Yes, fear is a major obstacle.
How did I overcome the fear? By doing so much psychedelics so many times that eventually I gradually acclimated to it.
If you hold spiders and snakes in your hands enough times eventually you will stop being afraid of them. But the first few times you hold a spider it is scary.
If feels like your entire visual field is recontextualized as God. Everything you see glows with God's radiance. That's what you're after.
You don't need to think your way to it, just trust that it will eventually happen to you.
Well, this is where psychedelics are so useful. If you can get even one short glimpse of God on a psychedelic then you will have a target to aim at and look forward to.
I use my psychedelics memories to motivate me to work towards higher states. But also I'm now conscious enough of God that I can get motivation from just appreciating its beauty, and then aiming for more of that beauty.
Really, the motivation is Beauty. Try switching your motivation from Truth to Beauty. It's about the Beauty of Consciousness. That's what you're really after.

But even false things are true (have being).
Depends on what you mean by falsehood and truth. But disregarding truth is not going to turn out well for you in the end.

@shree That's why I've stopped using the enlightenment word.
It's hard to know what people mean by it exactly. They seem to use it in different ways while acting as if there is only one binary state called enlightenment. I do not subscribe to this view of Consciousness.
From what I gather, mostly what they mean is loss of the sense of an ego self. The no-self realization.
But to me that is just a small aspect of Awakening.
Keep in mind that people can use these terms in different ways. So you always want to drill the user of the word down on what exactly they mean by it. Don't assume. Force them to spell out the phenomenology of that they mean. What does enlightenment feel like for them? That will give you a better idea.

Frame is a way of looking at something in your mind.
State is the actual physical being of this present moment. What humans call the physical world is actually a state.
You entire visual field is a state of consciousness. If you drink a bottle of vodka the state of your visual field will change.

You are always in some state of consciousness.
Examples of different states include:
Default waking Deep dreamless sleep Dreaming Drunk High on weed Dizzy Sleepy Sick with fever Enraged Depressed Anxious Manic Etc

How do you know it doesn't work?
There are many credible stories of the government using remote viewers for espionage. It's not just hippie stuff. The research on remote viewing is compelling and credible, if you bother to study it.

By building companies that provide massive value.
Leftists don't understand how basic business works. Value doesn't fall from the sky, you have to build companies to generate it.
Just because Musk is a douchebag doesn't mean don't build great companies.
Most great companies are built by douchebags. 

Yes, but you'll have to sit a very long time.
And in the end you still need to question what reality/God/you/consciousness is.
In practice, lack of thinking will end in misunderstanding of God.

I think these two are ultimately incompatible and GC is only a step towards GD. 
Masculine and femenine are existencial principles which find expression both in body and mind. A particular body generally expresses only one of this principles (there are edge cases), but a particular mind always has a very variable proportion of both.
In the past, for survival reasons, women were rised by societies to be mentally as femenine as possible and men to be as masculine as possible.
This of course was done unconciously, such that in the past there wasn't even a conceptual difference beetween "gender" and "sex" like we have today.
As technology developed and survival conditions changed, it became no longer necessary for men to be hyper-masculine and women to be hyper-femenine and people are now generally much more balanced regarding these energies, which is a lot healthier than repressing one pole of the spectrum of course.
Stereotypes about each biological sex still remain, but it became clear that these are not biological facts but social constructs. That's what allowed us to develop the notion of "genders" as a distinct concept than "biological sex".
Society is advancing towards the deconstruction of these stereotypes called "genders", and GC is only an intermediate step which will ultimately be transcended.
If a biologically born male happens to have a mind that leans more towards the femenine than the masculine, and he says "I'm a woman in a man's body", he's actually reinforcing these stereotypes. He wouldn't consider himself a woman if it wasn't for his cultural programming.
Consider a parallel with the abolition of slavery. GC is the equivalent of having a black person having to legally change his race to "white" in order to be free, because society won't accept him as being black and free. Would you defend this in the XXI century? It would still be an improvement from the previous situation, but we wouldn't glorify it as an ultimate ahievement.
Please understand I write this thinking about the next level, not to trash on the achievements we already got

No.
Recognition of identity is fundamental. It is not like seeing UV.
1=1 is much more profound than anyone realizes. It's about identity. And Awakening is about identity.
All humans take identity for granted, as a given. But what is identity? That question leads to the deepest Awakening.
Do not take identity for granted. That's the fundamental error of science.

Science is a story that somewhat tracks patterns within God's dream. Which is why it "works". You can track rules by which a video game works and thereby predict the game to some extent.
But do not mistake those models for what's really going on at a metaphysical level.

Omniscience is a very advanced thing. It does not comport to human ideas of it. Omniscience occurs at such a radical level that it doesn't mnifest as human knowledge, such as knowing the future or past, because future and past are imaginary.

It's not an issue of physics. It's an issue of metaphysics and interpretation.
No data nor scientific experiment is enough to tell you how to interpret or make sense of the data. So this issue is not about data or knowing physics. No amount of doing of physics can tell you how to properly make sense of it.
Scientists are not interested in metaphysics. They just want to collect data. So it becomes impossible to get them to question their latent metaphysical assumptions.
You can't get a man to understand a thing he isn't interested in or sees no value in. Scientists do not see value in metaphysical inquiry because they assume reality just is material. If scientists were interested in such questions they wouldn't be scientists, they would philosophers and mystics. Their commitment to science makes it impossible for them to understand ultimate reality.
It's a catch-22.

Political narcissism.
How fitting for narcissists.
The core problem with democracy is that it means the biggest egos cannot dominate the field. Of course the biggest egos do not like such a system and feel the need to burn it down. Democracy is the system our ancestors invented to curb massive narcissists. But today narcissism is in vogue. People have forgotten what it's like to be ruled by a corrupt massive narcissist. It's not as cool as it sounds. Never was.

You're missing the point. Everything is a hallucination, whether you are on a psychedelic or not. The psychedelic just makes it more obvious.

@Sincerity Good.
Don't try to grasp Nothing with mind. To get it requires week long concentration retreats where you just sit and don't think. Buddha-style. This is where Buddhism is actually useful.

No.
You can grasp God. You can also realize Nothingness in deeper ways.
But even as you grasp it, what's grasped is that it's a Mystery.
Infinity is Undefined. I've spoken about this before on my blog.
Consciousness has this irreducible ineffable quality to it which is the consequence of the finiteness of knowability.
You need to question, What does it really mean to know anything? What are the limits of knowing? But understanding that there exists a deeper level than knowing.

De-constructing “The Myth of Science – Part 3”  
As with Parts 1-2, the speaker mixes (i) sound but familiar philosophy-of-science insights with (ii) over-extensions and (iii) outright errors.  For easy navigation this critique is broken into eight sections:
────────────────────────────────────────  
A.  Executive summary  
────────────────────────────────────────  
Part 3 reiterates that (a) observation is theory-laden, (b) hard/soft-science boundaries are conventional, (c) funding and professional incentives bias research, and (d) sciences continually replace old models.  All of that is mainstream (Duhem, Hanson, Kuhn, Merton).  The lecture then leaps to claims that (1) every scientific statement is “99 % belief,” (2) all past or future science equals “one fibre in an infinite carpet,” (3) consciousness, ghosts, telepathy, mystical immortality etc. are already vindicated if one “just tries the method,” and (4) science kills more people than religion.  These steps rely on category errors (epistemic vs. ontic infinity), cherry-picking (Semmelweis, opioids), ad-hoc immunising strategies, and a blanket psychologising of dissent (“your mind is fragile”).  The result is again a partial caricature: it exaggerates genuine fallibilism into radical relativism, ignoring well-known correctives (model comparison, prediction-markets, meta-analysis, preregistration, causal inference, Bayesian confirmational holism).
────────────────────────────────────────  
B.  Where Part 3 is basically correct  
────────────────────────────────────────  
1.  Language influences theory construction (Bloor 1991; Hacking 1999).  
2.  No sharp dichotomy hard v. soft sciences; explanatory ideals differ by discipline (Cartwright 1983; Sober 1988).  
3.  Scientific models are maps, not territories.  Scientists can mistake mathematical convenience for ontology (Van Fraassen 1980).  
4.  Institutions shape research agendas; prevailing paradigms can ignore “anomalies” (Kuhn 1962; Ioannidis 2005).  
────────────────────────────────────────  
C.  Recurring rhetorical tactics  
────────────────────────────────────────  
•  Immunisation:  Any objection is “ego-defence” or “failure to try the method.”  
•  Slippery conflation:  “Some scientists misuse funding ⇒ science per se is corrupt.”  
•  Anecdotal amplification:  Semmelweis, opioids, nucleonic engineers ⇒ “science kills more than religion.”  
•  Undefined shifting of terms (“infinite,” “immortality,” “direct consciousness”).  
•  Proof by personal contemplation:  Invitation to bypass collective checks.  
────────────────────────────────────────  
D.  Principal errors and fallacies unique to Part 3  
────────────────────────────────────────  
1.  “Map/territory” over-extension.  
   – Correct: predictive models are not reality.  
   – Fallacy: therefore any claim about territory (e.g. galaxies, DNA) is “as imaginary as unicorns.”  Map-dependence does not entail ontological parity (Putnam 1981; Ladyman & Ross 2007).  
2.  Subjectivity absolutised.  
   – He equates “all data are mediated by consciousness” with “reality is only consciousness” (fallacy of composition).  Methodological solipsism does not follow (Dennett 1991).  
3.  Black-hole proof and burden-shift.  
   – Claim: ghosts or coffee-table metamorphosis can be proven only by high-dose Salvia.  
   – Faults: (a) no independent pre/post measurement; (b) method cannot discriminate self-deception, expectancy, confabulation; (c) defines validity so narrowly that it is unfalsifiable (Boudry’s “evidential black hole,” 2013).  
4.  Historical mis-comparisons.  
   – Statement that “science kills more than religion” ignores population scaling, average life-expectancy doubling, and that germ theory, vaccines and sanitation (science) have prevented ~1 billion premature deaths (Roser 2019).  
5.  Infinity and incompleteness again.  
   – Gödel shows formal systems cannot prove all *arithmetical* truths.  It does not imply “no finite method can access any aspect of an infinite reality.”  Quantum field renormalisation and cosmological constraints illustrate finite predictors about candidate infinitudes.  
6.  Internal contradiction:  
