same

+Haja Dumbuya same

+Jabbawokeez4 - Philosophy is pretty interesting stuff.

I recommend School of Life if you don't already know them :)

School of Life is awesome as well :)

hell ye

hell ye

are u serious crash course gets a lot of attention have u seen their subcount

7.9 million isn't underrated

+

+Bhargav Chakraborty I first read it as "You guys have a fantastic cat". The cat was cute and all, but it wasn't fantastic.

why?

+Mimo katze *existential

+reNNDinclusus EGGistential

+Tara Mohammed Exactly.

+Tara Mohammed Most human beings do not enjoy pondering the thought that everything they know could be wrong, down to even basic perception. Most human beings find it terrifying when they realize we can't even quantify what knowing stuff is. This kind of thinking makes people start questioning all their belief in what is real, kind of like descartes did, thus resulting in an existential crisis.

the description box

Oh thanks. Index the cat.

You could say they indexed Index.

TheFireflyGrave Because it was schrodinger's cat and it died in the reality

5:40

anushka kale Not real cat, is disappoint.

+Zaziuma (Patrick Jensen) How do you know they weren't different cats?

Juan Pablo Mina The cat looks the exact same, and why they would use multiple cats for the shoot doesn't make much sense.

Zaziuma (Patrick Jensen) I don't know why, I'm just asserting that we can't know whether those cats were the same or not. For all we know, they kept their promise.

Exactly my thought! Hasnt anyone noticed that among the philosophers?

MY TED-X TALK! I READ A BOOK A DAY

Here in my room. Just watched this new Crash Course video. Had to install two book shelves for all their merchandise I bought.

+Balaji Krishnan *knoweledge 4:25

+Balaji Krishnan 47 lamborghinis in my lamborghini account

+Balaji Krishnan HERE IN MY GARAGE!

Fernando Frutos YAS

Now you’re talking

KNAWLEDGE*

+Alec Joseph GNAWLEDGE

+Alec Joseph GNAWLEDGE

Someone please help me. Is this spelled wrong? Or have I literally gone 30 years not knowing how to spell this word...

It either is spelled wrong or I have the same problem here (I don't)

Angela Buo huiiu

Yes

I get the reference bro. Nice!!👍🏻

i like the cat

NAAAAAAAHLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDGE!!!

Ya know what I like more than epistemology? Knowwwledge

Wooowww lmaoio

same

+Haja Dumbuya same

It's professor Hans Von Puppet!

+ProfessorPuppet dont bing it.... use google like everyone else ;)

Captain Obvious LOL

Yaaaaaaassss

Si

Da!

no

Adarsh Singh hey. HEY! Take that back! Don't make me get the hose!

heavyweaponsgaming yes it was so many wholes in his counter I sense agenda in supporting it...For the justified truth to hold true for so long and a flimsy counter like this not to have been demolished..I would counter that the overall ability for humans to be able to reason has now devolved and the purpose of all humans is too support agendas....

Something cannot be "properly justified" and "not match the truth" at the same time. It can have "a justification" but when that justification doesn't match "the truth" it is simply a self-reliant justification, therefore a belief that thinks of itself as justified from itself. The justification part requires that it holds true in the context in which the belief is made, you can't have a justified belief(even if it happens to be true) if you change the context and do not reevaluate the justification from that new context. That's basically the difference between Newton's F=MA vs Enstein's relativity. We like things to be simple so we tend to see things in a Newtonian perspective, but when you look at more extreme cases you realize it only holds true in a specific context.

The problem that I see with this theory is the whole human assertive bias, where people unconsciously assign more credibility to someone or something that supports their own, already existing ideas or beliefs. This definition of a true belief, something that not only is believed by the person, but also has justification behind it, gets very complicated when one adds in what is happening today, known as the “era of misinformation”. The lack of fact-checking, along with the failings of scientific and academic integrity, has resulted in a confusing world where, by this definition of a truth, two conflicting truths could both be considered “true”. Look at, for instance, the anti-vaccine movement, something that is largely regarded as false and disproven, however the fact that there is one scientific paper that exists that supports it provides justification. Sure, there might be hundreds of studies arguing against it, but because of that self-confirmation bias, many anti-vaccine advocates place more credibility in a single, very flawed, thoroughly disproven study, instead of multiple, independent, rigorous and scientific studies. It really is worrying that if that is how the human mind decides truths and beliefs, how will the spread of so called “fake news” and misinformation affect humanity? A democracy relies on having a well-informed, fact-based population, and we can see the beginnings of what happened when that population is not well-informed. Even binary yes or no questions are considered “up for debate” by most of the populace. Many politicians are benefitting from this as well, using arguments that “there isn’t enough evidence” or “the research isn’t in” to justify inaction, even using the fact that most of science doesn’t deal in absolutes, it deals in 99.9% likelyhoods. Scientists can no longer “if X happens, there is a absolute certainty that Y will happen.” If you get shot in the head, there is a very high likelyhood you will die, but there is a slim chance you might live. Scientists say “almost certainly” because that is the nature of science. Take climate change for example. While scientists widely agree that yes, this is something that is happening, they say this scientifically, not generalizing things. They describe it as “almost certainly happening” or “there is overwhelming evidence supporting it”, but climate change deniers interpret that to mean that “we aren’t sure if it’s happening or not”. The world is complicated, it’s not written in certainties. If you flick a light switch, a light will probably come on, 99.99% of the time. But, every once in a while, the light might burn out, of the wire might be broken, or the power might be out. Therefor someone has to explain that the light will most likely come on. That doesn’t mean that it’s 50/50, they are saying that it is almost certainly going to come on, unless something completely unanticipated and unlikely happens. Asking scientists to speak in absolute yes or no answers is impossible to do truthfully, because next to nothing is certain 100% of the time. Asking of them to provide absolute certain agreements is an impossible statement, and next time you see someone using this argument that “the science isn’t all the way in”, apply the same standard to them. Claim that, say, they are an alien. Yes, they are almost certainly not, but it is not absolutely impossible, there is an incredibly small chance, so if they are going to use that incredibly small chance to try and discredit overwhelming evidence, you should be able to do the same to them. Yes, there might be a 0.000001% chance that climate change is not caused by humans/is not happening, but a 99.99999% chance that it is definitely should hold more weight. If you had a 99.9% chance of winning a million dollar lottery, you would enter that lottery! You wouldn’t not enter it because there is a 0.1% chance of losing it.

