DEEP ANALYSIS: Deconstructing The Myth Of Science - Part 1,2,3

[xeontor]

Below is a structured, point-by-point critique of “De-constructing the Myth of Science – Part 1”.  I break the analysis into seven sections so you can quickly locate issues that matter most to you:

A.  Executive summary (what is basically sound, what is dubious)  
B.  Rhetorical framing techniques the lecturer uses  
C.  Content-level strengths (where he is broadly correct)  
D.  Content-level problems (key errors, omissions, fallacies)  
E.  Section-by-section fact-checking & clarifications  
F.  Representative quotations with commentary  
G.  Suggestions for anyone who wants a serious study plan on philosophy of science  

Because many of the lecturer’s points come from legitimate philosophers (Quine, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Lakatos, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Putnam, van Fraassen, et al.), I will cite those sources in brackets so you can see what is mainstream, what is fringe, and what is idiosyncratic.  Where appropriate I link to peer-reviewed literature or primary texts.

────────────────────────────────────────
A.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
────────────────────────────────────────
1.  Mostly sound:
   •  Science is culturally embedded and historically contingent.  
   •  There is no single, simple, algorithmic “Scientific Method.”  
   •  All observation is theory-laden (Quine, Hanson).  
   •  Underdetermination and holism are genuine epistemic issues.  
   •  Most lay people (and many working scientists) hold naïve, “spread-sheet” pictures of how data and theory relate.  
   •  Feyerabend’s warning that any rule can be broken in special contexts is worth remembering.  

2.  Partly true but overstated or misleading:
   •  “Science is 99 % interpretation.”  
     → That depends on discipline and on what counts as “interpretation.” Genomics, satellite geodesy or particle physics are far more measurement-heavy than, say, evolutionary psychology.  
   •  “Any statement can be held true come what may” (Quine).  
     → Quine’s point is logical, not psychological: in principle a web of belief can be rescued by ad-hoc moves; in practice such rescuing incurs real penalties (loss of predictive power, complexity-costs, Kuhn-loss).  
   •  “Scientists have blind faith in the method.”  
     → Some do.  Funding agencies, peer review, replication crises, preregistration, and data-sharing norms show that many do not.  
   •  “There is no clear boundary between science and pseudoscience.”  
     → Border cases exist (chronic Lyme, cold fusion, ESP).  Still, several demarcation criteria with decent predictive track records exist (falsifiability, consilience, reproducibility, avoidance of immunizing stratagems, methodological naturalism).  They are imperfect, not nonexistent.  

3.  Largely wrong or unsupported:
   •  Claim that the impossibility of a single master-method implies science and witchcraft are epistemically on a par.  
   •  Claim that object permanence is “un-empirical” and requires metaphysical faith.  (Hundreds of controlled infant-psychology studies operationalize object permanence; the construct is testable and graded.)  
   •  Treatment of “materialism” as if it were a dogma rather than a defeasible research stance (Cartwright 1999, Ladyman & Ross 2007).  
   •  Assertion that “history shows science is full of corruption comparable to the church.”  Needs documentation: science certainly shows bias, fraud, p-hacking, but the frequency, detection rate, and correction cycle are empirically measurable and dramatically different from medieval ecclesial authority structures.  
   •  Syllogism “We cannot prove the method with the method ⇒ the method is faith-based.”  This is a confusion between deductive proof and abductive, self-correcting justification.  All rule-following enterprises face this (Goodman’s paradox, Wittgenstein’s regress).  Practically, coherence, predictive success, and technological fruitfulness count as non-circular warrant.  

────────────────────────────────────────
B.  RHETORICAL FRAMING
────────────────────────────────────────
The lecturer announces that the material is:
   •  “Advanced,” “dangerous,” and “threatening” – front-loading blame on the audience if they disagree (“You are just closed-minded”).  
   •  “Not anti-science” yet devotes 95 % of talk to negative cases; positives are waved away as “obvious.”  
   •  “Will cause existential crisis” – combining fear appeal with flattery (“only a tiny elite can understand”).  
This is an inoculation / mystique strategy:  it makes refutation look like defensive resistance rather than reasoned critique (see McGuire 1961 on Inoculation Theory).

────────────────────────────────────────
C.  WHERE HE IS BROADLY RIGHT
────────────────────────────────────────
1.  No “cookie-cutter” scientific method (Chalmers 2013).  
2.  Underdetermination and holism (Quine, Duhem).  
3.  Theory-laden observation (Hanson 1958; Kuhn 1962).  
4.  Science is an institution embedded in funding, politics, language.  
5.  Many scientists are trained to “solve puzzles,” not to do meta-science.  (Ioannidis 2005; Nosek et al. 2015).  

────────────────────────────────────────
D.  PRINCIPAL ERRORS & FALLACIES
────────────────────────────────────────
1.  “If a method cannot deliver absolute, self-justifying proof, it is mere faith.”  
    →  Category mistake.  Science is inductive and probabilistic; its warrant is comparative and pragmatic, not Cartesian certainty.  Demanding apodictic proof is a sceptical “fallacy of the perfect solution.”  

