti matter paradox, DM, DE etc 2) We assume ALL are caused by incorrect human assumptions 3) We generate alternative design processes carefully avoiding each individual paradox via trial and error. 4) we score all alternatives per paradox on their a) connectivity to all alternative processes of all other paradoxes, b) observational evidence, c) logic consistency 5) The permutations are at times staggering, but via heuristics using FMEA/RCA all paths avoiding all paradoxes can systematically be scored. The path with the best score is most likely the correct one. Notice this is OPPOSITE to the scientific method where we START with the theory we want to prove.

@@paulfoss5385 excellent question! To start off with the two ballooning spheres; A typical structure at the start of the big bang would be a charged spinning disk from where at its centre, pure energy (‘as the grid’) would be converted into matter and antimatter splitting off randomly in either of the two opposite beams at either side. Notice, the same rotation of the disk (electrospin) would appear clockwise at one side yet counter-clockwise viewed from the other side. This is the sorting mechanism for how matter and antimatter would eventually be re-sorted at either side. How? Well obviously matter of opposite charge relative of the ‘ electrospin’ of the disk would be drawn back to the disk, ending up at the other side and next be propelled away form the centre at the other side (now same charge). Just the same as ‘antimatter’ would be pulled back from the other side and propelled into the far side. So during initial ‘inflation’ of the big bang it would be an extremely fast collimated firing of charged particles at either side, following by a partial return and partial collapse of the beam (into the 3D grid?) as half of the particles on their way back would bump into the particles of the out-streaming beam.

@@RWin-fp5jn I've never heard a physicist talk about spinning discs at the start of the big bang. The Big Bang is typically viewed as a rapid expansion of space time rather than an event occuring within space time. I don't know what " 'as the grid' " means, nor what pure energy is.

@@paulfoss5385 the fact no scientist mentioned a more sophisticated form than a simple explosion, is a critique to them. Neither solar system creation, nor galactic formation are exploding spheres. There is always a spinning disk involved with to mass outflows on either side. Always. We need not to deviate from this default pattern just because of scale. Scientists need to proof instead why a simple mono sphere would be preferred? Never seen that on any scale. And I gave you your answer to an observable mechanism to separate matter from anti matter. That puts me 2-0 ahead of mainstream. This is boring. Hope Brian catches on.

Tenure

You mean you lost your faith in science?

Gross generalizations are midwit

See! I told y'all that these clickbait KZfaq channels were going to be accepted by people as "reality", but you didn't believe me! Here's proof! ^^^^^^that guy! He believes everything they say! Never even met a scientist in his life, but there you go!

@@bryandraughn9830 we’re all scientists!

Thanks I was a guest on their show. This is my edit of the video to showcase them but it is still an interview of me…Change your mind or nah?

@@DrBrianKeating So they were interviewing you but they didn’t ask you any questions? Or you just edited out the parts where they asked questions? Not sure that’s much better and it’s a strange way of showcasing someone else to edit out all the parts that aren’t you talking.

Sloppiness of the word evolution is godlike missing link fill in the blanks speaker says it listener has nothing to work with ,up down left right forward reverse revolutions ,decay birth life death reborn = means any and everything and is to generalized and broad thanks to urban dictionary slang and over usage on Academia itself. Platos spiritual essence wasn't even this broad after 2400 years.

As a messianic apocalyptic Christian trust Me the church age delivery is frightening but we must be honest with our discovery and can't let our beliefs & dogma make it even worse. The only future questions left are more when where & how Until then improving the human condition through honest science and precise here and now realism . Go to work on mythological horizontal axis timeline where you can dream about apes ancestors primordia,,math mapping mazes in the sky multi verses been then ya gotta come back home to the vertical gradient inertia frame of reference of real realism where credibility is unrivaled.

Or maybe the other way around