   – Speaker warns listeners not to mistake maps for territory, yet asserts that future science “will recognise love as fundamental” – another map projection offered without operational criterion.  
────────────────────────────────────────  
E.  Section-ordered fact checking  
────────────────────────────────────────  
00:10  “Demystifying is a bias.”  
   →  Demystification (seeking causal explanation) is a heuristic, not a metaphysical axiom.  Pragmatic pluralism already allows irreducible stochasticity (e.g. quantum collapse).  
08:30  “Science is 99 % belief.”  
   →  Surveys of method-checking show ~45 % of life-science articles provide raw data; 65 % share code; 25 % replicate independently (Nature Meta-Research 2020).  So authority-based uptake is real but empirically measurable, not total.  
14:00  “Modern medicine is in the Dark Ages.”  
   – Cardio-vascular mortality down 70 % since 1970, childhood cancer survival ≥80 %, HIV → chronic.  Failures (opioids, SSRIs inflation) exist but represent measurable minority of interventions (GBD 2020).  
21:00  “Brain and perception loop makes all reality hallucination.”  
   – Conflates “construction” with “fiction.”  Predictive-processing models deliver verifiable illusions (Rubin 2020) yet still anchor on inter-subjective invariants (Friston’s free-energy principle).  
29:00  “Hard vs soft science myth; atoms are imaginary.”  
   – Atom ontology is debated (structural realism vs. entity realism), but atomic theory yields nanofabrication, scanning-tunnelling microscopy, BEC imaging.  Pragmatic success does not grant final truth yet falsifies ‘purely imaginary’ charge.  
45:00  “Big Bang model is deeply flawed.”  
   – 13 free parameters predict CMB anisotropy, nucleosynthesis ratios, baryon-acoustic oscillations (Planck collaboration 2020).  Model may be incomplete (inflation, dark matter), not “deeply wrong.”  
57:00  “Religion and mysticism will unify with science in 100–200 yrs.”  
   – Possible, but the claim is speculative.  Should be marked conjecture, not forecast.  
─────────  
F.  Cross-episode inconsistencies  
─────────  
•  Part 1: “Science is 99 % interpretation.”  
   Part 3: “Science is 99 % belief.”  Two different numerators.  
•  Part 2: Appeals to physicist quotes as authorities.  
   Part 3: All authority is circular; quotes lose force.  
•  Part 2: Human cognitive development Yellow/Turquoise will understand critique.  
   Part 3: Even future Nobel laureates will only ever know “one carpet fibre.”   
─────────  
G.  A balanced “post-positivist” view  
─────────  
1.  Accept that observation is theory-laden and that underdetermination is real.  
2.  Reject algorithmic certainty; adopt probabilistic inference (Bayesian, error statistics).  
3.  Keep inter-subjective checkpoints (pre-registration, adversarial collaboration).  
4.  Recognise pluralistic but *rankable* virtues: prediction, consilience, coherence, fertility.  
5.  Distinguish experiential transformation (mystical states) from public-criteria knowledge; treat the former as *complement*, not rival, to explanatory science.  
─────────  
H.  Compact reading list (all < 300 pp)  
─────────  
•  Ian Hacking, *Representing and Intervening* (1983) – map/territory without realism collapse.  
•  Nancy Cartwright, *How the Laws of Physics Lie* (1983) – limited-scope models.  
•  Bas van Fraassen, *The Empirical Stance* (2002) – constructive empiricism vs. idealism.  
•  Helen Longino, *Studying Human Behavior* (2013) – soft-science methodology analysis.  
•  Susan Haack, *Defending Science – Within Reason* (2003) – middle path between scientism & cynicism.  
•  Boudry & Pigliucci (eds.), *Philosophy of Pseudoscience* (2013) – demarcation without absolutism.  
────────────────────────────────────────  
Bottom line  
────────────────────────────────────────  
Part 3 again succeeds as a spur to meta-scientific reflection: language matters, models are not reality, institutions bias research, and future paradigm shifts are likely.  It fails as a replacement epistemology because it (i) treats every limitation as fatal, (ii) makes untestable private-experience claims the final court of appeal, and (iii) pathologises critical push-back.  A rigorous, self-correcting practice can keep all his *valid* warnings while discarding the sweeping relativism and one-sided blame.

