Nature is among the highest tier of journals in the world - highly respected and the place every scientist would love to have their work published at some point in their career. Nature has editorials as well as journal articles and they have effectively a letters to the editor section and commentary. Nonetheless, although this article is labelled as “comment” it has 8 authors all claiming expertise in disciplines from environmental science through to ecological economics and sociology. I refute the article paragraph by paragraph and point by point providing analysis, opinion and reflections. This is a clash of worldviews: that of decline and degrowth and pro-environment and that of progress, growth and pro-people. This was something of a “straw that breaks the camel’s back” moment. Just as around the world many people are struggling to pay energy bills and governments persist in implementing policies that will only see the cost of living due to energy policy increase further while the overall wealth of households decreases, Nature sees fit to publish a defence of strong-socialism. This piece refers to “science” and yet it is not science. It is not even economics. It is an ideology screed. And a screed of this kind needs to be answered because, as I conclude - this is dangerous. This is literally life, livelihood and liberty threatening. The brakes are presently on the economies of the world because of the misconception that rapid progress and growth are a bad thing. That population increase is a bad thing. That cheap reliable energy is a bad thing and the prescription for this is to coerce people into using forms of energy that are not yet shown to have worked reliably anywhere (in other words entirely untested in even one place before being mandated on all places) and in many places simply not available yet, while coal and fossil fuel supplies are decommissioned too early. This is a threat to nation states and to the globe. This is my defence of humanity against anti-rational memes, prosaic “bad ideas” and stasis.
Commentary (and Explainer)
This video is largely an op-ed about the "feminisation" of Western militaries and the effect of so-called "diversity, equity and inclusion" ideologies on modern defence forces. I look at what the purpose of a military is and the tension between its aims and the ways some arms of some defence forces are "marketing" themselves to their own people. Of chief concern to some has been the way the US army has chosen to attempt to recruit people into its ranks here:
1. https://youtu.be/MIYGFSONKbk?si=C8mFqnObEburxXqz
2. A recent article from Australian media about coercion of "LGBTQIA+" ideologies on cadets: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-27/adf-academy-cadets-claim-they-were-pressured-to-remove-uniforms/102780562
3. US Marine corps recruitment ad for comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9gTAjbiQEM
4. Humorous Aussie analysis of US vs Russian & Chinese army recruitment commercials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXmyWdZfdgk
5. Ex-Marine comments on US Military Matters (Jameson's Travels) - https://www.youtube.com/@UC-N44TadAniwC7v8Zj858nQ
"Like" my video and "subscribe" to my channel :)
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-4NA-PkOLs
This is essentially a sequel to episode 1 of this series about the "reality of abstractions". This question considers the special case of the laws of physics. In what sense do the laws of physics exist? Can we deny their existence as some philosophers do?
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF9Q4UhvG34
Some remarks by Brett Hall on the work of David Deutsch. If you would like to support this endeavor, do consider making a one off donation by clicking the “Donate” button on the front page of www.bretthall.org
or you may “subscribe” (contribute automatically each month) - at https://patreon.com/BrettRHall
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMtort-zvdI
This chapter continues the themes from Chapter 4 as well as my episode all about probability, risk and Bayesianism found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOK5aiASmKM which is an exploration of another talk given by David Deutsch on the nature of probability given what we know about physics. So this chapter of Pinker's book Rationality - being centrally concerned about the use of what is called "Bayesian Reasoning" is compared in this episode to alternative explanations of what rationality and reason amount to. More than previous episodes so far that I have published on the book "Rationality" this one is very much a critique. There is much to recommend the book "Rationality" for two reasons (1) it does summarise and explain some common misconceptions about how to reason or common mistakes people make when reasoning - and these are worth knowing (2) it works as an excellent summary of the prevailing intellectual/academic perspective on these matters for people who are interested in what the truth of the matter is. Knowing what "academic experts" think about this stuff means knowing what gets taught and what filters eventually into culture itself via the "top down" education system we presently have. All that is worth knowing. But here, in this chapter, we encounter the fundamental clash of epistemological worldviews: the mainstream intellectual *prescription* of what they think should be the way people think as against Karl Popper's *description* of the reality as to how knowledge is generated and progress made through incremental identification of errors and their correction. Have fun listening!
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_oAgapkAYA
Part 1 of a new short series where I am commenting on Karl Popper's lecture "On the sources of knowledge and of ignorance". This paper sets the scene for the link between objective knowledge and fallibilism - refuting, as it does so, the empiricism of the classic British tradition and the rationalism of the Continental Tradition. I make the case at one point that most modern intellectuals (I mention the Americans in particular - perhaps unfairly) blend both classic philosophies into an epistemology of "certainly true knowledge" which is evidence based ("empirical") and inerrant (because it is "rational"). In all cases these are "the truth is manifest" crowd and that can lead to authoritarianism. The Popperian tradition is to take both the virtues of empiricism and rationalism - and thus by the light of both evidence and reason come to objective knowledge: knowledge that solves a problem but could possibly be wrong.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqZDAO6NpAI
This is the second part (after a part 0, introduction) referring to chapter 16 of The Beginning of Infinity with more substantive readings. We get into imitation and compare how apes "ape" and parrots "parrot" to what humans are doing when they learn. Meme replication and lyrebirds make an appearance.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhgGMKj1MOs