Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Scientific progress relies on empirical evidence, rigorous testing, and peer review, none of which are advanced through public debates with untrained individuals. Unlike politics or philosophy, where personal opinions and rhetoric can shape policy, science is governed by objective data and reproducible facts that remain true regardless of public...

theliverdoc's profile picture

TheLiverDoc™

323,938 subscribers

145,003 просмотров • 29 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНовости и политикаНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

The FDA commissioner went on national television and misquoted the Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, twisting careful scientific language into a false claim. The Dean’s actual public statement mirrored exactly what was written in the review article itself: “This biological evidence lends support to the possibility of a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.” That is not the same as saying there is evidence for causation. In science, it’s common to note that evidence of association can support the possibility of causation, but that’s very different from actually finding causal evidence. Misquoting him so deliberately and egregiously is misleading the public, creating confusion, and politicizing an active scientific debate. We deserve honest communication about evidence. Not whatever this administration is doing to bastardize the scientific process. - Dr. Jessica Knurick 🔥
2:59

The FDA commissioner went on national television and misquoted the Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, twisting careful scientific language into a false claim. The Dean’s actual public statement mirrored exactly what was written in the review article itself: “This biological evidence lends support to the possibility of a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.” That is not the same as saying there is evidence for causation. In science, it’s common to note that evidence of association can support the possibility of causation, but that’s very different from actually finding causal evidence. Misquoting him so deliberately and egregiously is misleading the public, creating confusion, and politicizing an active scientific debate. We deserve honest communication about evidence. Not whatever this administration is doing to bastardize the scientific process. - Dr. Jessica Knurick 🔥

Dr. Jonathan N. Stea

14,668 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Dr. James Orr’s eight-hour course: The Philosophy of Science, is available now. In this course, James Orr traces the development of science from ancient Greece through the Scientific Revolution to today. He examines how theological, institutional, and philosophical forces shaped science, while tackling key issues like the demarcation problem of science versus pseudoscience, Hume’s problem of induction, Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts, and the realism debate. The course also engages fascinating unresolved questions raised by cosmology, neuroscience, and quantum mechanics, ultimately arguing that scientific progress does not eliminate philosophical inquiry but rather deepens it, revealing new mysteries that demand philosophical analysis.
1:14

Dr. James Orr’s eight-hour course: The Philosophy of Science, is available now. In this course, James Orr traces the development of science from ancient Greece through the Scientific Revolution to today. He examines how theological, institutional, and philosophical forces shaped science, while tackling key issues like the demarcation problem of science versus pseudoscience, Hume’s problem of induction, Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts, and the realism debate. The course also engages fascinating unresolved questions raised by cosmology, neuroscience, and quantum mechanics, ultimately arguing that scientific progress does not eliminate philosophical inquiry but rather deepens it, revealing new mysteries that demand philosophical analysis.

Peterson Academy

24,163 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

HISTORIC: President Trump just signed an executive order to codify gold-standard science into U.S. government policy This is a massive win for the MAHA movement—and a crushing blow to Fauci-era mandates and the climate alarmist junk science that’s shaped national policy for decades. From the Oval Office, White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf read the order aloud: “This executive order is entitled ‘Restoring Gold-Standard Science.’” “One of the issues we’ve had in recent decades is that government policy has been made on the back of junk science—scientific studies and findings that included conflicts of interest or scientific misconduct.” The order does one thing clearly: put truth back at the center of policymaking. “The purpose of this executive order is to re-center policymaking around gold-standard science—scientific efforts that follow appropriate methods and don’t include conflicts of interest.” And it forces transparency across the board: “To ensure that when departments and agencies rely on scientific studies, to promulgate rules, to promulgate regulations, that the science that they’re relying on is highly reliable and available to the public.” The days of captured science are over.
1:08

HISTORIC: President Trump just signed an executive order to codify gold-standard science into U.S. government policy This is a massive win for the MAHA movement—and a crushing blow to Fauci-era mandates and the climate alarmist junk science that’s shaped national policy for decades. From the Oval Office, White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf read the order aloud: “This executive order is entitled ‘Restoring Gold-Standard Science.’” “One of the issues we’ve had in recent decades is that government policy has been made on the back of junk science—scientific studies and findings that included conflicts of interest or scientific misconduct.” The order does one thing clearly: put truth back at the center of policymaking. “The purpose of this executive order is to re-center policymaking around gold-standard science—scientific efforts that follow appropriate methods and don’t include conflicts of interest.” And it forces transparency across the board: “To ensure that when departments and agencies rely on scientific studies, to promulgate rules, to promulgate regulations, that the science that they’re relying on is highly reliable and available to the public.” The days of captured science are over.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

315,474 просмотров • 1 год назад

FDA’s Dangerous Betrayal of Science & Transparency: A Warning from Dr. Marty Makary "We just watched our government do the most dangerous thing a government could ever do." Dr. Marty Makary, renowned surgeon and public health expert, delivers a chilling indictment of the FDA’s reckless approval of a novel vaccine for young, healthy kids—despite internal dissent. Two top vaccine experts were fired for opposing its authorization. Then, the government mandated it, silenced doctors demanding data, and crushed scientific debate. This isn’t just failure—it’s a fundamental betrayal of science. Science thrives on transparency, skepticism, and evolving with evidence. Instead, we got censorship, coercion, and blind allegiance from the very institutions meant to protect public trust. "The purpose of science is open dialogue—to disagree, question, and adapt as data emerges." Yet today, doctors are punished for asking questions, data is hidden, and dissent is labeled "misinformation." This isn’t science—it’s authoritarianism in a lab coat. If we don’t demand accountability now, what will they force next?
0:46

FDA’s Dangerous Betrayal of Science & Transparency: A Warning from Dr. Marty Makary "We just watched our government do the most dangerous thing a government could ever do." Dr. Marty Makary, renowned surgeon and public health expert, delivers a chilling indictment of the FDA’s reckless approval of a novel vaccine for young, healthy kids—despite internal dissent. Two top vaccine experts were fired for opposing its authorization. Then, the government mandated it, silenced doctors demanding data, and crushed scientific debate. This isn’t just failure—it’s a fundamental betrayal of science. Science thrives on transparency, skepticism, and evolving with evidence. Instead, we got censorship, coercion, and blind allegiance from the very institutions meant to protect public trust. "The purpose of science is open dialogue—to disagree, question, and adapt as data emerges." Yet today, doctors are punished for asking questions, data is hidden, and dissent is labeled "misinformation." This isn’t science—it’s authoritarianism in a lab coat. If we don’t demand accountability now, what will they force next?

Camus

84,870 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

"Build your opinion on facts, data and knowledge.” Chemistry laureate Ben Feringa stresses the importance of evidence-based beliefs both inside and outside the scientific-community. Watch the full student roundtable here: #NobelPrize
2:23

"Build your opinion on facts, data and knowledge.” Chemistry laureate Ben Feringa stresses the importance of evidence-based beliefs both inside and outside the scientific-community. Watch the full student roundtable here: #NobelPrize

The Nobel Prize

16,869 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Knowledge is gained through rigorous study and understanding of the sciences through years of sitting at the feet of the Mashayikh and experts, not merely through reputation, tazkiyyah or accolades. —Shaykh Husām al-Humayda
1:16

Knowledge is gained through rigorous study and understanding of the sciences through years of sitting at the feet of the Mashayikh and experts, not merely through reputation, tazkiyyah or accolades. —Shaykh Husām al-Humayda

ابن محبوب

18,322 просмотров • 1 год назад

We are told that there is a scientific consensus on #globalwarming. 97% of scientists agree that #CO2 is the #climatechange culprit. #Climate scientist Judith Curry says that:- “There’s a very big difference between a scientific consensus and a consensus of scientists”
1:29

We are told that there is a scientific consensus on #globalwarming. 97% of scientists agree that #CO2 is the #climatechange culprit. #Climate scientist Judith Curry says that:- “There’s a very big difference between a scientific consensus and a consensus of scientists”