Matthew Smith those seek knowledge free themselves from all bias, so just like many go to church but are not truly Christians, many people learn things with bias attached but the truly rare and extreme seeker of accurate knowledge will evolve beyond the bias of the human experience.0

Alexander the Great used knowledge to achieve so much enabling to him to do what people thought was impossible. - We did a video on the same point you made

way*

i want i want

Alkis05 frlziozt la zg ô j وه ط ديس ط ط.م من

+Max Littera That's a great idea!

You wanna know what I'm more proud of? Is the 7 new bookshelves I had to install to hold 2,000 new books...

+Karl Karlos Crash Course Physics!

Clarence Lam Yeah I know. But line between theoretical, modern physic and philosophy is quite thin.

There was a reference to it with a drawing of a cat with half of it's skeleton showing

Hey Apoorva! Are you from India? Are you doing some degree in Philosophy? I am new to Philosophy and have much interest in it. I am also liking this crash course so far. Can you suggest more content to understand the philosophical aspects. Books, Series, or anything? Would be of much help. Thanks!

That is amazing

We stumbled onto the part of the truth, it's classic Gettier case... at least I think :)

Not necessarily. Contextualism posits that "knowledge" in its use is contextual...that is, if I say I know that 2+2=4, then, if I am not in the proof-appropriate context, I don't need to justify my belief that 2+2=4 by doing the mathematical proof. Same kind of concept can, kind of, apply to the natural sciences

money is power

I think perhaps we just learned something about Hank... and you... and me? Crap.

+Sloth7d The known the unknown and underknown

+Kumail N No I tried it and it only went to psychology not philosophy

+Kumail N Good show! From "Glossary of Buddhism" (random bookmarked page in my browser) to "Philosophy" in 12 clicks.

+James Irwin you must've clicked something in brackets or the second link maybe.

+Kumail N I got stuck in several repeating loops trying this.

All right, I give up. I accept your statement as true until proven otherwise.

+Gregory Samuel Teo (alveolate) the real can of worms here is the word "justified". "true" and "belief" are easy enough, but how we know things is a whole realm of philosophy. maybe your JTB justifacation needs to be it's own JTB? for example, the justifaction for the 10 coins scenario was a boss who said that Jones would get the job. however, that means that smith had a belief that "the boss is a completely trustworthy scorce". this is of course false, no human is perfect, making this an unjustified false belief. this means that there was no justifacation for the "10 coins" assertion, making it an unjustified true belief, and therefore not knowledge

+the ocarina bard This is exactly what I'm thinking. There are no real "Gettier cases", just cases presented as JTB's that actually aren't either justified or true. I personally still hold on to JTB being the definition of knowledge, and the "Gettier cases" haven't disproven it, really. All they did in my eyes is call into question the definitions of "justified" and "true", without actually calling the definition of knowledge into question.

+TheMightyDozen (Does the following fit with your notions?) There is simply a difference between the appearance of X versus something actually being X. So, it is easy to make the mistake of claiming something as X when there are things Y that look like X. The mistake occurs when one claims that whatever is X when one only has sufficient knowledge to claim that it LOOKED like X.

+MyContext To be fair, I had to replace X and Y with more corporeal things, but yes, that does fit with my notions. Also, just so you know, I went with 'X' for "Mouse" and 'Y' for "Rat".

I guess this kind of just re-enforces the fact that we can't really "know" anything in the JTB sense. after all, you can only follow your justifacations so far back until you can't really justify them anymore. however, we can assess how solid we are in what we think we "know", by seeing how far back we can justify it. for example, someone who thinks an item is blue in a dark room is less solid in their knowledge than someone who sees the same object in bright light. someone who mesures the wavelength of the light coming off of the object to see if it is in the spectrum of "blue" is even more solid

+Alan Gebhardt I feel like if he had started this episode with Kant, we'd all be considerably more prepared for understanding this specific concept.

+Alan Gebhardt What you're saying here seems to be right. However, I think those analogies are only examples being used to demonstrate a point. You're just elaborating the analogies more to explore another point.

+Alan Gebhardt In any case, in agreement with you, this is why I frequently emphasise the importance of specifics in order to accurately communicate what one means. I usually go the extra mile to maintain it, much to the bother of some people some times I'm afraid. [Nonetheless, I also frequently use ambiguity and specifics as a very deliberate tool during discussion. Well everyone does. It's all a part of the art of conversing.]

Sylvia Odhner you lie

Justify your assertions.

Thank you!!!

I know so hot right