The video script delves into set theory, particularly the Axiom of Choice, which allows for the construction of new sets from non-empty sets but can lead to paradoxes like the Banach-Tarski paradox. It discusses how set theory’s handling of multiplicities and the concept of ‘one’ versus ‘many’ is used to explore philosophical questions about existence and being. The script also touches on the implications of set theory’s axioms for understanding historical, social, and subjective events, suggesting a tension between mathematical and philosophical interpretations of these concepts.

Takeaways

• 📚 Set theory, with its foundational axioms, forms the basis of modern mathematics and is explored in the context of Zamelo Frankel’s work.
• 🤔 The Axiom of Choice is highlighted as a contentious principle that allows for the construction of new sets from existing ones but can lead to paradoxes.
• 🔄 The Banach-Tarski Paradox is mentioned as an example where a solid ball can be decomposed and reassembled into two identical balls, challenging our intuitive understanding.
• 🚫 The Axiom of Foundation is discussed, which prohibits self-membership in sets and is crucial for maintaining set theory’s consistency.
• 🧠 Badu’s philosophy is introduced, which uses set theory to explore the relationship between being and multiplicity, challenging traditional Greek thought.
• 📈 Set theory is not just a mathematical tool but is used by Badu to make profound philosophical statements about the nature of existence and the event.
• 🚧 The concept of individuation in set theory is explored, where the identity of a set is defined by its structural relations and not by its individual elements.
• 🛑 The prohibition of self-belonging in sets leads to the philosophical conclusion that there can be no overarching ‘one’ or totality, such as a grand cosmos or god.
• 🆕 The event, as introduced by Badu, is a concept that represents the introduction of new occurrences or subjective actions that cannot be fully accounted for by existing sets or structures.
• 🔮 The script suggests a philosophical stance that there are aspects of reality, particularly the event, that cannot be captured by ontology alone and require a deeper philosophical inquiry.

Q & A

• What is the Axiom of Choice in set theory?–The Axiom of Choice is a foundational principle in set theory that allows for the construction of a new set by selecting one element from each member of a collection of non-empty sets.
• What are some paradoxes that arise from accepting the Axiom of Choice?–Accepting the Axiom of Choice can lead to paradoxes such as the Banach-Tarski paradox, where a solid ball can be decomposed into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces that can be reassembled into two identical balls through rotations and translations.
• How does the Axiom of Choice relate to the concept of ‘oneness’ in set theory?–The Axiom of Choice is related to the concept of ‘oneness’ in set theory as it allows for the construction of a new set from multiple sets, suggesting that one can be derived from many, challenging the notion of a singular, unified whole.
• What is the significance of the statement that mathematics can express everything in set theory?–The statement implies that set theory serves as a foundational framework for all mathematical concepts, allowing for a unified language to describe and understand mathematical entities.
• What is the role of the Axiom of Foundation in set theory and its philosophical implications?–The Axiom of Foundation prohibits self-membership in sets, ensuring that every set has an element that is disjoint from it. Philosophically, this implies the inexistence of a grand superstructure or an overarching set, challenging the idea of a unified whole or totality.
• How does the concept of the ‘void set’ relate to the idea of being in set theory?–In set theory, the ‘void set’ or empty set is significant as it represents the absence of elements. Philosophically, it is associated with the idea of being as it orders everything without belonging to any set, suggesting that being is defined by its absence or negation.
• What does the prohibition of self-belonging in set theory signify in the context of Badiou’s philosophy?–In Badiou’s philosophy, the prohibition of self-belonging signifies the impossibility of a set containing itself, which is used to argue against the existence of a grand unifying principle or totality, such as a complete cosmos or total being.
• How does the concept of the event relate to the Axiom of Foundation in Badiou’s philosophy?–In Badiou’s philosophy, the event is tied to the Axiom of Foundation as it introduces an occurrence that cannot be fully accounted for by existing sets or structures. It represents a break from the established order, introducing new elements that were not previously included.
• What is the philosophical significance of the statement that ‘ontology can say nothing about the event’?–This statement suggests that traditional ontological frameworks are inadequate to explain or account for the emergence of new, unforeseen events. It implies a need for a philosophical approach that can accommodate the unpredictability and novelty of events.
• How does the script’s discussion of set theory relate to broader philosophical debates about existence and being?–The script connects set theory to philosophical debates by exploring how the axioms and principles of set theory can be used to discuss concepts like oneness, multiplicity, and the nature of existence. It suggests that set theory provides a framework for understanding the relationships between individual elements and the collective wholes they form.

Outlines

00:00

🧠 Delving into Set Theory and the Axiom of Choice

05:02

🌀 The Ontological Implications of Set Theory

10:03

🚫 The Prohibition of Self-Belonging and Philosophical Implications

Mindmap

Philosophical exploration of the eventOntology’s silence on the eventOntology’s inability to account for the eventAbandonment of problematic areasSecures the inexistence of a grand superstructureProhibits self-belongingRepresents the idea of ‘nothing’ in set theoryThe set to which nothing belongsOntological implications of set compositionSets defined by structural relations and propertiesSet theory as a tool to understand multiplicity from onenessOneness and multiplicityBased on a major paradoxNeed for new terminology to understand complex theoriesNew theories supersede current languageEscapes language and known existenceExample: Banach-Tarski ParadoxLeads to paradoxes if acceptedAllows selection from multiple setsAxioms as the basis for mathematical constructsAxioms as self-evident truthsBadiou’s argumentPhilosophy’s acceptance of the eventMathematics’ pragmatic approachAxiom of RegularityVoid SetSet IndividuationBadiou’s TheoryTheory and LanguageEvent as a truth caused by a hidden setAxiom of ChoiceFoundational AxiomsPhilosophical and Mathematical ContrastsSet Theory ConceptsPhilosophical ImplicationsZamelo Frankel Set TheoryExploration of Set Theory and Philosophy

Highlights

The Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is foundational to mathematics, and its axioms are sentences that are assumed to be true without further proof.

