Видео

It basically means, this won’t change anyone’s mind. You may as well have time traveled if a debate will change your mind on the supernatural which is to say it’s impossible.

hello

tl,dr: We must admit that science too is a kind of faith, albeit different from religion and "hippie" beliefs; if we ignore this, we risk of losing the very validity of science. Us men are finite animals, the mind of the researcher is always a "tabula plena" (Popper) and dogmatism can always be one step ahead.

It's not supposed to all be about science. It's about destroying beliefs that lack critical thinking. Storm is just a representation of them all to aid his arguments.

I prefer the story telling and artistry. I am not sure a dry exposition of the scientific method would have the same impact. Comedians often play with stereotypes. Like them or not, they engage the viewer.

Indeed they often are. However, the efficacy of their inventions - particularly when compared to so-called alt-med alternatives - are a different question altogether.

Could you point to some of these studies that supposedly prove the existence of magic? Or at least who conducted the studies?

As someone raised Christian who has moved away from religion, I think a lot of people who believe in the supernatural do so because they WANT to believe there's something more. Not because it's logical. They think the world would be "boring" if magic didn't exist. That's what I used to think. But Tim points out the wonder and beauty in the world that already exists and how people can make more of that for themselves by sharing their time with friends etc. That's far more profound than magic.

"More and more studies..." Um, being of a scientific bent, I'm going to need you to cite at least a couple of those for me. Firstly so that I can understand just where you think Storm is "not that far off" and secondly so that I can see your evidence for myself.

@@PianoDiary85 Why can't we be in awe of magic...AND the natural world. Oh yes, magic exists whether you believe it or not. The world of enchantment where no scientist can literally explain it all exists...You claim to know everything...fine. But I surely, don't know everything...and in an infinite world as this one you can never be too sure. Right?

@@AenesidemusOZ Just because you can't wrap your little human head around the fact that there is phenomenon we will never be able to explain doesn't mean magic does not exist. I don't claim to know it all. I have faith that there is a world out there that is unseen and magical. What's wrong with having a little fun and learning something new. Look up and read up on "grounding" how being barefoot on the Earth is actually a thing and good for your energetic field as well as your physical body. Don't be lazy check it out and come back then tell me I'm wrong. You can't deny the evidence.

You'll love it ;)

Homeopathy is bs, it is based on the idea that if you get a thing that would produce a similar symptom as a disease in the smallest possible dose it will cure it. By the way I mean one molecule of the original substance across hundreds of gallons of the 'medicine'

Homeopathy is rubbish. Natural medicine is just that: medicine that hasn't been tested and proven effective (perhaps 𝘺𝘦𝘵). They are in no way the same thing.

I’m curious, what arguments are you referring to that are not logical or based in science?

Also what do you mean when you put (male, of course) in brackets? I’m unclear as to which point you are making?

Whether he is arrogant and condescending or even (male, of course), has no bearing on the validity of his criticisms of new age "thinking". She's the one pushing an agenda at the dinner party. Tim's character is responding to HER claims.

yes, it's ironic that the best they can do is saying that scepticism is at least as crap as their religion. Not a very high bar ..lol

yeah assuming there is such a thing as a soul in the first place.

@@PianoDentist The theology department of my university hosted something they called "cafe abraham". Essentially a nice little pavillion they built where they had some students and some profs and they tried to engage students in some conversation about religion over a nice cup of tea or coffee. I was interested in that cup of tea and some good conversation is always nice so i went there. Long story short, the conversation quickly boiled down to one of my first questions: What exactly is a "soul"? The anwser the prof gave was (translated from german) "the soul is what gives the body it's form". However when i pointed out that this may sound profound but is actually just gibberish and asked for clarification the prof was totally stumped. We talked a while longer before she pawned me off to one of her collegues that turned out equally stumped. Didn't get a clear anwser to the very end.

@@tranquilthoughts7233 Interesting story. I think they call that a "deepidy". I guess theology isn't as philosophically rigorous as other philosophical disciplines/applications. Probably no surprise that theology or just an explanation of the soul, falls over when ontological justifications are required.

I see you have shared multiple opinions about this video including gender based pejoratives but have not responded to anyone inquiring about these opinions. In one you bring up “mansplaining”, are you offering an example of this or just calling it out as you see it?

@@NebraskaGonvilleJones sealioning and trolling, much? I don't have to explain anything. I have a life, mind you. Now, I'm back to it (and to IGNORE all trolls).

is your name Storm?

What is the issue with this? If I go and search up the definition of “mansplaining”… there’s nothing inherently bad with it? Why would those people’s genders matter? Of course, “nothing wrong with mansplaining”, that’s beyond the obvious condescending tone, of course, that goes without saying. But that- being condescending is always kinda bad and it is always preferable to do without-HOWEVER, that is acknowledged all throughout the video… so I really don’t see what’s wrong with it? The main characters might as well be a woman explaining stuff to a male dictator or a trans man speaking to a cow… whatever. I don’t wanna make it forbidden for a man to win against a woman when it is very thoroughly deserved, especially in a debate. Neither do I want the opposite… in fact, the gender of these people really doesn’t mean much to me and I don’t see why you want to make it such a big deal. It doesn’t matter here. It’s a bit cliché, sure, but then so would be preventing such cases in movies~

are you objecting to the perceived way that a "man" is explaining something in a condescending way? Or are you objecting to the actual content of what he is saying? Because the former does not negate the latter. If you know a thing about critical thinking, you wouldn't conflate the 2.

This isn't "mansplaining"! The male protagonist isn't explaining something to the female antagonist that she already understands; he's providing arguments against her claims. Albeit he IS short with her, as I would be, because the same bulldust has been sprouted by "alternative thinkers" for decades and we get tired of repeating ourselves. For the record, gender doesn't matter; all genders are prone to belief in the supernatural without any proof.

Well, actually… it’s really quite accurate! Let’s look at this together! We’ll need to do some quick math and history along the way. We’re little investigators with Google and a calculator! Tim actually says the word “great” 4 times in the movie, not 3. That would place such a family member 5 generations behind him, as an “uncle” or “aunt” is already a generation behind. Let’s consider a generation to be what Wikipedia says: between 20 and 30 years long. Let’s make it 25. That puts such family about 125 years back from Tim (25 × 5). Being 35 himself in 2011 (when this was released to RUclips), that means those family members were born around 1851 (that is, 2011 − 125 − 35). There is no data available for life expectancy at that time in Australia, unfortunately, or at least none that I could find easily. With this story taking place in London… I decided to go with UK figures as those are available. Not the same place in the world and not by any means comparable, but I guess close enough as Australia is a former colony and some families potentially included members both in colonies and mainland Britain. Reading an online graph, I can see around 39 years for life expectancy at 1850, there seems to have been a small drop for that year of birth-maybe a later war or disease or something during the late 19ᵗʰ century, I don’t know British history too well (as a French person, I only heard about the Franco-Prussian war of the 1870s). But even 1845 and 1855 around that give 42 and 41 respectively, so it’s safe to settle on a 40. Today, however, or in 2011 when this aired… we were (are) around 80 years for an average. So it’s really double 40. The only slightly imprecise thing about this is that he mixes “uncleses” and “auntses”. I used figures that seem mixed/averaged for both genders but in reality, there are noticeable differences, in that women tend to live longer than men.

@@nouche He says "uncleses and auntses" because he is drunk by the end. He has quaffed 6 glasses of wine during the conversation. He also then makes an offensive comment about/to Storm he might have otherwise kept in his head which earns him a glare from his wife, like someone who is drunk might do. Very clever wordplay and storytelling for Tim. The live version is a lot better because Tim's body language really adds to the story. When he says "twice as long to love this wife of mine" he points to where she is supposedly sitting/standing. Then when he makes that comment about storm having "butterflies on her titties" and looks over in the direction he pointed with a defensive look and a hands-in-the-air gesture the audience understand his wife is telling him off for making such a remark. Very well written and performed.

Why is that?

Interested to understand why?

Tim is very intelligent and very well read.

Not a good thing calling her an SJW because there are really good people and causes behind that term. Storm sure is a cliché and we can mock her for it, being a fictional character. She embodies those false beliefs and anti-scientific causes. Also her being a female might be part of the cliché but it really doesn’t have much to do here. SJWs can be any gender. You get over-the-top Twitter leftists (wokes, if you will) of either gender, just as there are nice, passionate people who fight for social causes and justice without behaving like kids in a middle school playground. And they can be male or female or whatever, just the same. Same goes with wrongful thinking and belief in false information. Nobody is stupid just for believing in BS, just like no one is immune from being tricked into doing so. We have crap human brains with a lot of flaws and glitches. Being a male or female doesn’t help with that.

well I can tell you we are generously far from knowing everything.

It's OK. We'll never know everything. Hell, we know 10% of bugger all at the moment!