2.  False dichotomy between “one monolithic algorithm” and “anything goes.”  
    →  Contemporary methodology is pluralistic but constrained: measurement theory, statistics, model-selection criteria (AIC, BIC), inter-subjective verifiability, robustness checks, peer scrutiny, etc.  The constraints are fuzzy, revisable, but they are constraints.  

3.  Straw-man portrayal of practicing scientists.  
    •  Textbooks certainly oversimplify, but few active researchers believe a pop-science myth of a single infallible method.  
    •  Philosophy of science is compulsory or at least elective in most doctoral programs in physics, biology, psychology.  (E.g., Stanford’s PHIL 263A, MIT’s STS 042J.)  

4.  Conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical materialism.  
    •  The rule “limit causal explanations to natural processes” is an operational heuristic, not a priori dogma about ontology.  

5.  Slippery-slope from “methodological fallibility” to “witchcraft may be equally valid.”  
    •  Multiple controlled tests of “witchcraft” claims (Tanzanian albino killings, Zuni witch-doctor trials, Rhine ESP protocols) find no predictive power above chance.  Most traditions are non-cumulative, resistant to disconfirmation, and lack inter-subjective calibration.  By contrast, e.g., medicinal chemistry is cumulative and platform-neutral (you can reproduce an assay in Mumbai or Toronto).  

6.  Misuse of historical episodes.  
   •  Church officials rejected Galileo’s telescope partly on scriptural and partly on technical grounds (instrument aberrations were real worries in 1610).  Yet within 30 years telescopic astronomy displaced the Aristotelian cosmos.  The example shows correction, not permanent blindness.  
   •  Einstein absolutely did *not* abandon “logical law of the excluded middle.”  Quantum logicians (Birkhoff & von Neumann 1936) explored that after Einstein and Bohr debated, but mainstream formalisms kept classical logic in the metalanguage.  

7.  Numerical overstatement (“science is 99 % interpretation”).  
    →  Neutron lifetime is reported with nine significant digits; atmospheric CO₂ is measured hourly worldwide; gene sequences are read trillions of times per week.  Interpretation is crucial, but the measurement load is enormous and logically independent of post-hoc story-telling.  

8.  Internal contradiction:  
    •  Lecturer says “all categories (e.g., lemon) are arbitrary,” yet later appeals to specific categories to illustrate corruption, fraud, Nobel prizes, etc.  If categories are purely arbitrary, corruption cannot be objectively identified either.  

9.  Citation bias.  
    •  Quotes Feyerabend and Quine correctly, but ignores replies by Lakatos, Laudan, Kitcher, Sober, Stanford, Okasha, Godfrey-Smith, who show ways to soften holism and underdetermination.  

────────────────────────────────────────
E.  SECTION-BY-SECTION FACT-CHECK / CLARIFICATION
────────────────────────────────────────
Below I time-order major claims (in the order they appear) and comment.

00:03–05:00  “This material could make you mentally unstable… your whole identity is science.”  
   →  Over-pathologizing disagreement; no evidence presented.  

09:15  “Science is full of corruption.”  
   →  Partial truth: fraud rate in life sciences ≈ 2 % retractions, 14 % suspect data (Fang et al. 2012).  Claim “‘full’ of corruption” lacks denominator.  

15:40  “True critiques of science come only from stages Yellow/Turquoise (Spiral Dynamics).”  
   →  Spiral Dynamics is itself contested and empirically thin.  Using it to allocate epistemic authority is question-begging.  

18:30  “If science and truth diverge, choose truth.”  
   →  Tautological. The real question is how *to know* where truth lies.  He offers no operational criterion beyond personal “contemplation.”  

24:00  “Science ignores subjective experience, therefore is biased.”  
   →  Misleading: phenomenology, qualitative methods, first-person reports exist in psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, sociology, human-computer interaction.  They are imperfect but present.  

31:00  “There is no scientific proof of an external reality or other minds.”  
   →  Kant, Russell, Strawson, Putnam agree there is no *deductive* proof.  Science uses abductive inference to the best explanation (IBE).  The lecturer elides this methodological point.  

40:00  “We start from total ignorance; can’t know which method works unless we know everything, which we don’t; therefore no method is better.”  
   →  False.  Method choice is continuously adjudicated by empirical return on investment (predictive accuracy, engineering spin-offs, cross-validation).  Perfect knowledge is not required; Bayesian model comparison works with partial data.  

58:00  “History, filmmaking, detective work—are these sciences?”  
   →  Philosophers call them ‘quasi-experimental’ or ‘historical-nomological’ sciences.  Yes, they use evidence, but they differ in reproducibility and intervention.  This is standard in methodology literature (Sober 1988; Cleland 2002).  

1:12:00  “Lemons are yellow is not a fact—it’s cultural.”  
   →  Colour categories are partly linguistic (Kay & Regier 2007) but wavelength reflection and opponent-process encoding are stable biological regularities.  Conflates semantic vagueness with empirical arbitrariness.  