Crypto Rich

12,207 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s Surgeon General, exposes the troubling divide in how science is interpreted through a political lens. In a candid discussion, he highlights the stark polarization surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and masks, lamenting how ideology often trumps evidence. “I look at the data, and it’s just like, I don’t know how people can defend these positions,” Ladapo says, pointing to the inseparability of politics and science in public discourse. He specifically calls out the evidence on masks, noting that randomized clinical trials show “no benefit or maybe a tiny little benefit at best.” Yet, interpretations of this data vary wildly based on political leanings. “If you’re a researcher and lean to the right, you interpret it one way. If you lean to the left, you interpret another way,” he observes, underscoring the distortion of objective truth. This is a wake-up call: science should unite us in pursuit of facts, not divide us by ideology. When politics hijacks data, trust in institutions erodes, and public health suffers. Dr. Ladapo’s frustration is a plea for reason—can we return to evidence-based discourse, or are we too far gone?
0:58

Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s Surgeon General, exposes the troubling divide in how science is interpreted through a political lens. In a candid discussion, he highlights the stark polarization surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and masks, lamenting how ideology often trumps evidence. “I look at the data, and it’s just like, I don’t know how people can defend these positions,” Ladapo says, pointing to the inseparability of politics and science in public discourse. He specifically calls out the evidence on masks, noting that randomized clinical trials show “no benefit or maybe a tiny little benefit at best.” Yet, interpretations of this data vary wildly based on political leanings. “If you’re a researcher and lean to the right, you interpret it one way. If you lean to the left, you interpret another way,” he observes, underscoring the distortion of objective truth. This is a wake-up call: science should unite us in pursuit of facts, not divide us by ideology. When politics hijacks data, trust in institutions erodes, and public health suffers. Dr. Ladapo’s frustration is a plea for reason—can we return to evidence-based discourse, or are we too far gone?

Camus

11,420 просмотров • 1 год назад

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:
2:04

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:

Chris Martz

112,060 просмотров • 1 год назад

Ready for liftoff? Design, build, and solve missions on a virtual Mars built by the Museum of Science and grounded in real scientific data. "Mission: Mars" by the Museum of Science:
0:30

Ready for liftoff? Design, build, and solve missions on a virtual Mars built by the Museum of Science and grounded in real scientific data. "Mission: Mars" by the Museum of Science:

Roblox

334,492 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Stephen Meyer just exposed one of the dirtiest secrets of modern science. We’re constantly told: “Trust the science.” “The scientific consensus says…” But scientists are only exposing themselves when they say things like that, according to Meyer. “When scientists appeal to consensus, almost invariably, there isn’t one.” “You only appeal to consensus to shut down dissenting opinions.” “If there really is a consensus, you don’t need to appeal to one.” “Scientists never say: the consensus is that the formula for water is H2O.” “They only appeal to consensus when there’s actual debate, and they want to shut down a dissenting group of scientists who hold a different opinion.” “We’ve had this move made or applied against us numerous times.” “Proponents of intelligent design, or critics of Darwinian evolution or neo-Darwinian evolution will be told: this is settled science, and to challenge it is pseudoscience.” “When there’s an appeal to consensus… it’s usually a rhetorical ploy to silence an alternative perspective or a group of dissenting scientists.” “And this is actually ironically profoundly unscientific behavior.” “If there’s no serious dissent, you don’t need to appeal to consensus.” “When people appeal to settled science or consensus, it’s often a tell that there’s subterranean dissent that needs to be heard.” Stay tuned for my full interview with Stephen C. Meyer—coming this Saturday at 5PM ET!
3:38

Stephen Meyer just exposed one of the dirtiest secrets of modern science. We’re constantly told: “Trust the science.” “The scientific consensus says…” But scientists are only exposing themselves when they say things like that, according to Meyer. “When scientists appeal to consensus, almost invariably, there isn’t one.” “You only appeal to consensus to shut down dissenting opinions.” “If there really is a consensus, you don’t need to appeal to one.” “Scientists never say: the consensus is that the formula for water is H2O.” “They only appeal to consensus when there’s actual debate, and they want to shut down a dissenting group of scientists who hold a different opinion.” “We’ve had this move made or applied against us numerous times.” “Proponents of intelligent design, or critics of Darwinian evolution or neo-Darwinian evolution will be told: this is settled science, and to challenge it is pseudoscience.” “When there’s an appeal to consensus… it’s usually a rhetorical ploy to silence an alternative perspective or a group of dissenting scientists.” “And this is actually ironically profoundly unscientific behavior.” “If there’s no serious dissent, you don’t need to appeal to consensus.” “When people appeal to settled science or consensus, it’s often a tell that there’s subterranean dissent that needs to be heard.” Stay tuned for my full interview with Stephen C. Meyer—coming this Saturday at 5PM ET!