The axiom of choice is a controversial aspect of set theory, allowing the construction of a new set by selecting an element from each non-empty set, but leading to paradoxes.

The Banach-Tarski paradox illustrates how accepting the axiom of choice can lead to counterintuitive outcomes, like decomposing a solid object into pieces that can be reassembled into two objects.

Alain Badiou’s theory challenges traditional Greek philosophy by arguing that the universe is not a unified whole but a superstructure of multiplicities.

Badiou uses set theory to illustrate how multiple entities can emerge from oneness, but this introduces the paradox that the ‘one’ does not truly exist.

Badiou argues that the individuation of a set is defined not by its elements, but by what does not belong to it, echoing the philosophical idea that determination is negation.

Badiou ties his use of set theory to major concepts like history, nature, the state, and even God, proposing a connection between mathematics and philosophical thought.

The prohibition on self-belonging in set theory, exemplified by the Russell paradox, influences Badiou’s philosophical stance that there cannot be a ‘one’ or overarching set.

Badiou’s philosophy introduces the concept of the ‘event,’ which represents a moment where something new appears, and this is grounded in the void or what is outside of the current set.

According to Badiou, the axiom of regularity in set theory, which prohibits self-belonging, secures the inexistence of the ‘one,’ challenging traditional metaphysical ideas of a unified being.

Badiou’s event concept is tied to subjective action, suggesting that new occurrences or truths arise from outside the established system, reshaping our understanding of being.

The void set, to which nothing belongs, plays a crucial role in Badiou’s theory, representing the absence that structures the multiplicities of being.

The ontology of set theory, according to Badiou, is acceptable for understanding being, but it cannot fully grasp the concept of the event or the emergence of new truths.

Badiou contrasts ontology and philosophy, arguing that while set theory can pragmatically operate within its rules, it fails to account for the philosophical implications of the event.

Badiou’s philosophical approach seeks to reconcile the limitations of set theory with the larger existential and historical questions, positioning mathematics as a tool but not the final answer to understanding reality.

TLDRThis video script explores the complex legacy of Charles Darwin, challenging the myth that he was anti-racist. It discusses Darwin’s opposition to slavery and his family’s abolitionist ties, yet also highlights his views on racial hierarchy and the extermination of ‘less intellectual’ races. The script contrasts Darwin’s progressive ideas with contemporaneous anti-racist voices, urging a nuanced understanding of historical figures and their ideologies.

Takeaways

• 🧔 The debate revolves around whether Charles Darwin, known for his impressive beard and scientific contributions, was a racist.
• 📚 The myth that Darwin was not racist is challenged, suggesting his opposition to slavery and belief in racial equality might be overstated.
• 🗓 In May 2020, protests against racism led to a reevaluation of historical figures, including Darwin, in academic circles.
• 🔍 Darwin’s family ties to the abolitionist movement and his published works were initially seen as evidence against him being racist.
• 🌟 Anthropologist August Quintas criticized Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’ for justifying colonialism and genocide, influencing scientific conclusions.
• 📜 Darwin’s correspondence with others reveals his belief in the gradation of intellectual powers between races and the extermination of ‘less intellectual’ races.
• 🏛️ Darwin did not openly demonstrate bigotry but his views supported a racial hierarchy and the superiority of certain races.
• 🤔 The script questions the defense that Darwin was simply a man of his time, pointing out that there were contemporaries who opposed his racial views.
• 🔬 Darwin’s work is complex, with some parts being revolutionary and others toxic, and it’s important to distinguish between them.
• 🌐 The script concludes that Darwin likely held racist views, and it’s crucial to identify and discuss racism in historical figures honestly.

Q & A

• What was the context that led to Charles Darwin’s legacy being reviewed in 2020?–In May 2020, widespread protests against police violence and racism in the US impacted various sectors, including academia. Social movements like Black in the Ivory and Shutdown STEM pressured universities to address historical white supremacy, leading to a review of Darwin’s legacy.
• What was the initial perception of Darwin’s stance on race and racism?–Darwin was initially seen as not racist due to his family ties to the abolitionist movement and his opposition to polygenism, which was a scientific theory of the time that insisted blacks and whites had separate ancestors.
• How did Darwin’s views on slavery align with his family’s beliefs?–Darwin’s opposition to slavery was in line with his Wedgwood family’s beliefs. His family was part of the 18th-century British abolitionist movement, and Darwin himself expressed pride in Britain’s efforts to eradicate slavery.
• What did anthropologist August Quintas criticize in Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’?–Anthropologist August Quintas criticized Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’ for justifying empire, colonialism, and genocide, arguing that Darwin’s racism influenced his scientific conclusions.
• What is the myth surrounding Darwin’s views on race?–The myth is that Darwin was not a racist and that his opposition to slavery and belief in racial equality reflected his views. This myth has been challenged by recent scholarship, suggesting that Darwin held more complex and sometimes racist views.
• What did Darwin’s correspondence with Charles Lyell reveal about his views on race?–Darwin’s correspondence with Charles Lyell revealed that he believed in gradations of intellectual powers between different races, implying a significant but not insurmountable gap between races, and that less intellectual races were being exterminated as part of natural selection.
• How did Darwin’s views on polygenism differ from his contemporaries?–While Darwin disagreed with the idea that different human races were distinct species, he did not challenge the hierarchical view of races presented by others. He remarked on the extermination of lower races by higher civilized races as part of natural selection.
• What evidence is there in Darwin’s published works that suggests he supported racial hierarchy?–In ‘The Descent of Man,’ Darwin emphasized racial competition and suggested that white groups always won when in contact with Aboriginal populations. He also leaned on research showing supposed correlations between brain size and intelligence across races, placing whites at the top.
• What were the two defenses scholars used to argue that Darwin was not racist?–Scholars defended Darwin by suggesting that acknowledging his support for wrong or malicious ideas would give victory to biblical creationists, and by arguing that he was simply a man of his time, despite also being considered ahead of his time.
• How does the author of the article suggest we should view Darwin’s legacy?–The author suggests that we should view Darwin as a whole person, acknowledging both the toxic ideas and the revolutionary contributions in his work. This approach humanizes Darwin and encourages a more nuanced discussion of his legacy.