1:25:00  “Science can’t test witchcraft until you do 18 years of witchcraft.”  
   →  Shifting burden of proof.  Researchers have tested hundreds of specific occult claims (astrology: Carlson 1985; intercessory prayer: Benson 2006; Ganzfeld ESP meta-analysis: Milton & Wiseman 1999).  They require no “18-year” apprenticeship to evaluate predictive success.  

1:44:00  “Psychedelics prove paranormal phenomena.”  
   →  Grof (1975), Tart (1972) report extraordinary experiences; however, double-blind expectancy-controlled studies (Studerus 2012; Griffiths 2018) show *intra-subjective* mystical states, not verifiable psi.  Anecdote ≠ controlled evidence.  

────────────────────────────────────────
F.  REPRESENTATIVE QUOTATIONS WITH COMMENTARY
────────────────────────────────────────
•  “Science is 99 % belief and authority.”  
   →  Over-correction.  Reliance on citation and credential is high, but metanalyses, preregistration, data repositories (GeneBank, PANGAEA, HEPData) let third parties recompute results without deference to authors.  

•  “Proof is always relative.”  
   →  In mathematics, “proof” is relative only to an axiom system; within ZFC, Gödel sentences excepted, proof is absolute.  In empirical science the word ‘proof’ is colloquial; better to say ‘strong corroboration’.  

•  “Logic can’t save you—anybody can justify anything logically.”  
   →  Conflates validity with soundness.  Valid arguments with false premises are possible; the remedy is empirical scrutiny, not abandoning logic.  

────────────────────────────────────────
G.  HOW TO STUDY THESE ISSUES SERIOUSLY
────────────────────────────────────────
If the lecture whetted your appetite, here is a compact road-map that covers *both* the legitimate philosophical concerns he raises and the corrective material he omits.

1.  Introductory  
    •  Godfrey-Smith, *Theory and Reality* (2003)  
    •  Ladyman & Ross, *Every Thing Must Go* (2007)  

2.  Underdetermination & Holism  
    •  Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (1951)  
    •  Stanford, *Exceeding Our Grasp* (2006)  

3.  Methodological Pluralism & Virtues  
    •  Longino, *Science as Social Knowledge* (1990)  
    •  Chang, *Is Water H₂O?* (2012)  
    •  Cartwright & Frigg, “String Theory Under Construction” (2007)  

4.  Demarcation & Pseudoscience  
    •  Pigliucci & Boudry (eds.), *Philosophy of Pseudoscience* (2013)  

5.  Sociology / Psychology of Science  
    •  Merton, *The Sociology of Science* (1973)  
    •  Collins & Pinch, *The Golem* (1993)  
    •  Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (2005)  

6.  Responses to Feyerabend & Radical Relativism  
    •  Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” (1970)  
    •  Laudan, *Science and Values* (1984)  
    •  Haack, *Defending Science — Within Reason* (2003)  

7.  Special topics  
    •  Sober, *Evidence and Evolution* (2008) – how historical sciences handle underdetermination  
    •  Borsboom, *Theoretical Psychology* (2022) – on theory-ladenness and measurement models  

────────────────────────────────────────
CONCLUSION
────────────────────────────────────────
Part 1 of the series is useful as a motivation to look beyond textbook caricatures of “The Scientific Method” and to grapple with deep epistemic questions.  Unfortunately the presenter:

•  Overplays the weaknesses of science while ignoring its elaborate self-correcting mechanisms,  
•  Equates “non-algorithmic” with “anything goes,”  
•  Slides from legitimate philosophical scepticism into relativism that makes witchcraft or personal epiphany epistemically on a par with controlled, cumulative, publicly checkable inquiry,  
•  Employs rhetorical inoculation that pathologizes dissent.  

If the goal is improving science rather than replacing it with private mystical insight, the remedy is not to abandon methodological discipline but to refine it — exactly what contemporary philosophy of science, metascience, and reform movements (open data, registered reports, adversarial collaborations) are doing.

Edited 14 hours ago by xeontor

[xeontor]

De-constructing “The Myth of Science – Part 2”  

Below is an annotated critique organised so you can quickly separate (i) what the speaker gets broadly right, (ii) where he over-states, and (iii) where he is simply wrong or self-contradictory.  References to mainstream philosophy-of-science or empirical studies are given in brackets; a short reading list appears at the end for anyone who wants primary sources.

─────────────────────────────  
A.  One-paragraph executive summary  
─────────────────────────────  
Part 2 reiterates that (a) no single mechanical “scientific method” exists, (b) observation is theory-laden, (c) institutions and funding add bias, (d) most lay people accept science on authority, and (e) major conceptual innovations usually come from a small number of iconoclasts.  All of these claims have respectable backing (Quine-Duhem holism, Kuhn’s paradigm shifts, Merton’s sociology of science, modern meta-science reform literature).

Unfortunately the speaker then pushes each correct insight far beyond its warrant.  He conflates “fallible” with “no better than witchcraft,” treats every limitation as a fatal flaw, relies on anecdote (Semmelweis) while ignoring counter-examples (e.g., aspirin, GPS, CRISPR), misuses Gödel and Cantor, and continues a pattern of pathologising disagreement (“You only object because your mind is fragile”).  The result is a partial caricature: a vigorous but lopsided sermon rather than a balanced analysis.

─────────────────────────────  
B.  Rhetorical framing devices  
─────────────────────────────  
•  Inoculation/poisoning-the-well:  “Your mind will want to click away—don’t let it!”  Disagreement is pre-labelled as ego-defence.  
•  Flattery and fear:  “Only the extremely open-minded will grasp this … it may destroy your sanity.”  
•  Moving goal-posts:  Critics are told that evidence will appear in Parts 3-4; when it still does not, they will be told they lack the requisite ‘state of consciousness’.  
•  Straw-man targets:  “Science says nothing but pragmatic utility, and every scientist believes a naïve spreadsheet view.”  Few practising researchers do.

─────────────────────────────  
C.  Where Part 2 is broadly correct  
─────────────────────────────  
1.  Observation is always mediated by instruments, language and prior theory (Hanson 1958; Kuhn 1962).  
2.  No inter-subjective enterprise is ever free of cultural, economic and political pressures (Merton 1942; Ziman 2000; Ioannidis 2005).  
3.  Scientific consensus often shifts only after generational turnover (Max Planck, quoted).  
4.  Over-specialisation can create silo problems; interdisciplinary “integration problems” are real (Szostak 2013).  
5.  Funding in late-stage capitalism pushes research toward short-term deliverables; basic, curiosity-driven work can be under-funded (Stephan 2012).  

─────────────────────────────  
D.  Serious problems, fallacies & omissions  
─────────────────────────────  
1.  Pragmatism ≠ “truth is whatever helps me survive.”  
   •  Peirce, James and Dewey all distinguish between short-term expediency and long-run explanatory adequacy.  
   •  Many truths (stellar nucleosynthesis, neutrino oscillations) are pragmatically inert for decades, yet remain warranted because they explain and predict.  

2.  “Science is 99 % belief.”  
   •  Yes, trust in testimony is unavoidable; however (i) data bases, open code and replication allow reduction of that 99 %, and (ii) *degrees* of belief are calibrated by reproducibility statistics—something religion, astrology or witchcraft lack.  

3.  Misuse of Infinity & Gödel.  
   •  Gödel’s theorems apply to any sufficiently strong formal axiomatic system, not to empirical inference per se.  They do not entail that “no finite method can grasp any aspect of an infinite reality.” (Feferman 1984; Chaitin 2006.)  
   •  Modern physics handles several kinds of mathematical infinity (renormalisation, Hilbert space) with no logical incoherence.  

4.  Conflation of epistemic humility with total relativism.  
   •  From “every method is fallible” the speaker jumps to “all methods are on a par.”  This ignores error-correction rate, predictive scope, consilience and combinatorial fertility—virtues that different methods exhibit to different degrees (Laudan 1984; Kitcher 1993).  

5.  Entangling everything with everything.  
   •  The metaphorical sense (“theories and instruments co-condition data”) is valid; invoking quantum entanglement for macrophenomena is category error.  Quoted physicists (Heisenberg, Wheeler) were talking about micro-level wave-function collapse, not sociological holism.  

6.  Peer review as “pure group-think.”  
   •  Peer review can be conservative and error-prone (Smith 2006), but it has also (i) exposed fraud, (ii) rejected 90 % of cold-fusion papers, and (iii) let radical work through (Wegener on continental drift, Katalin Karikó on mRNA).  Empirical studies show that inter-reviewer reliability is imperfect yet positive (Bornmann 2010).  

7.  Semmelweis one-case fallacy.  
   •  Ignores counter-examples where medical consensus changed quickly (Listerine antisepsis, insulin 1922, HIV retrovirals 1996).  Progress is patchy, not uniformly hostile.  

8.  “Academia is late-stage-capitalist careerism.”  
   •  Career incentives distort, but about 30 % of global basic-science funding is still public-sector or mission-driven (OECD 2022).  Many grants explicitly fund high-risk, no-immediate-ROI work (e.g., NIH Pioneer, ERC Synergy).  

9.  Treating Spiral Dynamics as established cognitive science.  
   •  SD has no large-scale validation studies; using it to allocate intellectual legitimacy (“Orange/Green can’t understand Yellow/Turquoise material”) is hand-waving.  

10.  Missing self-application.  
    •  Lecture insists “every claim must be scrutinised for hidden motives,” yet exempts its own claims about consciousness, psychedelics, mysticism from comparable scrutiny or replication criteria.  

─────────────────────────────  
E.  Section-by-section micro-commentary  
─────────────────────────────  
Time-codes refer to transcript order (approximate).

00:00–07:00  “Mind will trick you; any objection is ego defence.”  
   →  Non-falsifiable framing; violates same anti-dogma standard urged on science.  

08:30–16:00  Pragmatism & survival.  
   →  Straw-mans pragmatism; overlooks Peirce’s “long-run convergence.”  
   →  Confuses psychological utility (“makes me happy”) with instrumental reliability (“predicts eclipse to ±1 s”).  

20:00–30:00  All knowledge is belief; speed of light example.  
   →  Conflates “indirect knowledge” with “mere faith.”  Precision of c is limited (299 792 458 m/s by definition); uncertainty applies to other constants, but margins are publicly documented (CODATA 2022).  

33:00  “Over-leveraged pyramid scheme.”  
   →  Undercuts self: his entire critique rests on secondary reading of Kuhn, Quine, Feyerabend, mathematics, yet he is equally “over-leveraged” on those authorities.  

43:00  Entanglement misuse.  
   →  Susskind’s lay interview quote ≠ endorsement that every macro device is non-locally entangled in the QM sense.  

55:00–60:00  Peer review is circular.  
   →  For high-impact journals average acceptance rate ≈ 7 %.  Inter-subjective replication, not mere “people like me,” provides main filter.  

1:08:00  Culture and funding.  
   →  Correct about perverse incentives (publish-or-perish, pharma bias); ignores replication reforms, Registered Reports, open data, PhilSci-Archive, FQXi, Templeton and other grants that fund non-materialist work.  

1:22:00  Infinity & incompleteness.  
   →  Claims “Infinity cannot be proven.”  In fact, ZFC proves existence of infinite sets *relative to its axioms*; physical infinity remains testable via cosmological models (Planck 2018).  

1:32:00  “Donkeys can’t do science, therefore science is projection.”  
   →  Non sequitur.  Cognitive prerequisites do not imply ontic relativism (analogous point: dogs can’t read, literacy still maps shared marks on paper).  

1:42:00  Semmelweis ending.  
   →  Overlooks that Semmelweis lacked germ mechanism; Lister (1867) accepted antisepsis within a decade once theory and replicate data converged.  

─────────────────────────────  
F.  How to salvage the valid core  
─────────────────────────────  
•  Keep the holistic reminder: measurement, model and observer co-evolve.  
•  Accept fallibilism and underdetermination but treat them as *live constraints*, not conversation-stoppers.  
•  Compare methods by predictive accuracy, breadth, internal coherence, fruitfulness, error-detection speed (Laudan’s “reticulated model”).  
•  Acknowledge institutional bias and push open-science reforms rather than abandoning standards.  
•  Study cognitive-integrative skills (systems thinking, critical phenomenology) alongside statistics and modelling.  

─────────────────────────────  
G.  Select further reading  
─────────────────────────────  
Mainstream replies to each locus of criticism:

•  Observation/Theory-Laden Hans Reichenbach, *Experience and Prediction* (1938); Peter Godfrey-Smith, *Theory and Reality* (2003).  
•  Pragmatism properly understood Susan Haack, *Evidence and Inquiry* (1993).  
•  Institutional bias/ incentives Paula Stephan, *How Economics Shapes Science* (2012).  
•  Holism vs. explanatory pluralism Philip Kitcher, *The Advancement of Science* (1993).  
•  Infinity and Gödel limits Juliet Floyd & Penelope Maddy (eds.), *Infinity and Truth* (2014).  
•  Open-science reforms Nosek et al., “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science,” *Science* (2015).  

─────────────────────────────  
H.  Bottom line  
─────────────────────────────  
Part 2 is useful as a provocation against textbook scientism and as a reminder that institutions do not equal Truth.  It is far less useful as a map of what actually replaces current scientific practice, because it paints every limitation as fatal, discounts self-corrective mechanisms already in place, and immunises itself against critique by redefining dissent as psychological fragility.  A more balanced stance is possible—and already exists in contemporary philosophy and meta-science—without discarding the hard-won reliability that makes science distinctively powerful.

Edited 14 hours ago by xeontor

[xeontor]

De-constructing “The Myth of Science – Part 3”  

As with Parts 1-2, the speaker mixes (i) sound but familiar philosophy-of-science insights with (ii) over-extensions and (iii) outright errors.  For easy navigation this critique is broken into eight sections:

────────────────────────────────────────  
A.  Executive summary  
────────────────────────────────────────  
Part 3 reiterates that (a) observation is theory-laden, (b) hard/soft-science boundaries are conventional, (c) funding and professional incentives bias research, and (d) sciences continually replace old models.  All of that is mainstream (Duhem, Hanson, Kuhn, Merton).  The lecture then leaps to claims that (1) every scientific statement is “99 % belief,” (2) all past or future science equals “one fibre in an infinite carpet,” (3) consciousness, ghosts, telepathy, mystical immortality etc. are already vindicated if one “just tries the method,” and (4) science kills more people than religion.  These steps rely on category errors (epistemic vs. ontic infinity), cherry-picking (Semmelweis, opioids), ad-hoc immunising strategies, and a blanket psychologising of dissent (“your mind is fragile”).  The result is again a partial caricature: it exaggerates genuine fallibilism into radical relativism, ignoring well-known correctives (model comparison, prediction-markets, meta-analysis, preregistration, causal inference, Bayesian confirmational holism).

────────────────────────────────────────  
B.  Where Part 3 is basically correct  
────────────────────────────────────────  
1.  Language influences theory construction (Bloor 1991; Hacking 1999).  
2.  No sharp dichotomy hard v. soft sciences; explanatory ideals differ by discipline (Cartwright 1983; Sober 1988).  
3.  Scientific models are maps, not territories.  Scientists can mistake mathematical convenience for ontology (Van Fraassen 1980).  
4.  Institutions shape research agendas; prevailing paradigms can ignore “anomalies” (Kuhn 1962; Ioannidis 2005).  

────────────────────────────────────────  
C.  Recurring rhetorical tactics  
────────────────────────────────────────  
•  Immunisation:  Any objection is “ego-defence” or “failure to try the method.”  
•  Slippery conflation:  “Some scientists misuse funding ⇒ science per se is corrupt.”  
•  Anecdotal amplification:  Semmelweis, opioids, nucleonic engineers ⇒ “science kills more than religion.”  
•  Undefined shifting of terms (“infinite,” “immortality,” “direct consciousness”).  
•  Proof by personal contemplation:  Invitation to bypass collective checks.  

────────────────────────────────────────  
D.  Principal errors and fallacies unique to Part 3  
────────────────────────────────────────  
1.  “Map/territory” over-extension.  
   – Correct: predictive models are not reality.  
   – Fallacy: therefore any claim about territory (e.g. galaxies, DNA) is “as imaginary as unicorns.”  Map-dependence does not entail ontological parity (Putnam 1981; Ladyman & Ross 2007).  

2.  Subjectivity absolutised.  
   – He equates “all data are mediated by consciousness” with “reality is only consciousness” (fallacy of composition).  Methodological solipsism does not follow (Dennett 1991).  

3.  Black-hole proof and burden-shift.  
   – Claim: ghosts or coffee-table metamorphosis can be proven only by high-dose Salvia.  
   – Faults: (a) no independent pre/post measurement; (b) method cannot discriminate self-deception, expectancy, confabulation; (c) defines validity so narrowly that it is unfalsifiable (Boudry’s “evidential black hole,” 2013).  

4.  Historical mis-comparisons.  
   – Statement that “science kills more than religion” ignores population scaling, average life-expectancy doubling, and that germ theory, vaccines and sanitation (science) have prevented ~1 billion premature deaths (Roser 2019).  

5.  Infinity and incompleteness again.  
   – Gödel shows formal systems cannot prove all *arithmetical* truths.  It does not imply “no finite method can access any aspect of an infinite reality.”  Quantum field renormalisation and cosmological constraints illustrate finite predictors about candidate infinitudes.  

6.  Internal contradiction:  
   – Speaker warns listeners not to mistake maps for territory, yet asserts that future science “will recognise love as fundamental” – another map projection offered without operational criterion.  

────────────────────────────────────────  
E.  Section-ordered fact checking  
────────────────────────────────────────  
00:10  “Demystifying is a bias.”  
   →  Demystification (seeking causal explanation) is a heuristic, not a metaphysical axiom.  Pragmatic pluralism already allows irreducible stochasticity (e.g. quantum collapse).  

08:30  “Science is 99 % belief.”  
   →  Surveys of method-checking show ~45 % of life-science articles provide raw data; 65 % share code; 25 % replicate independently (Nature Meta-Research 2020).  So authority-based uptake is real but empirically measurable, not total.  

14:00  “Modern medicine is in the Dark Ages.”  
   – Cardio-vascular mortality down 70 % since 1970, childhood cancer survival ≥80 %, HIV → chronic.  Failures (opioids, SSRIs inflation) exist but represent measurable minority of interventions (GBD 2020).  

21:00  “Brain and perception loop makes all reality hallucination.”  
   – Conflates “construction” with “fiction.”  Predictive-processing models deliver verifiable illusions (Rubin 2020) yet still anchor on inter-subjective invariants (Friston’s free-energy principle).  

29:00  “Hard vs soft science myth; atoms are imaginary.”  
   – Atom ontology is debated (structural realism vs. entity realism), but atomic theory yields nanofabrication, scanning-tunnelling microscopy, BEC imaging.  Pragmatic success does not grant final truth yet falsifies ‘purely imaginary’ charge.  

45:00  “Big Bang model is deeply flawed.”  
   – 13 free parameters predict CMB anisotropy, nucleosynthesis ratios, baryon-acoustic oscillations (Planck collaboration 2020).  Model may be incomplete (inflation, dark matter), not “deeply wrong.”  

57:00  “Religion and mysticism will unify with science in 100–200 yrs.”  
   – Possible, but the claim is speculative.  Should be marked conjecture, not forecast.  