Jan Jekielek

11,823 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN's Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on "Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy." The UN wants to categorise any statement that "undermines" their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn't provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data. It’s alarming that those in charge of "information integrity" at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others. To claim someone is spreading "misinformation" requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim. We cannot allow "consensus" or UN-dictated "integrity" to replace real, verifiable science. I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.
7:27

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN's Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on "Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy." The UN wants to categorise any statement that "undermines" their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn't provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data. It’s alarming that those in charge of "information integrity" at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others. To claim someone is spreading "misinformation" requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim. We cannot allow "consensus" or UN-dictated "integrity" to replace real, verifiable science. I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

40,490 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

November 5, 2021 CDC Director Walensky said that masks reduce the risk of COVID infection by 80%. This was not supportable under any conceivable interpretation of the evidence. Yet the scientific and medical communities supported this and many other lies. They have never apologized or taken responsibility. Today they claim science is "under attack". But how can the scientific community tell the public to "believe in science", when the scientific community has itself shown that it does not believe in science?
0:37

November 5, 2021 CDC Director Walensky said that masks reduce the risk of COVID infection by 80%. This was not supportable under any conceivable interpretation of the evidence. Yet the scientific and medical communities supported this and many other lies. They have never apologized or taken responsibility. Today they claim science is "under attack". But how can the scientific community tell the public to "believe in science", when the scientific community has itself shown that it does not believe in science?

Kevin Bass

34,973 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

“This Is An Epochal Moment” Science writer and Lord peer Matt Ridley joins me to discuss the collapse of the post war consensus and the growing crisis of trust in global institutions. We discuss the failures of organisations like the WHO and the United Nations, the politicisation of science from Covid to climate, and why expertise is increasingly seen as serving power rather than truth. A challenging conversation about science, energy, and whether the systems that shaped the modern world are now losing public trust. Podcast out now on all platforms | Links in replies
1:10

“This Is An Epochal Moment” Science writer and Lord peer Matt Ridley joins me to discuss the collapse of the post war consensus and the growing crisis of trust in global institutions. We discuss the failures of organisations like the WHO and the United Nations, the politicisation of science from Covid to climate, and why expertise is increasingly seen as serving power rather than truth. A challenging conversation about science, energy, and whether the systems that shaped the modern world are now losing public trust. Podcast out now on all platforms | Links in replies

Winston Marshall

22,308 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Here is my conversation with Helen Joyce on 'The Poetry of Reality', tackling the influence of gender ideology on society, the ideological lens, and its implications for scientific facts. #PoetryOfReality #GenderIdeology #Science
52:05

Here is my conversation with Helen Joyce on 'The Poetry of Reality', tackling the influence of gender ideology on society, the ideological lens, and its implications for scientific facts. #PoetryOfReality #GenderIdeology #Science

Richard Dawkins

1,294,540 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Original English version of our interview, with french subtitles: Judith Curry, Judith Curry, was a well-known and respected climatologist until she denounced the scientific and ethical abuses of some of her colleagues. Quickly labeled a “climate denier”, she was forced to leave the academic world because of her positions. In her book “Climate Uncertainty and Risk", she pleads for a humanistic and rigorous climate science that respects the complexity of this “wicked” problem, takes the data for what it is, and puts human beings and their self-fulfilment back at the center of climate policy. She was professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology for 13 years. Today, she is president and co-owner of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), a private company specializing in weather and climate forecasting. 0:08 Introduction 3:02 "Climategate": Judith becomes critical of the consensus, and pays dearly for it 11:15 Similarities between climate "science" and Covid-19 "science" 12:51 "Scientific consensus" vs. "uncertainty monster" 20:36 Adaptation rather than control 24:47 What do the models tell us, and are they reliable? 32:19 CO2 saturation 34:16 What are the "real" climate risks for mankind? 54:51 Scientific consensus vs. "consensus of scientists" 57:58 The persecution of "skeptics" 1:05:12 Reading recommendations and hopes for the future
1:10:54

