To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
That’s not true, a respectable philosophy channel talking about the history of a philosopher is not pop-science. You’re welcome to watch the videos before making straw man arguments. Videos of biographies and Neil Tyson speaking about his love for the cosmos, or Michio Kaku talking about Einstein’s beliefs has nothing to do with whatever narrow view you have of how to share information.
Both of those are pop-science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is famous for doing pop-science. He isn’t a philosopher, studies the history of science or has expertise in cognitive science. He’s the planetarium director at the American Museum of Natural History.
His video’s about his love for the cosmos might be good for getting young people motivated to take up scientific careers but they are pop-science. The are not arguments that are supposed to withstand academic rigor. Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t get papers about his love for the universe published in peer reviewed journals.
This has nothing to do with the argument made in the first post they were mentioned, the way Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the experiment and religious experiences was a funny coincidence.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. His love for the universe could be published in a neuro study similar to religious experiences. That would be cool if it is done and if it is or is not the case.
I kind of understand what you mean now, yes the argument is based on pop-science because you can’t have love of the universe in a video published in peer-reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with this, for the exception of the exercise, the click and so forth, that should be published.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Well yes. That’s the point I was making. What you are saying is detached from academic science and you don’t make appeals to real academic science. Or for that matter to other serious writing.
That’s not true, a respectable philosophy channel talking about the history of a philosopher is not pop-science. You’re welcome to watch the videos before making straw man arguments. Videos of biographies and Neil Tyson speaking about his love for the cosmos, or Michio Kaku talking about Einstein’s beliefs has nothing to do with whatever narrow view you have of how to share information.
Both of those are pop-science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is famous for doing pop-science. He isn’t a philosopher, studies the history of science or has expertise in cognitive science. He’s the planetarium director at the American Museum of Natural History.
His video’s about his love for the cosmos might be good for getting young people motivated to take up scientific careers but they are pop-science. The are not arguments that are supposed to withstand academic rigor. Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t get papers about his love for the universe published in peer reviewed journals.
This has nothing to do with the argument made in the first post they were mentioned, the way Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the experiment and religious experiences was a funny coincidence.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. His love for the universe could be published in a neuro study similar to religious experiences. That would be cool if it is done and if it is or is not the case.
I kind of understand what you mean now, yes the argument is based on pop-science because you can’t have love of the universe in a video published in peer-reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with this, for the exception of the exercise, the click and so forth, that should be published.
Well yes. That’s the point I was making. What you are saying is detached from academic science and you don’t make appeals to real academic science. Or for that matter to other serious writing.
I understand what you mean. Do you have any suggestions where to start?
Do you know how you can access scientific papers?
Yes, I have used pubmed, although I am not that good at searching yet. After that, I get the full papers from sci-hub.