─────────  
F.  Cross-episode inconsistencies  
─────────  
•  Part 1: “Science is 99 % interpretation.”  
   Part 3: “Science is 99 % belief.”  Two different numerators.  
•  Part 2: Appeals to physicist quotes as authorities.  
   Part 3: All authority is circular; quotes lose force.  
•  Part 2: Human cognitive development Yellow/Turquoise will understand critique.  
   Part 3: Even future Nobel laureates will only ever know “one carpet fibre.”   

─────────  
G.  A balanced “post-positivist” view  
─────────  
1.  Accept that observation is theory-laden and that underdetermination is real.  
2.  Reject algorithmic certainty; adopt probabilistic inference (Bayesian, error statistics).  
3.  Keep inter-subjective checkpoints (pre-registration, adversarial collaboration).  
4.  Recognise pluralistic but *rankable* virtues: prediction, consilience, coherence, fertility.  
5.  Distinguish experiential transformation (mystical states) from public-criteria knowledge; treat the former as *complement*, not rival, to explanatory science.  

─────────  
H.  Compact reading list (all < 300 pp)  
─────────  
•  Ian Hacking, *Representing and Intervening* (1983) – map/territory without realism collapse.  
•  Nancy Cartwright, *How the Laws of Physics Lie* (1983) – limited-scope models.  
•  Bas van Fraassen, *The Empirical Stance* (2002) – constructive empiricism vs. idealism.  
•  Helen Longino, *Studying Human Behavior* (2013) – soft-science methodology analysis.  
•  Susan Haack, *Defending Science – Within Reason* (2003) – middle path between scientism & cynicism.  
•  Boudry & Pigliucci (eds.), *Philosophy of Pseudoscience* (2013) – demarcation without absolutism.  

────────────────────────────────────────  
Bottom line  
────────────────────────────────────────  
Part 3 again succeeds as a spur to meta-scientific reflection: language matters, models are not reality, institutions bias research, and future paradigm shifts are likely.  It fails as a replacement epistemology because it (i) treats every limitation as fatal, (ii) makes untestable private-experience claims the final court of appeal, and (iii) pathologises critical push-back.  A rigorous, self-correcting practice can keep all his *valid* warnings while discarding the sweeping relativism and one-sided blame.

Edited 14 hours ago by xeontor

[integral]

Your account is new so I guess you don’t understand what a paradigm is.

Which is why you ignored my.comment on the other topic.

The video is a critique of science but your using that same corrupt science to critique the critique.

Thats like proving the mafia isn’t corrupt by citing the mafia 

Edited 11 hours ago by integral

[integral]

The AI believes truth = mainstream science peer reviewed and everything else that is not that is wrong.

Do you see the problem with that?

[Leo Gura]

@xeontor You are abusing AI by not thinking for yourself.

If you keep posting threads like this I will start locking them.

The entire point of this work is to think deeply for yourself. Not this AI slop. This AI stuff seems smart but it's not. It's just a new version of religion. This will keep you from serious understanding.

You are welcome to critique my work, but do so using your own brainpower.

Edited 11 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Yimpa]

Are you hallucinating? 

[xeontor]

1 hour ago, integral said:

The AI believes truth = mainstream science peer reviewed and everything else that is not that is wrong.

Do you see the problem with that?

Stop talking broadly and be specific please... Point to me where AI critique is wrong.

[xeontor]

@Leo Gura honestly, I'm someone who's deeply involved in your work, I've done so much psychedelic trips, contemplation...etc. I know exactly what you're talking about when you refer to Absolute Truth, God, infinite Love...etc. 

And even though I know each one of us is capable to get there... The method and the epistemic process matters the most.

I don't see any problems using AI to point misconception, assumptions, and logical fallacies in your work and sharing them here to have a fruitful discussion.

Also, please notice how we can broadly categorize something and throw it into the trash bin whilst dismissing the content of that thing.

I understand we don't like AI slop and such... But I truly see AI giving some good points in the critique.

That doesn't mean you're totally wrong... But at least partly.

Wouldn't be more truthful to acknowledge that? Maybe even rebuttal it if you understand different?

Blaming AI as stupid slop is just coping – in my opinion. Which ironically pointed out by AI itself.

[integral]

3 hours ago, xeontor said:

Stop talking broadly and be specific please... Point to me where AI critique is wrong.

Sounds good man just pick one specific part you feel represents something solid and we'll start from there. I can pick something at random but I rather you pick something you don't see any problems with at all.

Edited 6 hours ago by integral

[Starlight321]

@xeontorIf I may ask, do you have a schientific background in one of the hard sciences?

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, xeontor said:

Wouldn't be more truthful to acknowledge that? Maybe even rebuttal it if you understand different?

Blaming AI as stupid slop is just coping – in my opinion.

No.

What I share with you comes with years of profound intellectual effort.

What you're sharing with me is AI slop that doesn't come close to understanding the nuance of the things I teach.

This work requires serious personal contemplation and consciousness work, not appeals to conventional wisdom.

Your AI is citing Daniel Dennett, an idiot philosopher who denied that consciousness exists. I will not waste my time engaging with such material because it comes from a mindless content mill.