Original English version of our interview, with french subtitles: Judith Curry, Judith Curry, was a well-known and respected climatologist until she denounced the scientific and ethical abuses of some of her colleagues. Quickly labeled a “climate denier”, she was forced to leave the academic world because of her positions. In her book “Climate Uncertainty and Risk", she pleads for a humanistic and rigorous climate science that respects the complexity of this “wicked” problem, takes the data for what it is, and puts human beings and their self-fulfilment back at the center of climate policy. She was professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology for 13 years. Today, she is president and co-owner of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), a private company specializing in weather and climate forecasting. 0:08 Introduction 3:02 "Climategate": Judith becomes critical of the consensus, and pays dearly for it 11:15 Similarities between climate "science" and Covid-19 "science" 12:51 "Scientific consensus" vs. "uncertainty monster" 20:36 Adaptation rather than control 24:47 What do the models tell us, and are they reliable? 32:19 CO2 saturation 34:16 What are the "real" climate risks for mankind? 54:51 Scientific consensus vs. "consensus of scientists" 57:58 The persecution of "skeptics" 1:05:12 Reading recommendations and hopes for the future

Resilients.tv & Resilients.news

10,676 просмотров • 1 год назад

Transparency and rigorous science are non-negotiable at Nucleus. Kian Sadeghi sat down with Chief Science Officer lassefolkersen, and Director of Scientific Communications Dr. Barry Starr to provide a deeper look into our scientific approach.
38:28

Transparency and rigorous science are non-negotiable at Nucleus. Kian Sadeghi sat down with Chief Science Officer lassefolkersen, and Director of Scientific Communications Dr. Barry Starr to provide a deeper look into our scientific approach.

Nucleus Genomics

59,440 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 Tulsi Gabbard on the threats of Islam and the Muslim brotherhood: “The United States continues to face an evolving thread landscape with the geographically diverse set of Islamic terrorist actors seeking to propagate their ideology globally and harm Americans. Even as Al-Qaeda and Isis remain weaker today, the spread of Islamist ideology in some cases led by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim brotherhood.. poses a fundamental threat to freedom and the foundational principles that underpin western civilization. Islamist groups and individuals use this ideology for recruiting and financial support for terrorist groups and individuals around the world and to advanced their political objective of establishing an Islamist caliphate governed by Sharia Law.”
1:18

🚨 Tulsi Gabbard on the threats of Islam and the Muslim brotherhood: “The United States continues to face an evolving thread landscape with the geographically diverse set of Islamic terrorist actors seeking to propagate their ideology globally and harm Americans. Even as Al-Qaeda and Isis remain weaker today, the spread of Islamist ideology in some cases led by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim brotherhood.. poses a fundamental threat to freedom and the foundational principles that underpin western civilization. Islamist groups and individuals use this ideology for recruiting and financial support for terrorist groups and individuals around the world and to advanced their political objective of establishing an Islamist caliphate governed by Sharia Law.”

MJTruthUltra

21,976 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Jordan Peterson drops a mind-bender: Atheism kills science itself. "With the death of God, many other things die... one of the things that dies when God dies is science—and no one expected that." Why? Science isn't neutral—it's built on unprovable religious-like axioms: - Truth exists - Truth is understandable - Understanding truth is good - Good itself is real Those aren't scientific claims. They're metaphysical. Strip away the foundation of "good" (and God), and the whole pursuit collapses. Peterson: The gap between believing in good and believing in God? "Very narrow." In a world obsessed with "facts only," is he right that pure atheism undermines the very enterprise of science? What do you think—does science secretly rest on faith?
0:40

Jordan Peterson drops a mind-bender: Atheism kills science itself. "With the death of God, many other things die... one of the things that dies when God dies is science—and no one expected that." Why? Science isn't neutral—it's built on unprovable religious-like axioms: - Truth exists - Truth is understandable - Understanding truth is good - Good itself is real Those aren't scientific claims. They're metaphysical. Strip away the foundation of "good" (and God), and the whole pursuit collapses. Peterson: The gap between believing in good and believing in God? "Very narrow." In a world obsessed with "facts only," is he right that pure atheism undermines the very enterprise of science? What do you think—does science secretly rest on faith?

Camus

436,783 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад