scineram: We hold those truths to be self-evident.
We hold those truths to be self-evident.
APRIORISM IS NOT ALLOWED HERE!
'the American is the most unphilosophical of beings. The rationalization of conduct in general is most repugnant to him; he prefers to emotionalize it.' - Albert J Nock
Knight_of_BAAWA: Rather, lam should back his claims.
Rather, lam should back his claims.
They are essentially self-evident, anyone with half a mind who goes onto youtube will figure out the value of debates there are nil so the obvious better choice is to read a book by a knowledgeable author - one one learn a lot more from Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, or Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies than the far majority of all youtube videos. If you happen to disagree with my claim, I don't care enough to back it up.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
I think if you look hard enough, you can find some good debates on youtube. I found a good debate between Father Fredrick Copleston and Bertrand Russell on youtube. But idk if that counts as a youtube debate. But I still think that reading an actual book by a knowledgeable author is a better idea if your only goal is to learn quality information. There are certainly some very informative vidoes on youtube though.
You don't even have to look hard. All of the Mises lectures are onYoutube. Many other institutes and programs are on youtube, and several very intelligent anarchists post on youtube regularly. Many of them use various forms of visual aid to help explain the topic at hand. Ignoring these forms of intellectual outlets is just as folly as refusing to read books.
Sure it is easy to find garbage on youtube, just as easy as it is to find garbage books. I see no difference. Learn to search. :)
But in all honesty if Lam and others despise youtube who am I judge him of that opinion. I may think it's closed minded, and I do, but he's welcome to as he pleases. I, like him, don't care. The only thing I find distasteful is judging others for choosing to do so.
Prepare to get schooled by my Austrian perspective!
- You can prove anything empirically -
laminustacitus:They are essentially self-evident, anyone with half a mind who goes onto youtube will figure out the value of debates there are nil
I think you're making a statement you can't back up. For example, there are some great responses and debates from our own LadyAttis.
With several million (or is it billion now?) videos, you're simply not able to pass absolute judgment. Don't assume the medium is the message.
filc:The only thing I find distasteful is judging others for choosing to do so.
+1000
filc: You don't even have to look hard. All of the Mises lectures are onYoutube. Many other institutes and programs are on youtube, and several very intelligent anarchists post on youtube regularly. Many of them use various forms of visual aid to help explain the topic at hand. Ignoring these forms of intellectual outlets is just as folly as refusing to read books. Sure it is easy to find garbage on youtube, just as easy as it is to find garbage books. I see no difference. Learn to search. :) But in all honesty if Lam and others despise youtube who am I judge him of that opinion. I may think it's closed minded, and I do, but he's welcome to as he pleases. I, like him, don't care. The only thing I find distasteful is judging others for choosing to do so.
Oh Boy! That strawman sure was taken down easily in one quick swipe. I understand that there are issues pertaining to interpretation, but when he said "I really don't understand the notion of youtube debates" he emphatically did not mean "there is nothing of any value on Youtube".
No, rather, as I understood him his point was simply and largely true. The opportunity cost of watching these debates (usually in the hours) is higher than the benefits (which are, due to the lack of education by participants, usually quite low). One's time would be better spent reading works by academics (especially the greats such as Popper and Hayek) on the subject (or any other subject) if education is one's goal.
Nitroadict really hit the nail on the head in his post below. The people who make these videos just don't have a comparative advantage in this area, they're usually very poor speakers and somewhat undereducated. Which makes listening to an hour and a half of their mumbling, stuttering and lip smacking painful to watch. The lack of any substantial knowledge of the areas they're discussing usually leads to the debates descending into strawmen, ad homines and waffling pretty quickly.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Eric: I think if you look hard enough, you can find some good debates on youtube. I found a good debate between Father Fredrick Copleston and Bertrand Russell on youtube. But idk if that counts as a youtube debate. But I still think that reading an actual book by a knowledgeable author is a better idea if your only goal is to learn quality information. There are certainly some very informative vidoes on youtube though.
I think he meant far more concerning users & their "channels" (which, I forget who mentioned this earlier at some point in another thread, is fairly creeping in of itself in the big brother department when you all have talking head pundits as somehow being considered, automatically, a valid educational tool in of itself), not so much debates that have been professionally recorded & posted. I have to agree that I'm not very impressed at all by "youtube debates". It reeks of absolute narcissism in a way, to post a video of a typically rambling responses in supposed intellectual debates. None of these people have heard of self-editing? The average response in some philosophical debates (remember, not everyone is a philosopher, has studied it seriously or long enough to necessarily argue properly, or even with a proper grasp of logical fallacies, so whatever you find that seems to be above average youtube quality is still subject to the effects of the tragedy of the commons...) could be easily cut in half to it's more pertinent portions. Frankly, sometimes I do not care to see some yammering 18 year old who just read a Wikipedia page stumble through an argument, when he could've easily written it down before, & take time to construct it. Yes, this isn't as "dramatic", "raw", & "in yo face" as actual, real-time responses, but being more punctual might get some debates somewhere instead of eventually de-evolving (or have subtle undertones) of ad-hominem arguments & the battling of ego's. Admittedly, there's nothing wrong with amateurs trying to "break in" & get experience, but I think many will find themselves eventually limited by youtube's medium, which is only one of many options (blogging, old fashioned writing, forums, public debates, ye olde one-on-one verbal fisticuffs, etc.). At worst, your video could be pure punditry (and very popular), at best, something that goes above the sea of the commons but largely un-noticed. Youtube's method of delivering information, via a massive commons of users posting media via playlists, uploaded videos, etc. is still in it's infancy, as with most Web 2.0 technologies (some which won't last much longer in the next decade or so, depending on who can manage to scrounge money long enough to keep going). Luckily, no one is forced to see such videos, so my annoyances are admittedly a bit pedantic. Still, I think the overall time being spent on youtube debates does not necessarily reflect any noticeable gain in quality (for now) over other mediums, aside from a more "interactive" or "personal" factor. The most attractive feature of youtube, imo, has little to do with the videos themselves, & that would be the ability to construct playlists (a'la your choice of media player for audio files), & for people to subscribe to a given channel (which isn't anything new, it's just an extension on the "Friends" concept of myspace, facebook etc.). Despite the problems of a commons, youtube playlists to offer an albeit primitive way of diverting more pertinent videos to users of a given video, & help introduce flow to arguments (especially when you read "This video is a response to : links to another video). Likewise, when individuals can essentially maintain their own youtube services, the appearances & functionality of these multitude of youtubes will improve over previous designs, via eventual use of future web markup tech like HTML5, CSS3, newer Javascript frameworks, AJAX, etc*. *It will get extremely interesting when various individual youtube services begin to be back-ended by different programming languages aside from Python, PHP, & Ruby, & might possibly introduce radical improvements over previous forays. I honestly do not expect much quality stuff being delivering in a youtube manner until semi-private sites or fully privatized sites begin to emerge to give actual competition*. *Not direct youtube competitors like hulu, I mean to say, the point where I could somehow purchases enough cheap bandwidth to make my own youtube for any of my offline friends to utilize & lock out anyone else on the internet. If mises were to eventually create their own youtube service, it would not be a leap of logic to assume the quality of the content posted would be more pertinent, & have incentive to be of higher quality. Likewise for other sites, perhaps even blogs. Give me a panarchial group of youtube competitors, varying from private to public, across various domains, any day over what we currently have, which is essentially the beginning stumbling of a new method of debate largely occurring with a few video hosting sites (youtube, Veoh, Hulu, etc.) who will retain natural monopolies until enough bandwidth can be consumed, purchased, & maintained at more individual levels, to allow for individual youtubes to propagate. However, despite the optimistic tone of the end of my response, the enforcement of ACTA will make such a possibility (typically) slower to implement, as if the enforcement of said treaty goes "all out", it would be next to useless to have so many youtube competitors when all of them are politically correct & censored for the sake of avoiding imprisonment. Of course, this goes for the internet in general; locking down & rendering the 1st Internet next to useless to give the "gun to the head" motion of accepting Internet 2 & it's more built-in methods of control, censorship, regulation, etc.) (Ironically, I could've edited this response myself to be more pertinent...)
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
What movie is that?
I'm going to agree with Laminus and Giles for once. Much of what passes for "debate" on YT is utter tripe. Mises Lectures are one thing, crap like this entirely another.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Knight_of_BAAWA:Rather, lam should back his claims.
laminustacitus:They are essentially self-evident
Jon Irenicus:I'm going to agree with Laminus and Giles for once.
Ugh.
Jon Irenicus:Much of what passes for "debate" on YT is utter tripe.
I don't believe anyone claimed otherwise. In fact, I think I have made the point about the tragedy of the Web 2.0 Commons (specifically Blogger and YouTube) many times.
Jon Irenicus:Mises Lectures are one thing, crap like this entirely another.
Right, but Giles and Lam are implying that all YouTube debate is like this. Which we know is simply untrue. Confederal Socialist's and (as much as it pains me to say it) BP's videos are an example of the higher quality discourse to be found. I don't watch them, but I know they are out there.
Lam and Giles argument basically amounts to something like this.
"Computers are a waste of time because it's mostly people googling porn and playing video games."
It takes real intellectual curiosity to check out a new medium, not just for the obvious, but the less obvious exchanges and interplays that are pushing at the boundaries of what we take for granted. If anything, I love to hold a book in my hands. But this elitist anachronism is tiring. Luddites and aristocrats seek a return to an idealized past that never was through alliance with a state gripping too tightly a present that is rapidly changing.
Now the real complaint here seems to be debate versus self-discovery. But then if Lam and Giles find debate online to be so pointless, why do they devote thousands of words to it each month?
Ladyattis is good on 'tube
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
GilesStratton:Oh Boy! That strawman sure was taken down easily in one quick swipe. I understand that there are issues pertaining to interpretation, but when he said "I really don't understand the notion of youtube debates" he emphatically did not mean "there is nothing of any value on Youtube".
