Deconstructing The Myth Of Science - Part 1

What is science? A serious 4 part series examining the epistemic and metaphysical foundations of science. Wherein we explore the myths, contradictions, and limitations of modern science without introducing any new superstition or dogma of our own. This is a non-ideological, non-religious teaching grounded in personal consciousness and contemplation.

The Ultimate Life Purpose Course - Create Your Dream Career:

Leo Reviews Top 200 Self Help Books

Leo's Blog:

Disclaimer: Advice provided without warranty. This is NOT medical advice. By watching & applying this advice you agree to take 100% responsibility for all consequences.

[ActualizedOrg]

Announcement: I am thinking of supplementing this 4 part video series with a 5th part which would be a live Q&A with a professional person within academia or science, wherein I answer any of their objections or critiques. If you are reading this and you are a professional within academia or science and you would like to record a live Q&A session with me with your objections, please reply below. I need to see that you are able to articulate strong and cogent objections if this session is to take place. I'm open to a live Q&A with anyone who is serious about contemplating the points I make in good faith with openmindedness. I'm not interested in debating trolls or ideological debunkers who show no sign of intelligence or depth of comprehension of epistemology or science. Let's see if anyone in the audience is up for the challenge. Please note, this would not be a debate but a conversation wherein I answer your questions and help you understand reality deeper. If you really want your ideas of science challenged, this is an opportunity for you. If you want you defend some ideology, then this is not for you. This is not a publicity stunt but a way to help viewers gain a deeper understanding of the tricky epistemology of science.

[ismaelmarksteiner]

“The more I learn of physics, the more I am drawn to metaphysics.” ~ Albert Einstein

[ismaelmarksteiner]

“Some blood transfusion from the East to the West is a must to save Western science from spiritual anaemia.” ~ Erwin Schrödinger

[Karina_Engr]

13:19 1st Distinction
19:36 Deconstruct Science
22:56 How is this related to self-help?
29:29 Next Distinction
43:41 List of Misconceptions
52:57 How to begin to understand Science?
57:41 Validate you've never...
1:04:25 What is Science attempting to do?
1:09:30 List of ways of pursuing knowledge. Activity: Circle the valid science.
1:12:32 Examples of valid ways to do science
1:28:04 Deeper point of valid knowledge

[AdamMiceli]

"Bad religion is self-righteous, arrogant, and intolerant. And so is bad science. But unlike religious fundamentalists, scientific fundamentalists do not realize that their opinions are based on faith. They think they know the truth."

- Rupert Sheldrake

[Alvinsch]

Dude you have blown my mind. You promised a lot at the beginning and I was skeptical, but you delivered. Thank you so much for this.

[bikeaday]

A dangerous philosophy of science is that science is better than philosophy.

[bastian]

As one of my favorit Buddhists says:

"Never allow knowledge to stand in the way of truth." (quote from Ajahn Brahm)

[VladislavDerbenev]

"Science is my friend, but truth is better" - Leo

[Karma]

From what I can tell, this guy just sat down and talked about a very deep and complex subject matter for over two and a half hours - with hardly any pauses, or cuts, or losing his train of thought, or messing up. And it looks like he does this at least 4 more times. That's very impressive if you ask me.

[janekso]

"The mind that perceives the limitation is the limitation"

[mcawesomeytyo]

Let’s be clear. Science itself is not the problem. Materialism is. There is a reason why idealism and panpsychism is growing in popularity within the scientific and philosophical communities

[philippeichert]

I have a bunch of objections and questions for you Leo:
How is something working as predicted, let's say a battery that can power a car to accelerate, not proof that the battery is functional and the principles and knowledge guiding the design not true? That's all I see scientists doing tbh. I see them aiming for certain outcomes, applying knowledge (in form of scientific theories), experimenting, testing and either achieving the outcome or not. This video seems very oversimplified. A blended frog vs. observing its behaviour... man, when do you see biologists being so simplistic and frankly stupid. They look at all of these details and facets thoroughly my friend. Body composition, metabolism, behaviour, evolution. All of that is mapped out holistically with great precision and I seldom see any dogmatic scientists arguing against new insights about frogs like their life depended on it.
How would you gain knowledge, especially practical knowledge according to you Leo? Take 5meo and be god for a while. Then what? How does that fill the function of science - unbiased investigation of the natural world and the predictable creation of new, practical technologies?
Also I feel like you have a bias against content and detail in favour of context and big picture thinking.

[Edwin-wnwd]

I've got a whole lot of content for your 4th video my man...

19:42 - Here you say science and truth may not be necessarily aligned such that one might have to make a choice between science and truth. The problem here is that science doesn't assume absolute truth, but instead it provides the best possible theory given the current evidence. If there is any possible way to investigate what is true, it is then testable by science. Meaning that this "divergence" between science and truth that you speak of is actually a discussion to be had within the framework of science itself.

45:05 - "Science is 99% belief and authority". All studies are independently verifiable, and undergo a rigorous and documented peer review process. These documented peer reviews can be publicly obtained such that no one thing must be taken on authority.

45:50 - "The next misconception is that science is objective and unbiased because it ignores subjective feelings, emotions, human psychology, intuitions, and first person experiences, this is false" This is very much not false, unless you're referring to some objective reality beyond human capacity (at least for now) which then you would need to demonstrate. Which if you could, would be in the domain of science.

46:12 - "The next misconception is that if a thing is true, then it can be proven by science" This simply means that you are assuming some objective truth unobtainable by demonstration and experience. If something can be experienced then it can be demonstrated and therefore given a theory by science. If it cannot be experienced then it is absurd to claim knowledge of it at all.

46:36 "Another misconception is that reason and logic are objectively true" This contention may be point towards our fundamental disagreement. In order to rationalize anything in the world, the three laws of logic must be presupposed (I don't like using that word) 1)The law of identity: P is P.
2) The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P. 3) The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P... You could perhaps argue that it's circular to use logic to prove logic, although that is not what is happening. That could be an entire debate in itself that I could get into if you'd like.

I'll save my objections to other "misconceptions" here for sake of brevity.

57:10 - "Science has historically made a lot of errors and mistakes, so if science was able to make all those errors how can you be confident that there aren't a bunch of errors being made by science right now". Like I said above: science provides the best possible theory given the evidence (by best possible I mean demonstrable through independent verification) so I assume that the errors your refer to are actually theories that have been proven to be wrong. In this case yes it follows that theories today can be wrong. Although, science examines the CURRENT evidence.. Examining the current evidence isn't just a limitation of science, but of anyone seeking the truth. It then follows that it is rational to claim scientific theories as tentatively true..

1:10:10 - Valid science isn't defined by a single thing or action... Valid science is the process of determining what is through independent verification, of course given human limitations which I've hopefully proved reasonable in my other rebuttals. From this list I'll take astral projection for example. The experiences of astral projection are in fact experienced, meaning they can be demonstrated.. Take for example some scientist puts a note on top of a very tall shelf and asks someone in spirit form to confirm what this says. If this is done it is in fact undeniable evidence. This has never been accomplished making it reasonable to tentatively assume that whatever is going on in the minds of these people is in fact just in their minds.. analogous to a dream state. Many of the things you listed are products of science, rather than methods of valid science.

1:18:50 - "What's the difference?" The difference is that science is independently verifiable and the process of validation is documented such that these tribesmen in your example could confirm the reasoning themselves.

1:20:39 - "Is that science" No that isn't science as these 'beliefs' aren't demonstrable. If you want to argue that they can be presupposed like the laws of logic it doesn't work because the contents of these beliefs don't demonstrate their continued reliability and then delves into Occam's razor territory.

1:25:00 - Yes quantum mechanics experiments (just like everything else in science) is independently verifiable. Although, it would be much more wise to read the documents which detail the many already completed verification process such that you need not understand all the intricate details but rather the process of verification. This debases your following confirmation bias assertion.

1:28:50 - Science doesn't discriminate


1:35:00 - You wouldn't be denying the microscope as a method, but rather the concept of magnification which is demonstrable. You can take a few steps back and argue the concept of demonstrating, although in that case refer to my other rebuttals.

1:35:40 - It's objective in the sense that evidence is independently verified and we are working under presupposed limitations.

Even though I use the word "presuppose" I am not a presuppositionalist. This ties back into the debate we could get into about logical absolutes. Anyways, I feel that continuing these rebuttals will be redundant as I've covered enough ground to reveal our fundamental disagreements from which any other rebuttals will surely be based. I'll go ahead and post this comment and just continue to enjoy the video.

I guess I'll end this by saying I am a graduate student studying for my Master's of Science in Mechanical Engineering. I will admit I am very logically minded and I may have had some bias heading into this video with the excitement of seeing which arguments I could potentially rebut. However, I've tried my best to set that aside and look at your point of view without discrimination. Even though we may not agree, I still find your videos fascinating.

And of course I am open to correction! Please let me know where you disagree with me.

[cloudrapbeats]

Oh man.... when you said “do you get the game” it clicked. All I’ll say is if you don’t determine your own truth it’ll be determined for you. Whether it be religion, science, or anything else. Leo you are hundreds of years ahead of your time

[nikolaveskovic]

Leo: ARE YOU READY? ARE YOU READY? ARE YOU READY??

ME: CONTEMPLATES IN SPONGEBOG

[legend-mcyq]

I'm so excited to see this. Got my popcorn I'm ready

[chadrapozaful]

Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved --
Tim Minchin

[TheDhammaHub]

People really do not like to hear this, but the hypothesis we analyze in science also originate somewhere and in the end it all boils down to self-observation and clear observation of reality (even the more arcane branches of math I work in xD)

[AdamMiceli]

"Because science is our only real way of knowing anything, what science cannot know cannot be real."

- Philip E. Johnson,
American Eductaor

(I've intentionally chosen this quote to illustrate how many people naively assume that science = truth)