Sunday, April 15, 2018

Voxiversity 005: a review

From a review posted on Idka:
I just watched the latest Voxiversity video. I had to wait, because I'm thinking about faith and epistemology for a blog post right now, and I find Vox persuasive, so I wanted to clarify my own thoughts before watching. That just took longer than planned.

Production-wise, it looks good, and the pacing works well. There is a nice balance between substantive points and visual quick-hitters, which is essential for the medium. Rhetorically, it is effective. The social transformation of Europe is superbly presented and the rape bit is a kill shot. The Christian ethics/falsification connection is less persuasive relatively, but seems more in need of fleshing out than off track, and it's close is thought provoking.  A little of Eco's The Open Work, to leave them engaged, perhaps. Overall, you can see the whole team growing into the format.

The delivery has been discussed on the blog, and I have a couple of observations. There is no perfect "voice" - it is a matter of showcasing strengths and mitigating limitations. Vox has a calm, measured tone that is excellent for presenting "hard" truths with matter-of-fact clarity. He also comes off as down to earth. Both of these qualities are working here. The editing adds the rhetorical punch, and an associate watching along pointed out that the low music is really effective on two levels. It keeps an elevated emotional engagement while subtly demonstrating the supremacy of Western culture. I concurred with that.

tl;dr - excellent addition to a project with huge upside. I hope these keep coming.
They will not only keep coming, but I expect an order of magnitude improvement in the visual quality when I am on camera in 007, which will be the second part of the Western Civilization and Christianity piece. We're doing a shorter piece that is primarily graphical next for 006.

It's important to keep in mind that what the producer and I are doing is new to both of us, so we're not only figuring what we can and cannot do given our various limitations, we're also experimenting with what approaches are effective and what is not.



Blogger Dave April 15, 2018 11:26 AM  

Overall an excellent start. Being flexible and willing to experiment is critical for continual improvement. As you've always said; "fail faster". It'll take time to learn what works and what doesn't work.

I know you get a lot of feedback on this blog and in the comments on YouTube and Bitchute but I've been thinking some kind of focus group research might be helpful. Say invite a group that you normally wouldn't expect to watch to do a web conference focus group.

Anonymous Anonymous April 15, 2018 11:36 AM  

Before adding my own review, I would like to post this transcript of your part of the video from about 10:09 to the outtro.  Please correct me if any of the following is not right.

People who are actually going back and taking the trouble to try to reproduce the results that scientists are reporting as "scientific fact" are not able to reproduce it. In fact, the majority of the time the results that are claimed in these peer-reviewed, professionally-published papers, in reputable journals, are false. They cannot reproduce more than fifty percent of the published science that is tested. And this is the GOOD stuff. And it gets worse. "Nature" did a poll in 2016. They surveyed 1500 scientists (that) they found out that 70% of them were unable to reproduce experiments that other scientists had published. But even worse, fifty percent of them couldn't reproduce successfully their own experiments.

So, the idea that you're going to be able to rely upon a method that most of the time is inaccurate and false is ludicrous. When you're dealing with a secular scientist who has tremendous incentive to falsify results, or to simply put a little thumb on the scale, or to make sure that he finds the results that the people funding him want to find, you have a problem.

Now I'm not saying that a scientist is necessarily going to... is any more likely to lie, or cheat, or falsify data, than anyone else. But here's the thing: When you do not have a religious incentive to tell the truth, and you have a tremendous financial incentive to not tell the truth, can we really be surprised when these professional scientists find a way to fudge things just a little bit to make sure the results come out the way that gets them published, that gets them paid.

So that's why we're seeing this crisis in science is because we are seeing fewer Christians in science. Oh, Christians lie, Christians sin, this is all true. But you cannot claim logically or with a straight face that is is unlikely for there to be a connection to removing this religious incentive to tell the truth, replacing it with a financial incentive to not tell the truth, and then discover magically that these scientists are not telling the truth. So, now, this is not a conclusive case, I admit that. But, I am simply pointing out that there is reason to believe that contra the assumptions of those who believe that science and religion, that science and Christianity are at war, I submit that science needs Christianity or at least something that serves as an adequate substitute in order to avert what we're seeing as the reproducibility crisis. The post-Christianity of the scientific community is one of the biggest dangers to science that exists today.


I think that's as close as I can get, word for word and including hesitations. Will you stipulate to its accuracy?

Blogger VD April 15, 2018 11:42 AM  

I think that's as close as I can get, word for word and including hesitations. Will you stipulate to its accuracy?

I said what I said on the video. I'm not going to waste my time proofreading anyone's transcripts.

Blogger VD April 15, 2018 11:44 AM  

I've been thinking some kind of focus group research might be helpful.

I don't believe in the utility of focus groups. The gap between what people say and what they do is simply too great. A/B tests are much more reliable.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother April 15, 2018 11:51 AM  

"when I am on camera in 007"

Day, Vox Day.

Blogger Dave April 15, 2018 11:57 AM  

Heh, isn't the next new Bond female?

Blogger The Observer April 15, 2018 12:19 PM  

The fedora atheists in the comments of 005 screeching that Vox has gotten science and the scientific method all wrong are hilarious.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 15, 2018 12:51 PM  

Semi OT: This may be useful:

I take the traditional Catholic position of Christ above culture, but I believe the Protestant criticism of authority-as-mediator was correct.

Blogger AdognamedOp April 15, 2018 12:59 PM  

It's not a bloody Allister Mclaine adaptation. Just point a camera at yourself and drop the knowledge bra.

Blogger Killua April 15, 2018 1:20 PM  

Congrats Vox. Keep up the great work!!

Blogger Starboard April 15, 2018 1:27 PM  

Agreed. 005 is the best so far for production quality. The music in the background is excellect, and the volume balance against the spoken track is perfect. The transition sound effects are very good, but perhaps still a touch too loud. I like the ruffling paper, crumpling paper, scrolling film, and whoosh sound effects. They draw the eyes back to the screen for the visuals. And it goes without saying that the subject matter is well researched and informative because this is voxiversity after all. Happy to be a backer. Keep up the good work!

Blogger Lovekraft April 15, 2018 1:51 PM  

The expression Diversity and Comics uses in his videos when an SJW character is portrayed as a technical/scientific wizard:

"I love the science!"

The purpose behind a scientific endeavor seems to be lost on most people. The Abrahamaics (including Mohammedans) seem, to me, to always be self-serving, or nefarious. Only acting in their self-interest and not objectively to serve all (as they see 'the all' as the heretics, or those to be exploited).

Hindus are basically looking out for whatever pays the most IMO. Communists? Their scientists are either slaves to the party, or going through the motions (doing the bare minimum as they know any extra effort is redistributed at best, stolen at worst). Atheists/satanists, when prodded for their 'moral center' end up looking like indignant children, evading. As for Buddhism, I follow these teachings, but up to a point. There is a certain flakiness or weakness about it where any hard moral decisions are allowed an escape clause. Some scientific endeavors require someone/thing on the losing end.

Christianity requires a certain soul-searching and yes, it can be used to mask self-serving ends, but I think the basis of being merciful, skeptical and knowing we are subject to a Higher Power that will judge our inner thoughts introduces an essential check on excess and abuse.

Blogger VD April 15, 2018 1:57 PM  

As for Buddhism, I follow these teachings, but up to a point.

The core concept of the material world being Maya is not historically conducive to a scientific mindset.

Blogger dtungsten April 15, 2018 2:39 PM  

This was the best one overall so far, but I thought the lighting on Vox in his library was low or the focus was off. He looked blurry/fuzzy. Like how an old Sony Mavica that records 480x640 to floppy disk performs in normal indoor lighting. I haven't gotten that impression from any of the other videos. Content wise it was the best. I only saw that one odd production issue.

Blogger Lovekraft April 15, 2018 3:44 PM  

@13 VD: agreed, and would extend this criticism to the overall concept of impermeability that would lead to a type of apathy or defeatism in the face of hard realities on a moral level.

Blogger yoghi.llama April 15, 2018 4:47 PM  

The Vaibhāṣika and Sautrāntika schools are atomistic. Matter materially exists without māya, so: sciency.

One is allowed to follow a "horses for courses" approach and drop down from the Shentong Mādhyamika outlook into the atomistic vein, if the situation calls for it, or, to communicate with materialistic folk.

Blogger Lovekraft April 15, 2018 5:29 PM  

@16: fair enough. But here's a puzzle for you: take mass immigration masked as multiculturalism that, in its current form, has not turned out to be a pride rainbow coalition of diversitylove but rather ever-expanding state control/censorship while the public lives under the shadow of Islam and its massive birthrates.

So you as part of a materialist subset of Buddhism looks at something like the nation state. Do you take a stand and declare your genetic heritage and ancestry to be worth fighting for, not to mention those of your friends and neighbors, or do you detach and accept the strong crushing the weak?

Very simplistic, I concede, yet sometimes matters are this stark.

Blogger LP999-16 April 15, 2018 5:30 PM  


I have to catch up to upload, post/review etc., all 2018 voxiversity content at IDKA. Vox's video's are just amazing content and great knowledge.

Thank you Vox and all the staff for Voxiversity.

Thank you; valid points; chill, RE:

Blogger S'mon April 16, 2018 3:26 AM  

Just watched the video - very interesting, thanks. I think your three pillars of the West are much more accurate than other attempts I have seen, since you include the actual Nations - the people - and specifically Christianity rather than Judaism, which was only influential through Christianity in its Old Testament form and modified by Christianity. Your main point about Christianity as the spur to scientific exploration is very important and clearly right. Your second point that Christian belief helped keep science honest is more debatable but definitely worth taking seriously; certainly the current corruption of even the hard sciences is notable and worrying. I suspect that the peer-review culture's perverse incentives would tend to corrupt even a Christian society - you can't serve both God and Mammon - and I do think most scientists outside the most politicised fields (eg climate research) do still *want* to discover the truth (largely as a post-Christian legacy ideal); it's just they have a strong incentive towards corruption so persuade themselves their findings are true, don't worry about replicability.

Blogger Avalanche April 16, 2018 8:37 AM  

@9 "drop the knowledge bra."

Vox is wearing a knowledge bra? What's that? Does it have lace? What color is it? Does Spacebunny know? (Oh dear, or is it hers?!)

Blogger yoghi.llama April 16, 2018 2:09 PM  

Lovekraft, there is no moral puzzle. I think we in Europe should remove kebab. Send those who believe in the Religion of Peace back to the Lands of Peace. And I sincerely hope the ******s find peace and fulfilment back over there where they came from.

But how? To ban male and female childhood genital mutilation would be a good start. Ban cruelty in ritual animal slaughter. Infiltrate all the mosques and shut down every last one of them that says something homophobic or antisemitic or sends a cent of zakat to terrorists (I bet 99% of mosques do).

To remove kebab is something that every Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, pagan and atheist should logically wish to do. Europe is used to a smooth racial gradient of pale "Yamnaya Steppe Pastoralists" in the North, to various kinds of quite likeable wogs and octoroons in the South. Our problem is not primarily racial, but Islam.

The USA is different. The problem there is race first. Remove kebab won't work as a rallying cry. You'll have to think up something else.

Anonymous Anonymous April 16, 2018 10:13 PM  

VD wrote:I'm not going to waste my time proofreading anyone's transcripts.
All right, fine.

You said "When you're dealing with a secular scientist who has tremendous incentive to falsify results, or to simply put a little thumb on the scale, or to make sure that he finds the results that the people funding him want to find, you have a problem."  I don't think you mentioned the word "secular" up to that point, and it's a totally unsupported claim.  The criticism "The Christian ethics/falsification connection is less persuasive relatively" woefully understates how much this is an own-goal on your part.

If I had to make a list of far more influential effects driving the reproducibility crisis, these would rank among the highest:

5.  The general increase in specialties in science.  With more to know all the time, there's less and less ability to know what's going on, what's been done, or what errors others have made so you can avoid them.  The peer-review system has the same problem, where the number of people who can make a meaningful appraisal of a paper can be very low.

I happen to know someone who almost got caught out that way.  They thought, based on chemical properties, that they had a form of iron compound previously thought impossible.  They wrote a paper on it and got it accepted at a conference.  Very shortly before the conference, someone suggested doing Mössbaur spectroscopy to distinguish the believed-impossible compound from other possibilities with different structures.  The results caused a very hasty revision to the paper before the presentation, and a new title.

4.  The low pay and status of scientists in the current USA.  The escalation of tuition and burdens of student loans pushes out people who would love to do science but literally cannot afford to.  The most intelligent and ambitious students are going into high-paid, high-status fields like law and business, with even medicine declining in popularity.  If you throw less-smart people at things you're going to have slower work and more errors.

3.  The IQ shredder of current dysgenic breeding.  If the reaction-time studies showing brainpower loss equivalent to about 1 IQ point per generation are true, we're losing a much larger fraction off the right tail of the IQ distribution.  Picking the same fraction of the smartest again gives you slower work and more errors.

2.  The general shift in schooling from rigor and conscientiousness to "feels" and "inclusion".  In K-12 public schools the current cirricula can be justly called "educational malpractice", and grade inflation is rampant.  University admissions now bring in many more barely-average students and the institutions work more as indoctrination camps than infusing knowledge and skills to carry on and expand the fields of science.

1.  The outright replacement of the peoples who originated science and became wildly successful with it, with peoples who did not, probably because they could not (wrong personality traits).  In the process, you replace or at least modify the underlying culture.  When you replace people with names like Watson and Liebniz and Dalton with people named Chakrabarty and Liu (especially the latter, with the cheating culture of China), you're going to change the reliability of the results coming out of the system.


Anonymous Anonymous April 16, 2018 10:14 PM  

I doubt you could measure a negative effect from secularism.  Insisting on professed Christian belief as some remedy for irreproducibility would probably have the opposite effect, as dogma conflicted with fact.  Mormons, for example, still believe that the native Americans are from the lost tribes of Israel even when that's been proven false.  You can't trust a Mormon to dig into the paleoanthropology of human migration.  You can't trust a fundamentalist Christian to do cosmology either.  Dogma keeps you from reconsidering the things you know that ain't so.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts