A Natural Connected World Perception.

[Native]

It´s my opinion that modern cosmological science has become very speculative and disconnected from all natural things.
In this video, Astrophysicist Michael Clarage, PhD, gives his alternative approach to more connected ideas which "binds it all together".

What are your thoughts of this video content?

 

[Altfish]

It´s my opinion that modern cosmological science has become very speculative and disconnected from all natural things.
In this video, Astrophysicist Michael Clarage, PhD, gives his alternative approach to more connected ideas which "binds it all together".

What are your thoughts of this video content?

Has he written any papers that have been peer reviewed?
YouTube is good, but not exactly scientific.

 

[Native]

Has he written any papers that have been peer reviewed?
YouTube is good, but not exactly scientific.

Hi Altfish,
Michael Clarage express mostly his natural philosophical perceptions which I find excellent indeed.

He have some, by me not yet read, articles here at: Michael Clarage - and I don´t know if these are peer reviewed.

Most new thoughts are not peer reviewed, just because they are new and it take some time for peer reviewers and standard cosmologists to change paradigms.

 

[exchemist]

Has he written any papers that have been peer reviewed?
YouTube is good, but not exactly scientific.

He got his PhD in biology (Brandeis University). But I don't think he has any peer reviewed papers in astrophysics.

 

[Native]

He got his PhD in biology (Brandeis University).

IMO biology is a good entrance to understand everything else which vibrates too. It just depends on broadening one's philosophical perspective and notice the similarities.

 

[Altfish]

Hi Altfish,
Michael Clarage express mostly his natural philosophical perceptions which I find excellent indeed.

He have some, by me not yet read, articles here at: Michael Clarage - and I don´t know if these are peer reviewed.

Most new thoughts are not peer reviewed, just because they are new and it take some time for peer reviewers and standard cosmologists to change paradigms.

OK, so the answer's NO

 

[Polymath257]

I
What are your thoughts of this video content?

New age woo. No real science.

 

[Native]

New age woo.

Of course any denier of philosophical thinking would say that.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course any denier of philosophical thinking would say that.

Philosophical thinking is fine as long as it conforms to the data and is testable.

Of course, at that point it becomes scientific thinking.

But vague woo will remain vague woo.

 

[Native]

But vague woo will remain vague woo.

As a member of the 4 % known part of the Universe, you´re an excellent expert on what "vague woo" means

 

[Polymath257]

As a member of the 4 % known part of the Universe, you´re an excellent expert on what "vague woo" means

Knowing about 4% is far better than vague speculation about the rest.

 

[Native]

Knowing about 4% is far better than vague speculation about the rest.

I´m sure it is to you - as using philosophical brain powers to understand more possibly would give you much to much headaches.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m sure it is to you - as using philosophical brain powers to understand more possibly would give you much to much headaches.

Understanding requires testing. Those philosophical brain powers are just as likely to be wrong as to be right. In fact, MORE likely.

So, give a testable prediction that differs from the standard view and we can go and actually do the observation to see who is wrong or right.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What are your thoughts of this video content?

I often don't look at orphan links, that is, links sending me to an article or video with no accompanying description of what it is or why I might be interested in it. One reason is that the one making the presentation isn't here to defend - to answer questions or engage in discussion. Another is that I would have to invest a fair amount of time into something of unknown value, and this is often a fruitless use of time.

But I listened to the first forty seconds of this video, didn't hear anything new, jumped ahead two times and still didn't find a reason to listen to the whole thing, and so left it.

I would suggest that in the future, if you recommend some content, that you summarize what you think it says, and if not obvious, why others might be interested. Presumably you have understood it and can do that. So why not?

 

[Native]

Understanding requires testing

Agreed. And if your philosophical skills cannot find any understandable connections, it´s your philosophical skills which needs testing.

 

[Native]

I would suggest that in the future, if you recommend some content, that you summarize what you think it says, and if not obvious, why others might be interested. Presumably you have understood it and can do that. So why not?

My OP opinion was already written in the opening remarks and it´s up to other debaters to ponder over the philosophical video content and give their responses.