Can we have at least a one sentence synopsis? What is his point?
Are you really that lazy?
See post #1, above.
I watched up until the point he mentioned g*d and religion then I stopped. That was less then 3 seconds.
To be fair, I only watched the first 3 seconds, but my impression was it was going to proselytize and evangelize in a catchy but fake ‘TED talks’ format.
A one sentence synopsis?
Hehe ... it depends on your tolerance for what constitutes a sentence.
That said (and breaking out the text a bit to help readability and avoid wall-o-text-iness)....
In this video the speaker discussed what one might describe as common assumptions found among those who “believe in science”:
- which is to say a belief about what “science” should be or result in rather than the actual scientific process of observation/hypothesis/falsification;
- and that these assumptions can be found to then play a role in how people determine what is “scientific”, which is to say that the belief about what science is, when that belief is actually a philosophical or ontological claim, may limit what inquiries can be considered “science”;
- so he mentions in the video that the American title of a book he’d written said something about freeing science,
... now to this I would personally add what Lewis said, that “within reason” one can get the science that they want ...
... but for this speaker he lists a number of these common assumptions, which are not themselves the “science” but ideas about same, and gives some discussion (time limits on his presentation) of how these assumptions could affect, and even limit, the scope of scientific inquiry.
That is a sentence ... of a sort. <^.->
Now, you may note my tag line says “Standup Philosopher” ... so here’s some of my own BS.
In the video he observes that the state of current inquiry about consciousness involves where perception is actually happening. One of the common assumptions he presents is the idea that our minds are entirely “in our head” as neurological phenomena and as such, I would suggest, we can see how Lewis suggestion that one can get the science that “they want” could be a subtly different matter than if our perceptions of the world proceed before us, rather than merely following after it, should our minds not be just in our own head ... that “within reason” is itself potentially subtly altered as a qualification to getting what we want.
And, yes, I (just) did bull-**** today!
"Science" as practiced today completely denies the existence of God. In this talk, Rupert Sheldrake lists Ten Dogmas of this 'Science Delusion' ...
1) Nature is mechanical or machine-like
2) Matter is unconscious
3) Laws of nature are fixed
4) The total amount of matter & energy is constant and unchanging
5) Nature is purposeless and any evolutionary process has no set direction
6) Biological heredity is solely material
7) Memories are material traces in your brain
8) Your mind solely exists in your head (all of your consciousness lies solely in the brain)
9) Psychic phenomenon is impossible (miracles don't exist; they are illusory)
10) Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that works (miracles impossible)
He says that every one of these should be subject to true scientific examination and if so, they would be found lacking. He gave specific examples on 2 of the 10 that were simple to understand and a very compelling argument.
He highlighted one of these 'scientists' who defended these made-up dogmas describing them as "Intellectual Phase Locking". The crowd laughed out loud.