"Of course there is something wrong with doing that when at the same time one could educate oneself against those errors. The time one spends ranting on the internet could easily be spent reading quality works with a far higher time-to-knowledge return."
"Its a great platform for spreading information, but certainly not quality knowledge."
"Debates on youtube are not logical dissections of any argument, nor for that matter are conversations on internet fora. It requires professionals with broad knowledge in their discipline to fully dissect a subject, it is not the task of a layman."
"... anyone with half a mind who goes onto youtube will figure out the value of debates there are nil..." (emphasis mine)
Hmm, did Giles' "me too-ism" come back to bite him on the bottom again?
It's a fine line between devil's advocate and crank.
GilesStratton:when he said "I really don't understand the notion of youtube debates" he emphatically did not mean "there is nothing of any value on Youtube"
GilesStratton:The opportunity cost of watching these debates (usually in the hours) is higher than the benefits (which are, due to the lack of education by participants, usually quite low)
Knight_of_BAAWA:But he does mean that wrt debates on youtube
Lam:... anyone with half a mind who goes onto youtube will figure out the value of debates [on Youtube] are nil
Right, I still fail to see how I have shifted the goalposts.
liberty student:It takes real intellectual curiosity to check out a new medium, not just for the obvious, but the less obvious exchanges and interplays that are pushing at the boundaries of what we take for granted. If anything, I love to hold a book in my hands. But this elitist anachronism is tiring. Luddites and aristocrats seek a return to an idealized past that never was through alliance with a state gripping too tightly a present that is rapidly changing.
LS, I can't help but think you've misunderstood my position. I think blogs and forums can lead to productive, healthy discussion (especially the former, but it depends), it's certainly possible that two individuals can have productive discussion through other means, Youtube may be one of those.
I just really doubt that Youtube really does allow any sort of productive debate. The size limits on the comments on Youtube, the general level of education/ maturity on Youtube, the cost of watching a video (compared with, say, the cost of reading the exact same thing on a blog post, which is usually lower) and the greater ease with which one can post on a blog all mean that blogs (and forums) have a greater feedback mechanism.
If I say something that's a blatant lie on my blog, it can get called out pretty quickly for various reasons reasons (the lower cost of reading a blog post means demand for the blog goes up, the type of consumer is more educated, comments can be longer, it's easier to link to evidence) One doesn't have anything comparable on YT, which is why the comments usually ending up with "ya, ur ryte u no, those commies r stupid" by a supporter of the video (who probably didn't watch it) to which an enlightened opponent of the video (who watched 5 minutes) replied "shut up you fascist libertarian, go worship hitler" to which the other participant in the debate (who definately didn't watch it) replies with a video saying "yes...well...your...position...is...l-l-l-laughable", "your [insert mumbling nobody understands]" and "toc-c-c-c-concludei'vethoroughlyrefutedyourposition".
Giles, we're not talking about YouTube comments.
The rest of your post was just rambling. Please try to post something relevant to the discussion.
GilesStratton:Right, I still fail to see how I have shifted the goalposts.
If youtube debates are garbage than My question then is this.
A) What other forum is there that would provide examples of quality debate? Please fill me in on the s3cr3tz. :)
B) Lam brought up the point, along the lines of, that these debates are done from ignorance and as such are not valuable.(Paraphrasing, so sorry if I mis-understood) He seems to argue that they are not on the intellectual plane that they should be in order for them to be relevant or worth our time. My second question is this. Is it realistic to believe that we will persuade people our points of view by explaining to them the technical or inner mechanics of details like a specific part of the ABCT? Or by citing quotes from a book when the premise has not been established or understood by the person your discussing with?
Point is, youtube provides a real-life example of some of the questions you can expect to find amongst all forms of statists. Most statists are not as well read as people like Lam for example. Things that are obvious to him will not be obvious to a statist, and if our goal is to educate people the value of freedom we must start at their level and build the framework so that they can ultimately reach our level. Some of those statists may be friends, family, ect. We cannot pretend that we will never encounter a statist who is not ignorant of various economic matters and logic. If we take the standpoint that we refuse to discuss our beliefs with people who are not considered, by us, on the same intellectual plane, than will we never reach the volume or types of people we want.
Odds are your going find someone one day in your life who you are fond of, and it's far more likely that they will be a statist.(Statistical Guestimation, most folks are statists) Do you explain your reasoning to them right off the bat by revealing the inner technical mechanics of the ABCT? Or do you should your response be more appropriate for their intellectual level so that they may reach some sort of understanding . We need to thought provoke yes, but not steam roll them intellectually or ignore them due to their current incapacities.
In many cases we will need to bring ourselves down to their intellectual capacity if we wish to have hope for these people to ever understand our perspectives.
IMO Youtube provides several real world examples of what you can expect to find when discussing with friends and families. A statst isn't going to open dialgoue with you regarding Page 101 Line 20 in The Logic of Scientific Discovery tryign in attempt to rebuke some argument therein. Instead they're going to go with the typical. Roads, Security, Medecine, ect.. bullshit. We need to be prepared to take those baseline arguments and maximize our ability at delivering understanding to those we are arguing against.
Thats my
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap