Notes on Elliot Temple's Youtube videos

I have started taking notes on Elliot’s old Evidence and Criticism video playlist. These are my notes from the first three videos. Here is a link to the playlist:

Evidence and Criticism playlist notes:

Evidence 1

  • Note on the video series itself:
    • See for yourself if what is said is correct or can you see something wrong with it.
  • Evidence is useful facts but what’s useful depends on what questions you ask or what problems you have.
  • Use evidence to contradict theories or find evidence is consistent with theories (non-contradicting)
    • Theories contradicting evidence are false
    • Theories consistent with evidence can be true or false
    • Evidence itself can be false
  • Evidence only helps rule out bad theories
    • Example: theories about ball color ruled out by evidence; all red, all green, no red or green, most red, white except w/ tinted glasses

Evidence 2

  • What makes experiments produce important evidence?
  • What makes new scientific theories good?
  • Design experiments with rival theories
    • Find consequences of theories that disagree
    • Experiment should test the disagreement
    • At least one theory will be shown to be incorrect
  • Relativity example:
    • Newtonian mechanics predicted that light would be deflected by the Sun’s gravity
    • Einstein’s theory predicted that the light would be deflected by even more
    • Measured deflection turns out to be consistent with Relativity but inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics
  • Precession of Mercury example:
    • Precession—the change in orientation of the rotational axis of a rotating body (Wikipedia)
    • Relativity also predicted correct precession for Mercury, which was a well-known problem
    • Relativity also accounted for all other evidence that Newtonian mechanics

Evidence 3

  • Mistaken evidence is a problem
  • Repeatable experiments
    • Carefully keep track of all steps in experiment
    • Allows you or someone else to do the same experiment again later
    • Compare results from multiple experiments
    • Others can read your experiment procedures to find mistakes
    • Different results indicate more investigation is required
  • Be open to criticism
  • Create your own criticisms of your experiment
  • Open minded and critically minded at the same time
  • If the evidence has a mistake, then either someone knows about the mistake or no one understands the mistake
    • No system can catch mistakes that no one understands
  • Mistakes have a reason
  • Look for causes of mistakes
    • Discovering sources of error is progress
  • Anything can be mistaken, so evidence is never final
  • Use the best theory you know about so far
  • A theory that can explain what things are and sources of error contains more knowledge
  • Amending a theory to explain evidence is changing the theory
    • Contradictory evidence always improves theory
    • Either evidence refuted the old theory or added knowledge about sources of error
  • Five Summary ideas:
    • Repeatable experiments
    • Criticism
    • Consequences of Mistaken Evidence
    • Fallibility
    • Learning from Mistaken Evidence
1 Like

Criticism 1

  • The purpose of evidence is criticism
  • Evidence is one kind of criticism
  • What other types of criticism are there?
    • Argument
  • All criticism is used in arguments
  • You have to explain what the evidence has to do with the topic
    • Why is the evidence relevant?
  • Argument is the most general type of criticism because evidence has to be used in arguments
  • More detailed types of criticism:
    • Contradiction
    • Non-sequitur (does not follow)
    • Complicated, confusing, or unclear
    • Vague or ambiguous
    • Does not solve the problem
    • Unnecessary parts
    • Easy to vary (has arbitrary parts)
    • Bad explanation
  • Invalid criticisms:
    • Unpopular
    • Weird, counter-intuitive
    • Feels wrong
    • Lack of authority
    • Lack of proof
    • Lack of justification
    • Criticism of author
    • Criticism of style
    • Obviously wrong
    • Everyone knows otherwise
    • Fallible
    • Has undesirable conclusion
  • ‘Lack of proof’ doesn’t matter if you can’t see anything wrong with the idea
    • Look for problems with ideas not support for ideas
  • An appeal to fallibility like, ‘you could be wrong’, doesn’t give a specific reason
    • The fallibility appeal can be used against any argument because it doesn’t address any particular issue
  • Contradictions mean that at least one idea is false, and it could be both ideas are false
    • A conclusion reached from contradictory ideas isn’t necessarily false but that argument for the conclusion is false
    • If the contradictions are required to reach the conclusion, then the conclusion is false
  • All false arguments are non-sequiturs
    • Try to give other criticisms besides non-sequitur because it can be hard to discern the what the mistake is
    • Ask why the relationship given is the case? How does it work? What causes the two things to be related?
  • Arguments should be clear
    • Unclear ideas aren’t necessarily false but they can be improved
  • Vague arguments can have many possible meanings
    • Need more clarity in order to engage in criticism
  • Ambiguous arguments can mean two or more things
    • Still need clarification

Criticism 2

  • Arguments need a problem or question they are trying to solve, address or answer
    • Arguments should always explain what their point is
    • Not having a purpose is a flaw in the argument
    • Not achieving the purpose is a flaw and the argument fails
  • Unnecessary parts of an argument should be removed
  • Arguments shouldn’t be easy to vary
    • Changes to the argument should matter to whether it solves the problem
    • Every part of the argument should be there for a reason
    • Unnecessary parts always introduce an easy to vary component
  • Bad explanations are arguments that don’t make sense in some way
    • An argument with no explanation is bad
    • Appeals to authority are bad explanations
    • Arguments should explain themselves
  • Categorizing criticism is not the really important thing
  • Looking at types of criticism helps with organization but formality is unimportant

There are no foolproof arguments and no foolproof methods of thinking