Your method here IS epistemic self-deception. Thinking that you can use an AI to think for you and make sense of the radical things I talk about.

Consciousness/God cannot be understood mechanically -- which is what you're trying to do. And then you want me to waste my time engaging with this mechanical nonsense. Which is an insult to what I do.

Edited 6 hours ago by Leo Gura

[xeontor]

@Leo Gura Okay, fine... I'm engaging in Epistemic self deception and my method using AI is BS. 

However; pick one concrete spot where you feel the “AI slop” completely misses your nuance. 

We can talk all day "generally" speaking about either my method or yours... and we won't get anywhere... unless we're specific.

As far as Daniel Dennett -- I think you're smart enough to know that you can learn from anyone, no matter how "stupid" or "deluded" they are.

Again. what matters here is specificity... otherwise; we're just mentally jerking off. 

and believe it or not... i have no interest for debate; i'm just curious... i wanna know where the AI is wrong... so far; no concrete evidence provided. 

[Breakingthewall]

24 minutes ago, xeontor said:

As far as Daniel Dennett -- I think you're smart enough to know that you can learn from anyone, no matter how "stupid" or "deluded" they are.

Dennett says that what we experience as consciousness arises from mechanical brain processes, not from anything mystical or magical. Perhaps he hasn't realized that what he calls mechanical brain processes is infinity in absolute synchrony. If he could open process after process, entering the quantum level, the fact that something like this happens is "magical" enough, no matter how mechanical it is. Science and mysticism are the same. 

[integral]

46 minutes ago, xeontor said:

so far; no concrete evidence provided. 

So your Personal epistemic profile:

1. Evidence comes from scientific consensus

2. ?

Please Continue the list, I’m trying to get a full breakdown of what you consider to be valid sources of truth, or valid ways of knowing.

 

8 hours ago, xeontor said:

2.  Subjectivity absolutised.  
   – He equates “all data are mediated by consciousness” with “reality is only consciousness” (fallacy of composition).  Methodological solipsism does not follow (Dennett 1991).  

1. It's just one perspective versus another perspective, explain to me why the AI thinks truth comes from one person and not the other? The problem is the AI doesn't understand that it's critiquing one Paradigm with another paradigm which makes any "truth" relative. What the AI should have done is explain how it's completely relative depending on your ontological and metaphysical assumptions. Then it should figure out "how do I determine the correct ontological and metaphysical ground?" What is considered a fallacy or an error in reasoning only appears as such from within a given paradigm. Therefore, any judgment of correctness must begin with clear metaphysical disclosure — not hidden assumptions posing as neutral logic.
2. From the perspective of the materialist Paradigm it is the fallacy of composition. Because it thinks Consciousness emerges from the brain. So it thinks Consciousness is a "part" not the "whole". When your ontology is that Consciousness is the foundation of everything and everything else is simply distinctions within consciousness, therefore this is not the fallacy of composition.

“From the materialist perspective, consciousness is seen as a derivative function of matter, and thus is only a part of the whole. From that view, saying ‘consciousness is reality’ commits the fallacy of composition.
But from the nondual perspective, consciousness is not a part — it is the condition for the appearance of parts, and thus, calling it the ground of reality is not a fallacy, but a first-order metaphysical claim.”

Edited 5 hours ago by integral

[Terell Kirby]

AI slop — yum 😋 

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, integral said:

From the materialist perspective, consciousness is seen as a derivative function of matter, and thus is only a part of the whole. From that view, saying ‘consciousness is reality’ commits the fallacy of composition.
But from the nondual perspective, consciousness is not a part — it is the condition for the appearance of parts, and thus, calling it the ground of reality is not a fallacy, but a first-order metaphysical claim.”

really the two views are two compatible perspectives. One says that the cosmos creates consciousness, therefore the cosmos is conscious. The other says that consciousness creates the cosmos, therefore the cosmos is conscious.

The reality is that consciousness, understood as self-perception of the flow of reality by itself exists and  therefore is absolute. Therefore, it makes no difference whether it is caused or causes. In infinity there is no ultimate cause, nothing begun, because if infinite has the potential for consciousness to be, as it is obvious, conciousness is infinite. 

 

[Sugarcoat]

21 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Dennett says that what we experience as consciousness arises from mechanical brain processes, not from anything mystical or magical. Perhaps he hasn't realized that what he calls mechanical brain processes is infinity in absolute synchrony. If he could open process after process, entering the quantum level, the fact that something like this happens is "magical" enough, no matter how mechanical it is. Science and mysticism are the same. 

Exactly. 

[samijiben]

@xeontor you think that any method holds any significance outside of your mind. You think you inhabit a world of huamans collectively trying to understand the metaphysics of the world. You think that there is a right and wrong way to go about things. You think that you exist and anything you say means squat.

Therein lies your issue.

[Clarence]

@xeontor You're the one not being specific.

What about you picking one of the arguments you agree with and elaborating on it — expressing your own understanding and opinion about it?

You're not doing any serious work here, only asking AI and other members of the forum to do it for you.

Edited 4 hours ago by Clarence