Outlines

00:00

🧔 Debunking the Myth of Charles Darwin’s Anti-Racism

05:00

🌍 Darwin’s Personal Experiences and Views on Slavery

10:02

📜 Darwin’s Scientific and Private Views on Race

15:03

🔍 Reevaluating Darwin’s Legacy on Race

Mindmap

Importance of recognizing anti-racist voices of the timeNeed to distinguish between the myth and the real personPortrayed as both ahead of and a product of his timeLanguage and concepts used to justify racist assumptionsArgued his work contributed to anti-racist perspectivesClaimed Darwin was ahead of his timeAccused Darwin of justifying colonialism and genocideDiscussed racial hierarchies and natural selectionSupport for the extermination of ‘less intellectual’ racesBelief in gradation of intellectual powersAgainst the idea of distinct species for racesExpressed admiration for enslaved peopleWitnessed brutality of slaveryProud of Britain’s abolition of slaveryInfluenced by Wedgewood familyCriticism of polygenismFamily ties to abolitionismAcademia’s response to racial legaciesProtests against police violence and racismCall for Holistic ViewContradictions in Darwin’s ImageInfluence on Scientific RacismDefense by ScholarsCriticism by August QuinasCorrespondence with Charles LyellHierarchical View of RacesSupport for Shared AncestryExperiences in BrazilAnti-slavery StanceDarwin’s Legacy Review2020 US ProtestsDarwin’s Complex LegacyCriticism and DefenseScientific Views and RacismDarwin’s Personal ViewsContext of DebateDebate on Charles Darwin’s Racist Views

Keywords

💡Racism

Racism refers to the belief that one race is superior to others and often results in discrimination and prejudiced actions. In the video, the discussion centers on whether Charles Darwin held racist views, despite his opposition to slavery. The script mentions Darwin’s complex views on race, including his belief in the extermination of ‘less intellectual races’ and his correspondence that reflects a hierarchical view of races.

💡Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin was a British naturalist and the father of evolutionary science, best known for his theory of evolution by natural selection. The video script debates Darwin’s stance on race, exploring his family’s abolitionist history and his own scientific writings, which are scrutinized for potential racist undertones.

💡Polygenism

Polygenism is the now-discredited belief that different races of humans are separate species. The script discusses Darwin’s opposition to polygenism, which was a common scientific theory of his time that justified racial hierarchies and slavery. Darwin’s views on race and his rejection of polygenism are central to the video’s exploration of his racial beliefs.

💡Natural Selection

Natural selection is the process by which organisms with traits better suited to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The video examines how Darwin’s concept of natural selection was used to justify racial hierarchies and the idea of the ‘extermination’ of less intellectual races, which is a controversial application of his theory.

💡Abolitionist Movement

The Abolitionist Movement was a social movement that sought to end the institution of slavery. The script mentions Darwin’s family ties to the movement, particularly through the Wedgwood family, who were known for their anti-slavery stance. This context is used to contrast with the debate over Darwin’s own views on race and racism.

💡Racial Hierarchy

Racial hierarchy is a system that ranks different racial groups as superior or inferior based on perceived characteristics or abilities. The video discusses how Darwin’s writings have been interpreted as supporting a racial hierarchy, with his comments on the intellectual capacities of different races and the ‘extermination’ of less advanced races.

💡The Descent of Man

The Descent of Man is a book by Charles Darwin, in which he applies the principles of evolution to human beings. The video script critically analyzes this work, pointing out passages that have been interpreted as promoting racial hierarchy and justifying racial competition, which are contentious aspects of Darwin’s legacy.

💡Scientific Racism

Scientific racism is the use of scientific theories or methods to support or justify racism. The video argues that Darwin’s language and concepts were later adopted to justify racist assumptions, suggesting that his work inadvertently contributed to the development of scientific racism.

💡Victorian Biology

Victorian Biology refers to the biological sciences as they were understood and practiced during the Victorian era. The script contrasts Darwin’s views with those of his contemporaries, noting that while he was progressive in some respects, such as opposing slavery, he also held views that were typical of his time, including certain racist beliefs.

💡White Supremacy

White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to other races and should therefore dominate society. The video discusses Darwin’s private letters, which reveal a belief in the natural extinction of non-white races, suggesting a belief in white supremacy that is at odds with his public stance against slavery.

💡Anthropologist

An anthropologist is a scientist who studies human societies and cultures and their development. The video mentions anthropologists like August Quintas, who criticized Darwin’s work for justifying colonialism and genocide, highlighting the role of scholars in re-evaluating historical figures and their impact on racial attitudes.

Highlights

Debate on whether Charles Darwin was a racist, challenging the myth that he was not.

Context established with the 2020 US protests against racism and academia’s response.

Darwin’s family ties to the abolitionist movement and his opposition to polygenism initially seen as anti-racist.

Anthropologist August Quintas criticizes Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’ for justifying colonialism and genocide.

Darwin’s views on race and his belief in the gradation of intellectual powers between races.

Darwin’s correspondence with Charles Lyell revealing his views on the extermination of less intellectual races.

Darwin’s published works arguing for the shared ancestry of all humans, a central aspect of his scientific contribution.

Darwin’s firsthand experience of slavery in Brazil in 1833 and his subsequent support for abolition.

Darwin’s admiration for the Brazilian black population, contrasting with his views on race hierarchy.

Darwin’s private letters reveal a belief in white supremacy and the natural extinction of non-white races.

List of passages from ‘The Descent of Man’ supporting racial hierarchy and competition.

Darwin’s views on the inferiorization of non-white races and the destruction of Aboriginal populations.

Scholarly defenses of Darwin as either a man ahead of his time or simply a man of his time.

The argument that Darwin’s work should be seen in its entirety, including toxic ideas and revolutionary ideas.

The impact of Darwin’s language and ideas on scientific racism and racial equality debates.

The importance of distinguishing between the mythologized and real person of Darwin, acknowledging his false ideas.

Call to action for a more nuanced discussion of Darwin’s work and the need to identify and challenge racism.

Summary

TLDR This video explores the concept of scientific knowledge in the context of modern collaborative research. It discusses how the scientific method is often oversimplified and highlights the increasing necessity of teamwork in science, as evidenced by the rise in co-authorship and massive projects like the Human Genome Project. The video challenges the traditional view of knowledge as an individual’s possession, arguing that in many fields, knowledge is now a collective endeavor. It introduces the idea that scientific knowledge can be collective, produced by groups due to practical and cognitive necessities, and functions similarly to individual knowledge in society. The video concludes by suggesting that the notion of the solitary scientific genius is outdated, emphasizing the importance of group efforts in advancing scientific understanding.

Takeaways

• 🔬 The scientific method is an ongoing process involving observation, questioning, hypothesis formulation, prediction, data gathering, and theory development.
• 🤔 The structure of scientific knowledge has evolved to be massively collaborative, affecting how we perceive individual contributions to knowledge.
• 📈 There’s a significant increase in co-authorship in scientific publications, indicating a shift towards collaborative research efforts.
• 🧬 Examples like the Human Genome Project illustrate the necessity of teamwork in scientific research due to the complexity and scale of modern scientific problems.
• 🧠 The concept of ‘knowledge’ in science is being redefined, with a focus on collective knowledge rather than individual knowledge, especially in large-scale collaborative projects.
• 📚 The traditional definition of knowledge as ‘warranted true belief’ is being challenged by the collaborative nature of scientific research.
• 🔍 Scientific knowledge is considered ‘high-grade’ knowledge due to the demanding epistemic standards it meets, even though it’s not always certain.
• 🤝 The reliability of scientific knowledge is now seen as a collective effort, where individual scientists contribute to a larger body of knowledge that they may not fully grasp.
• 🌐 The functional roles of knowledge, such as informing decisions and supporting actions, are fulfilled by collective scientific knowledge in a similar way to how individual knowledge functions for a person.
• 🚀 The idea of the solitary scientific genius is outdated; contemporary science is primarily a collaborative effort, leading to the development of collective knowledge.

Q & A

• What is the main focus of the discussion in the provided transcript?-The main focus is on the concept of scientific knowledge, particularly how it is formed and the role of collaboration in contemporary scientific research.
• How does the scientific method process typically work as described in the transcript?-The scientific method process involves making observations, formulating questions, creating hypotheses, developing testable predictions, gathering data, and refining or rejecting hypotheses, leading to the development of a general theory.
• What does the article by Joran der Ritter discuss regarding scientific knowledge?-The article discusses that scientific knowledge is often collaborative and that the structure of knowledge has changed due to massive collaboration, potentially meaning that individuals no longer hold knowledge alone.
• How has the trend of co-authorship in scientific articles changed from 1996 to 2015 according to the transcript?-The average number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 4.4, and the percentage of single-author articles decreased to 12%.
• What is an example of a scientific paper with an unusually high number of authors mentioned in the transcript?-A physics paper from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN had a total of 5,154 authors.
• Why is collaboration often necessary in scientific research according to the transcript?–Collaboration is necessary due to the complexity and breadth of knowledge required, which often exceeds the capabilities of a single individual.
• What is the classical idea of knowledge as mentioned in the transcript?–The classical idea of knowledge is that it is a warranted true belief, meaning it is not just true by luck but is reliably produced based on good grounds.
• What is the term used to describe the highest grade of knowledge in the transcript?–The term used is ‘highgrade knowledge,’ which refers to knowledge that satisfies demanding epistemic standards.
• How does the transcript suggest that scientific knowledge is justified?–Scientific knowledge is justified through solid evidence, explicit reasons, data, observations, analysis, and inferences.
• What is the conclusion about the role of individual scientists in contemporary science as per the transcript?–The conclusion is that the myth of the lone genius has to be dismissed, as scientific knowledge is primarily developed and processed by groups rather than individuals.
• What are the three senses in which scientific knowledge can be considered collective according to the transcript?–The three senses are: 1) Collectively produced knowledge, 2) Knowledge warranted by collectives, and 3) Knowledge that functions for society in the same way as individual knowledge functions for individuals.

Mindmap

Supporting Actions and AssertionsInforming Practical and Theoretical DecisionsInterdisciplinary ResearchHigh-grade WarrantPractical NecessityCognitive NecessityCERN’s Large Hadron Collider PaperNumber of Papers with Over 100 AuthorsMulti-author Publications as DefaultSingle Author Articles DecreaseAverage Number of Authors (1996-2015)Social SciencesSTEM DisciplinesRole in Democratic SocietiesImplications for Individual ResponsibilityGroups as Primary AgentsOutdated Concept in Modern ScienceFunctional Roles in SocietyWarranted by CollectivesProduced by GroupsReliability vs. CertaintyHigh-grade KnowledgeWarranted True BeliefClassical Idea of KnowledgeStatistical Knowledge and Practical ApplicationExample: Development of New DrugsComplexity of Modern ScienceLarge-scale CollaborationsIncrease in Co-authorshipCollaborative NatureTheory DevelopmentHypothesis Refinement or RejectionData GatheringTestable PredictionsHypothesis DevelopmentQuestion FormulationObservationThe Myth of the Lone GeniusCollective KnowledgeKnowledge WarrantNecessity of CollaborationContemporary Scientific ResearchScientific MethodScientific Knowledge and Collaboration

Keywords

💡Scientific Method

The scientific method refers to a systematic approach to understanding the natural world through observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, and theory development. In the video, the scientific method is initially presented as a linear process but is later critiqued for oversimplifying the complex, collaborative nature of modern scientific research.

💡Collaborative Research

Collaborative research is the process of multiple scientists or teams working together to conduct scientific investigations. The video emphasizes that contemporary scientific research, particularly in STEM fields and social sciences, is massively collaborative, which changes the structure of knowledge production and challenges the traditional view of individual scientific genius.

💡Co-authorship

Co-authorship is the practice of multiple authors contributing to and being credited for a research paper. The video cites an increase in the average number of authors per paper from 3.2 to 4.4 between 1996 and 2015, indicating a significant trend towards collaboration in scientific publishing.

💡Knowledge

In the context of the video, knowledge is discussed as a complex concept, especially in the realm of scientific research. It questions whether knowledge is still something that individuals possess in the era of massive collaboration, suggesting a shift towards collective knowledge in science.

💡Warranted True Belief

Warranted true belief is a concept in epistemology that suggests knowledge is a belief that is not only true but also supported by good reasons or evidence. The video uses this concept to discuss the reliability and justification of scientific knowledge, contrasting it with mere true beliefs that lack such support.

💡High-grade Knowledge

High-grade knowledge is described in the video as knowledge that meets demanding epistemic standards. It is used to characterize scientific knowledge as being more reliable and rigorously supported by evidence compared to other forms of knowledge or belief.

💡Collective Knowledge

Collective knowledge is a central theme of the video, referring to knowledge that is produced, warranted, and functions within a group or community. It challenges the traditional view of knowledge as an individual’s mental state, suggesting that in science, knowledge is often a collective achievement.

💡Cognitive Necessity

Cognitive necessity is mentioned in relation to the practical and intellectual demands that require collaboration for scientific research. The video argues that the complexity of modern scientific problems often exceeds individual cognitive capacities, necessitating collective efforts.

💡Interdisciplinary Research

Interdisciplinary research is research that involves multiple fields of study. The video gives an example of political scientists and computer scientists working together to predict election outcomes, illustrating how different areas of expertise contribute to a collective understanding.

💡Testimonial Knowledge

Testimonial knowledge is the knowledge gained from trusting the testimony of others. The video contrasts this with the high-grade scientific knowledge that is produced and understood within a collective, suggesting that individuals outside the scientific community may only gain a superficial understanding of scientific findings.

💡Functional Roles of Knowledge

The functional roles of knowledge refer to the various purposes and applications that knowledge serves. In the video, it is argued that scientific knowledge, like individual knowledge, has functional roles such as guiding actions, informing decisions, and supporting further inquiry, but on a collective level.

Highlights

Scientific knowledge is increasingly collaborative, challenging the traditional view of individual discovery.

The number of authors per scientific paper has risen significantly from 1996 to 2015.

In 2011, over 6,000 scientific papers had more than 100 authors, indicating massive collaboration.

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN published a paper with an unprecedented 5,154 authors.

Collaboration is necessary for complex scientific tasks that require diverse expertise.

The concept of ‘knowledge’ is redefined in the context of collaborative science.

The classical definition of knowledge as ‘warranted true belief’ is examined in the context of collaborative research.

High-grade knowledge in science is characterized by demanding epistemic standards.

It’s estimated that half of the current scientific knowledge may not be true, raising questions about reliability.

Multi-author publications have become the default, reflecting a shift in how scientific knowledge is produced.

The Human Genome Project exemplifies the practical and cognitive necessity of teamwork in science.

Collective knowledge in science is produced, warranted, and has functional roles, similar to individual knowledge.

The myth of the lone genius in science is challenged, as scientific knowledge is primarily developed by groups.

The transition to collective scientific knowledge has implications for individual responsibility and societal decision-making.

The article by Joran der Ritter provides a comprehensive view on the evolution of scientific knowledge in a collaborative context.

Transcripts

Here’s the structured content in a clear and easy-to-read table format:

Point	Description
The Liar’s Paradox of Ethics	Kant’s exploration reveals that lying threatens the foundation of an ethical society, implying that the famous minority in the basement cannot be protected. Many philosophers dismiss Kant’s system based on this example without fully considering its systematic implications.
Complexity of Moral Actions	Actions may defy simple categorization as morally good or evil. Some actions might be both good and evil, similar to paraconsistencies in dialetheism.
Moral Decision-Making	The idea that individuals should act according to their conscience in difficult situations can seem too easy. If the moral system only applies to simple cases, it undermines its purpose. Instead, contradictions in the system need further qualification.
Moral Responsibility	Should someone who saves more lives be absolved of consequences? For example, a fighter pilot who shoots down a plane to save a stadium versus a doctor who kills people in drug research. Ethics remains complex and requires careful consideration of these dilemmas.
Kant’s Discovery	Kant highlights the dilemma of the “beautiful soul” who aims for moral purity but faces difficulties. True ethical judgment involves recognizing complexity and uncertainty, and requires a collective effort towards a society of trust rather than deception.

Feel free to ask more questions or request further clarifications!

The liar’s paradox of Ethics…

Kant discovered interestingly enough that lying threatens the very foundation of an ethical society, therefore the famous minority in the basement cannot be protected. Many philosophers have taken this example as an immediate strike against the Kantian system without taking the systematic position and implications of the example into account, dismissing the whole Kantian system.

We can say that there are actions that are neither morally good or evil, while they are still relevant moral actions, we could also say they are both morally good and evil, similar to the paraconsistencies of dialetheism.

Now, is this a ‘prison free card’ then to do everything someone wants? Many philosophers have argued afterall that when comes hard on hard, people should decide according to their consciousness falling back into a certain kind of moral realism of feelings. But this seems to be too easy that whenever something becomes difficult, we just give up the system. If the moral system is just for the easy cases then what do we need the system for? Instead contradiction belongs to the system and requires further qualification.

Now, should somebody who saves the greater amount of people automatically be freed from the consequences of his actions. A fighter pilot shoots down a captured plane that threatens to fly into a stadium, seems to more intuitive than a doctor killing 70 people by researching for a new drug that could save millions. We should not make it easy for ourselves to just believe that there are commons sense answers to the first. Ethics remains a complicated field by dealing with these moral dilemmas and developing them.

Now, what has Kant discovered then? He has discovered the dilemma of the beautiful soul that in its process of action, exposes itself to become easy. This is when the heart of the hard judge has to break and acknowledge that we all share the same dilemma and hope that in a series of judges we can correct past mistakes and get closer to a society that has given up on lying; indeed, a society of trust.

The Ethics paradox, commonly known as the liar’s paradox, poses a significant challenge. Kant’s exploration into the implications of lying reveals a fundamental threat to the ethical fabric of society, leaving no room for exceptions, even for the minority in the basement. However, many philosophers hastily dismiss Kant’s system based solely on this example without fully considering its systematic position and implications.

Furthermore, there exist actions that defy simple categorization as either morally good or evil, akin to the paraconsistencies of dialetheism. This complexity raises questions about whether individuals can act according to their conscience in morally ambiguous situations, leading some to argue for a moral realism rooted in emotions. However, surrendering the moral system when faced with difficulty undermines its purpose; instead, contradictions within the system demand further examination and qualification.

Considerations of moral responsibility add further complexity. Should someone who saves more people be absolved of the consequences of their actions? The intuitive response may favor the fighter pilot who shoots down a captured plane to save a stadium, but what about a doctor who sacrifices lives in pursuit of a potentially life-saving drug? These moral dilemmas underscore the intricate nature of ethical decision-making and its ongoing development.

In essence, Kant’s discovery highlights the dilemma faced by the “beautiful soul” striving for moral purity. It necessitates a recognition that ethical judgment is often fraught with complexity and uncertainty. Ultimately, addressing these dilemmas requires collective effort and a commitment to building a society founded on trust rather than deception.

English	Chinese	Pinyin
Tools LingQ – 5000 Words as of August 2nd (How much can I increase it in one month?) – A few years later, I reached about 7000 words, but my communicative skills didn’t improve. Bilibili – Still watching too little; needs improvement. – Task: Build a collection of Chinese videos.	工具 (Gōngjù) LingQ – 截至8月2日有5000个词汇（一个月内能增加多少？） – 几年后，我达到了大约7000个词汇，但我的交流能力没有提高。 Bilibili – 仍然看得太少，需要改进。 – 任务：建立中文视频收藏。	Gōngjù LingQ – Jiézhì 8 yuè 2 rì yǒu 5000 gè cíhuì (yīgè yuè nèi néng zēngjiā duōshǎo?) – Jǐ nián hòu, wǒ dádàole dàyuē 7000 gè cíhuì, dàn wǒ de jiāoliú nénglì méiyǒu tígāo. Bilibili – Réngrán kàn dé tài shǎo, xūyào gǎijìn. – Rènwù: Jiànlì zhōngwén shìpín shōucáng.

Learning Chinese (Self-Immersive) – Experience: My current approach isn’t working due to inconsistency. – Plan: Improve consistency and engagement. – Goal: Make significant progress soon.

学习中文（自我沉浸） (Xuéxí Zhōngwén (Zìwǒ Chénjìn)) – 经验：由于不一致，我目前的方法不起作用。 – 计划：提高一致性和参与度。 – 目标：尽快取得显著进展。

Xuéxí Zhōngwén (Zìwǒ Chénjìn) – Jīngyàn: Yóuyú bù yīzhì, wǒ mùqián de fāngfǎ bù qǐ zuòyòng. – Jìhuà: Tígāo yīzhìxìng hé cānyù dù. – Mùbiāo: Jǐnkuài qǔdé xiǎnzhù jìnzhǎn.

Here is the table for “Motivation 动机 (Dòngjī)”:

English	Chinese	Pinyin
Motivation (Dòngjī) – I severely lack motivation. – I need to ask some people to join. – I need to make videos. – Today I will make a video about El Cactus and ask people to help me.	动机 (Dòngjī) – 严重缺乏动力。 – 我需要请一些人加入。 – 我需要制作视频。 – 今天我将制作一个关于 El Cactus 的视频，并请人们帮助我。	Dòngjī – Yánzhòng quēfá dònglì. – Wǒ xūyào qǐng yīxiē rén jiārù. – Wǒ xūyào zhìzuò shìpín. – Jīntiān wǒ jiāng zhìzuò yīgè guānyú El Cactus de shìpín, bìng qǐng rénmen bāngzhù wǒ.

Section	Chinese	Pinyin	English
My self-immersion approach 自我沉浸 (Zìwǒ chénjìn)
Experience	到目前为止，我的方法不起作用，因为我不一致。希望它会很快好起来。	Dào mùqián wéizhǐ, wǒ de fāngfǎ bù qǐ zuòyòng, yīnwèi wǒ bùyīzhì. Xīwàng tā huì hěn kuài hǎo qǐlái.	So far my approach does not work because I am not consistent. Hopefully, it will get better soon.
New Approach 2024, August
List	我会写下我学到的内容的问题，并使用 ChatGPT	Wǒ huì xiě xià wǒ xuédào de nèiróng de wèntí, bìng shǐyòng ChatGPT	I will write down questions about what I learned and use ChatGPT.
Audience	听众	Tīngzhòng	Audience
Question	在中国，面子文化有多重要？	Zài Zhōngguó, miànzi wénhuà yǒu duō zhòngyào?	How important is face culture in China?
“死要面子受罪”	死要面子受罪	Sǐ yào miànzi shòuzuì	“Suffering due to stubbornly preserving one’s dignity” or “Suffering from keeping up appearances.”
Explanation	死 (sǐ): Literal meaning “death,” but emphasizes stubbornness or extreme persistence. 要面子 (yào miànzi): Refers to insisting on maintaining “face” or dignity, often to the point of pride. 受罪 (shòuzuì): Means “to suffer” or “to endure hardship.”	sǐ: Literal meaning “death,” but emphasizes stubbornness or extreme persistence. yào miànzi: Refers to insisting on maintaining “face” or dignity, often to the point of pride. shòuzuì: Means “to suffer” or “to endure hardship.”	sǐ: Literal meaning “death,” but emphasizes stubbornness or extreme persistence. yào miànzi: Refers to insisting on maintaining “face” or dignity, often to the point of pride. shòuzuì: Means “to suffer” or “to endure hardship.”

English	Chinese	Pinyin
Person A: Do you know how important “face” is in Chinese culture?	Person A: 你知道“面子”在中国文化里有多重要吗？	Person A: Nǐ zhīdào “miànzi” zài Zhōngguó wénhuà lǐ yǒu duō zhòngyào ma?
Person B: I’ve heard about it, but I’m not very familiar.	Person B: 听说过，但不太了解。	Person B: Tīng shuōguò, dàn bù tài liǎojiě.
Person A: “Face” refers to a person’s social reputation and dignity.	Person A: “面子”指的是一个人的社会声誉和尊严。	Person A: “Miànzi” zhǐ de shì yīge rén de shèhuì shēngyù hé zūnyán.
Person B: So what does “丢面子” mean?	Person B: 那“丢面子”是什么意思呢？	Person B: Nà “diū miànzi” shì shénme yìsi ne?
Person A: “丢面子” means “losing face,” which implies losing others’ respect.	Person A: “丢面子”就是“失去面子”，意味着失去别人的尊重。	Person A: “Diū miànzi” jiùshì “shīqù miànzi,” yìwèizhe shīqù biérén de zūnzhòng.
Person B: I see, so how can one avoid “losing face”?	Person B: 原来如此，那怎样才能避免“丢面子”呢？	Person B: Yuánlái rúcǐ, nà zěnyàng cáinéng bìmiǎn “diū miànzi” ne?
Person A: You need to respect others and be cautious with your words and actions to avoid “losing face.”	Person A: 要尊重别人，说话和做事要谨慎，这样可以避免“丢面子”。	Person A: Yào zūnzhòng biérén, shuōhuà hé zuòshì yào jǐnshèn, zhèyàng kěyǐ bìmiǎn “diū miànzi.”
Person B: And what does “给面子” mean?	Person B: 那“给面子”又是什么呢？	Person B: Nà “gěi miànzi” yòu shì shénme ne?
Person A: “给面子” means giving respect to others and maintaining their reputation.	Person A: “给面子”是指给别人尊重，维护他们的声誉。	Person A: “Gěi miànzi” shì zhǐ gěi biérén zūnzhòng, wéihù tāmen de shēngyù.
Person B: Is “face” also important in business?	Person B: 在生意中，“面子”也很重要吗？	Person B: Zài shēngyì zhōng, “miànzi” yě hěn zhòngyào ma?
Person A: Yes, in China, business often relies on mutual respect and maintaining “face.”	Person A: 是的，在中国，生意往往依赖于互相尊重和维护“面子”。	Person A: Shì de, zài Zhōngguó, shēngyì wǎngwǎng yīlài yú hùxiāng zūnzhòng hé wéihù “miànzi.”
Person B: I understand now; “face” is indeed crucial in Chinese culture.	Person B: 我明白了，在中国文化中，“面子”确实很关键。	Person B: Wǒ míngbáile, zài Zhōngguó wénhuà zhōng, “miànzi” quèshí hěn guānjiàn.
Person A: Do you know what pancreatitis is?	Person A: 你知道什么是胰腺炎吗？	Person A: Nǐ zhīdào shénme shì yíxiàn yán ma?
Person B: I’ve heard about it, but I’m not very familiar.	Person B: 我听说过，但不太了解。	Person B: Wǒ tīng shuōguò, dàn bù tài liǎojiě.
Person A: Pancreatitis is inflammation of the pancreas, which can be caused by high levels of triglycerides.	Person A: 胰腺炎是胰腺发炎，可能由高水平的甘油三酯引起。	Person A: Yíxiàn yán shì yíxiàn fāyán, kěnéng yóu gāo shuǐpíng de gānyóu sāngzhī yǐnqǐ.
Person B: What are triglycerides?	Person B: 那什么是甘油三酯呢？	Person B: Nà shénme shì gānyóu sāngzhī ne?
Person A: Triglycerides are a type of fat, and the pancreas breaks them down by secreting lipase.	Person A: 甘油三酯是脂肪的一种，胰腺通过分泌脂肪酶来分解它们。	Person A: Gānyóu sāngzhī shì zhīfáng de yīzhǒng, yíxiàn tōngguò fēnmì zhīfáng méi lái fēnjiě tāmen.
Person B: Is lipase used to break down fats?	Person B: 脂肪酶是用来分解脂肪的吗？	Person B: Zhīfáng méi shì yòng lái fēnjiě zhīfáng de ma?
Person A: Yes, and protease is used to break down proteins.	Person A: 是的，还有蛋白酶用来分解蛋白质。	Person A: Shì de, hái yǒu dànbái méi yòng lái fēnjiě dànbáizhì.
Person B: What symptoms occur if the pancreas doesn’t function well?	Person B: 如果胰腺功能不好，会有什么症状？	Person B: Rúguǒ yíxiàn gōngnéng bù hǎo, huì yǒu shénme zhèngzhuàng?
Person A: You might experience steatorrhea, also known as “fat stool,” and diarrhea.	Person A: 会出现脂肪泻，也就是“脂肪便”，以及腹泻。	Person A: Huì chūxiàn zhīfáng xiè, yě jiùshì “zhīfáng biàn,” yǐjí fùxiè.
Person B: How can we determine if it’s a pancreatic issue?	Person B: 那怎么确定是胰腺的问题呢？	Person B: Nà zěnme quèdìng shì yíxiàn de wèntí ne?
Person A: A blood test can be done to check glucose levels and markers for the pancreas.	Person A: 可以通过血液测试来检测葡萄糖水平和胰腺的标志物。	Person A: Kěyǐ tōngguò xuèyè cèshì lái jiǎncè pútáotáng shuǐpíng hé yíxiàn de biāozhì wù.

She cites Nietzsche:

• Conscience is a force found now employed by state organizers.
• Humans become the material on which this force acts.
• This self-imposed suffering can lead to strange new forms of beauty and affirmation.

One should guard against thinking lightly of [the bad conscience] merely on account of its initial painfulness and ugliness. For fundamentally it is the same active force that is at work on a grander scale in those artists of violence and organizers who build states . . . only here the material upon which the form-giving and ravishing nature of this force vents itself is man himself, his whole ancient animal self . . . This secret self-ravishment, this artists’ cruelty, this delight in imposing a form upon oneself as a hard, recalcitrant, suffering material and of burning in a will… as the womb of all ideal and imaginative phenomena, also brought to light an abundance of strange new beauty and affirmation. – Nietzsche

Nietzsche according to Korsgaard 1996, 1

Some Quotes:

“It is the most striking fact about human life that we have values” (Korsgaard 1996, 1).

“Human life is defined by our values, urging us to imagine a better world and ourselves within it. Yet, where do these ideals come from? They surpass our experiences, compelling us to strive for improvement. It’s intriguing that we’re drawn to visions of a different reality, urging us to make it a reality” (see Korsgaard 1996, 1).

“In “Phaedo,” the author questions why we perceive two sticks as “not exactly equal.” Instead of merely observing them side by side, we attribute to them an intention to achieve a higher pattern of equality. This implies that the concept of equality exists within our minds as a pattern or form, echoing Plato’s theory of Forms” (Korsgaard 1996, 2):

“We see them as if they had in mind a pattern that they were trying to emulate, a pattern of equality that was calling out to them and saying ‘be like me!’ […] we must have known them in another world” (Korsgaard 1996, 2)

A Revolution as: ” Plato and Aristotle came to believe that value was more real than
experienced fact, indeed that the real world is, in a way, value itself” (Korsgaard 1996, 2)

My friend took a pause from doing nothing. Why is it so difficult to get people on board to do something together?

“What are double standards? Is engaging in public debate worthwhile, or should we cultivate discussion environments that encourage alignment with truth? What exactly constitutes truth? Is it motivated by the desire to be right? How can societal norms and truth come into harmony? Can relying solely on coherent rationality provide us with an understanding of what is morally good?”

She got a piece from the humble-pie

Formal Part, an analysis of Baghramian, passage where she talks about the unconnected history of analytic philosphy and how it is providing a semantic notion of relativism.

Abstract: We live in

As humans, we have the reflective capabilities to distance ourselves from the community views. As I would like to express it, we can adopt a stance of being open for truth that has not arrived yet and may not arrive. In other words, we live in the possibility of truth. I regard this as a relativist stance and which I would also attribute to Hegel.

Practices are not necessarily arranged with regard to how things really are, but according to how we take things to be in an experiential, historical process.

It is important to remark that in this process nobody denies that reality has somewhat an influence on us. The difficulty lies in the question to explain what reality exactly is and how to qualify they extent it has on us.

Putnam’s Ideas

The idea that we are brains in a vat is an extreme thought scenario.

Relativism of Belief

Philosophy on its destructive side aims at destroying all our beliefs. A task for which many are not ready.

The theist believes in a God or Gods, the atheist believes that there is no God. The agnostic often believes that the answer is unknown and possibly unknowable. However, there may be a fourth possibility: it may be knowable but not yet known.

A relativist position works differently: instead of dismissing the question as unknowable and therefore unimportant, it can accept that the question itself is important and probably speaks to the deepest nature of us. The religious form of a human being is its openness for the question so that if he encounters truth one day he can accept it.

Problems–a further problem I have with relativism

If another person believes that embryos have already souls and I respect this as an individual position that is true according to their framework but at the same time I also support the person who champions abortions at all times and everywhere, I am not doing justice to the moral feelings of the first person

Baghramian does not say anything about the possibility of truth

We can neither say that embryos have a soul, nor that they do not. The intuition is that we should consider the possibility that would have the largest effect if it is true compared to the effect it has when it is not true.

A large part of the debate has focused on abortion rights, but little is said about the question of how to avoid unwanted pregnancy.