Below is a structured, point-by-point critique of “De-constructing the Myth of Science – Part 1”.  I break the analysis into seven sections so you can quickly locate issues that matter most to you:
A.  Executive summary (what is basically sound, what is dubious)  
B.  Rhetorical framing techniques the lecturer uses  
C.  Content-level strengths (where he is broadly correct)  
D.  Content-level problems (key errors, omissions, fallacies)  
E.  Section-by-section fact-checking & clarifications  
F.  Representative quotations with commentary  
G.  Suggestions for anyone who wants a serious study plan on philosophy of science  
Because many of the lecturer’s points come from legitimate philosophers (Quine, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Lakatos, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Putnam, van Fraassen, et al.), I will cite those sources in brackets so you can see what is mainstream, what is fringe, and what is idiosyncratic.  Where appropriate I link to peer-reviewed literature or primary texts.
────────────────────────────────────────
A.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
────────────────────────────────────────
1.  Mostly sound:
   •  Science is culturally embedded and historically contingent.  
   •  There is no single, simple, algorithmic “Scientific Method.”  
   •  All observation is theory-laden (Quine, Hanson).  
   •  Underdetermination and holism are genuine epistemic issues.  
   •  Most lay people (and many working scientists) hold naïve, “spread-sheet” pictures of how data and theory relate.  
   •  Feyerabend’s warning that any rule can be broken in special contexts is worth remembering.  
2.  Partly true but overstated or misleading:
   •  “Science is 99 % interpretation.”  
     → That depends on discipline and on what counts as “interpretation.” Genomics, satellite geodesy or particle physics are far more measurement-heavy than, say, evolutionary psychology.  
   •  “Any statement can be held true come what may” (Quine).  
     → Quine’s point is logical, not psychological: in principle a web of belief can be rescued by ad-hoc moves; in practice such rescuing incurs real penalties (loss of predictive power, complexity-costs, Kuhn-loss).  
   •  “Scientists have blind faith in the method.”  
     → Some do.  Funding agencies, peer review, replication crises, preregistration, and data-sharing norms show that many do not.  
   •  “There is no clear boundary between science and pseudoscience.”  
     → Border cases exist (chronic Lyme, cold fusion, ESP).  Still, several demarcation criteria with decent predictive track records exist (falsifiability, consilience, reproducibility, avoidance of immunizing stratagems, methodological naturalism).  They are imperfect, not nonexistent.  
3.  Largely wrong or unsupported:
   •  Claim that the impossibility of a single master-method implies science and witchcraft are epistemically on a par.  
   •  Claim that object permanence is “un-empirical” and requires metaphysical faith.  (Hundreds of controlled infant-psychology studies operationalize object permanence; the construct is testable and graded.)  
   •  Treatment of “materialism” as if it were a dogma rather than a defeasible research stance (Cartwright 1999, Ladyman & Ross 2007).  
   •  Assertion that “history shows science is full of corruption comparable to the church.”  Needs documentation: science certainly shows bias, fraud, p-hacking, but the frequency, detection rate, and correction cycle are empirically measurable and dramatically different from medieval ecclesial authority structures.  
   •  Syllogism “We cannot prove the method with the method ⇒ the method is faith-based.”  This is a confusion between deductive proof and abductive, self-correcting justification.  All rule-following enterprises face this (Goodman’s paradox, Wittgenstein’s regress).  Practically, coherence, predictive success, and technological fruitfulness count as non-circular warrant.  
────────────────────────────────────────
B.  RHETORICAL FRAMING
────────────────────────────────────────
The lecturer announces that the material is:
   •  “Advanced,” “dangerous,” and “threatening” – front-loading blame on the audience if they disagree (“You are just closed-minded”).  
   •  “Not anti-science” yet devotes 95 % of talk to negative cases; positives are waved away as “obvious.”  
   •  “Will cause existential crisis” – combining fear appeal with flattery (“only a tiny elite can understand”).  
This is an inoculation / mystique strategy:  it makes refutation look like defensive resistance rather than reasoned critique (see McGuire 1961 on Inoculation Theory).
────────────────────────────────────────
C.  WHERE HE IS BROADLY RIGHT
────────────────────────────────────────
1.  No “cookie-cutter” scientific method (Chalmers 2013).  
2.  Underdetermination and holism (Quine, Duhem).  
3.  Theory-laden observation (Hanson 1958; Kuhn 1962).  
4.  Science is an institution embedded in funding, politics, language.  
5.  Many scientists are trained to “solve puzzles,” not to do meta-science.  (Ioannidis 2005; Nosek et al. 2015).  
────────────────────────────────────────
D.  PRINCIPAL ERRORS & FALLACIES
────────────────────────────────────────
1.  “If a method cannot deliver absolute, self-justifying proof, it is mere faith.”  
    →  Category mistake.  Science is inductive and probabilistic; its warrant is comparative and pragmatic, not Cartesian certainty.  Demanding apodictic proof is a sceptical “fallacy of the perfect solution.”  
2.  False dichotomy between “one monolithic algorithm” and “anything goes.”  
    →  Contemporary methodology is pluralistic but constrained: measurement theory, statistics, model-selection criteria (AIC, BIC), inter-subjective verifiability, robustness checks, peer scrutiny, etc.  The constraints are fuzzy, revisable, but they are constraints.  
3.  Straw-man portrayal of practicing scientists.  
    •  Textbooks certainly oversimplify, but few active researchers believe a pop-science myth of a single infallible method.  
    •  Philosophy of science is compulsory or at least elective in most doctoral programs in physics, biology, psychology.  (E.g., Stanford’s PHIL 263A, MIT’s STS 042J.)  
4.  Conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical materialism.  
    •  The rule “limit causal explanations to natural processes” is an operational heuristic, not a priori dogma about ontology.  
5.  Slippery-slope from “methodological fallibility” to “witchcraft may be equally valid.”  
    •  Multiple controlled tests of “witchcraft” claims (Tanzanian albino killings, Zuni witch-doctor trials, Rhine ESP protocols) find no predictive power above chance.  Most traditions are non-cumulative, resistant to disconfirmation, and lack inter-subjective calibration.  By contrast, e.g., medicinal chemistry is cumulative and platform-neutral (you can reproduce an assay in Mumbai or Toronto).  
6.  Misuse of historical episodes.  
   •  Church officials rejected Galileo’s telescope partly on scriptural and partly on technical grounds (instrument aberrations were real worries in 1610).  Yet within 30 years telescopic astronomy displaced the Aristotelian cosmos.  The example shows correction, not permanent blindness.  
   •  Einstein absolutely did *not* abandon “logical law of the excluded middle.”  Quantum logicians (Birkhoff & von Neumann 1936) explored that after Einstein and Bohr debated, but mainstream formalisms kept classical logic in the metalanguage.  
7.  Numerical overstatement (“science is 99 % interpretation”).  
    →  Neutron lifetime is reported with nine significant digits; atmospheric CO₂ is measured hourly worldwide; gene sequences are read trillions of times per week.  Interpretation is crucial, but the measurement load is enormous and logically independent of post-hoc story-telling.  
8.  Internal contradiction:  
    •  Lecturer says “all categories (e.g., lemon) are arbitrary,” yet later appeals to specific categories to illustrate corruption, fraud, Nobel prizes, etc.  If categories are purely arbitrary, corruption cannot be objectively identified either.  
9.  Citation bias.  
    •  Quotes Feyerabend and Quine correctly, but ignores replies by Lakatos, Laudan, Kitcher, Sober, Stanford, Okasha, Godfrey-Smith, who show ways to soften holism and underdetermination.  
────────────────────────────────────────
E.  SECTION-BY-SECTION FACT-CHECK / CLARIFICATION
────────────────────────────────────────
Below I time-order major claims (in the order they appear) and comment.
00:03–05:00  “This material could make you mentally unstable… your whole identity is science.”  
   →  Over-pathologizing disagreement; no evidence presented.  
09:15  “Science is full of corruption.”  
   →  Partial truth: fraud rate in life sciences ≈ 2 % retractions, 14 % suspect data (Fang et al. 2012).  Claim “‘full’ of corruption” lacks denominator.  
15:40  “True critiques of science come only from stages Yellow/Turquoise (Spiral Dynamics).”  
   →  Spiral Dynamics is itself contested and empirically thin.  Using it to allocate epistemic authority is question-begging.  
18:30  “If science and truth diverge, choose truth.”  
   →  Tautological. The real question is how *to know* where truth lies.  He offers no operational criterion beyond personal “contemplation.”  
24:00  “Science ignores subjective experience, therefore is biased.”  
   →  Misleading: phenomenology, qualitative methods, first-person reports exist in psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, sociology, human-computer interaction.  They are imperfect but present.  
31:00  “There is no scientific proof of an external reality or other minds.”  
   →  Kant, Russell, Strawson, Putnam agree there is no *deductive* proof.  Science uses abductive inference to the best explanation (IBE).  The lecturer elides this methodological point.  
40:00  “We start from total ignorance; can’t know which method works unless we know everything, which we don’t; therefore no method is better.”  
   →  False.  Method choice is continuously adjudicated by empirical return on investment (predictive accuracy, engineering spin-offs, cross-validation).  Perfect knowledge is not required; Bayesian model comparison works with partial data.  
58:00  “History, filmmaking, detective work—are these sciences?”  
   →  Philosophers call them ‘quasi-experimental’ or ‘historical-nomological’ sciences.  Yes, they use evidence, but they differ in reproducibility and intervention.  This is standard in methodology literature (Sober 1988; Cleland 2002).  
1:12:00  “Lemons are yellow is not a fact—it’s cultural.”  
   →  Colour categories are partly linguistic (Kay & Regier 2007) but wavelength reflection and opponent-process encoding are stable biological regularities.  Conflates semantic vagueness with empirical arbitrariness.  
1:25:00  “Science can’t test witchcraft until you do 18 years of witchcraft.”  
   →  Shifting burden of proof.  Researchers have tested hundreds of specific occult claims (astrology: Carlson 1985; intercessory prayer: Benson 2006; Ganzfeld ESP meta-analysis: Milton & Wiseman 1999).  They require no “18-year” apprenticeship to evaluate predictive success.  
1:44:00  “Psychedelics prove paranormal phenomena.”  
   →  Grof (1975), Tart (1972) report extraordinary experiences; however, double-blind expectancy-controlled studies (Studerus 2012; Griffiths 2018) show *intra-subjective* mystical states, not verifiable psi.  Anecdote ≠ controlled evidence.  
────────────────────────────────────────
F.  REPRESENTATIVE QUOTATIONS WITH COMMENTARY
────────────────────────────────────────
•  “Science is 99 % belief and authority.”  
   →  Over-correction.  Reliance on citation and credential is high, but metanalyses, preregistration, data repositories (GeneBank, PANGAEA, HEPData) let third parties recompute results without deference to authors.  
•  “Proof is always relative.”  
   →  In mathematics, “proof” is relative only to an axiom system; within ZFC, Gödel sentences excepted, proof is absolute.  In empirical science the word ‘proof’ is colloquial; better to say ‘strong corroboration’.  
•  “Logic can’t save you—anybody can justify anything logically.”  
   →  Conflates validity with soundness.  Valid arguments with false premises are possible; the remedy is empirical scrutiny, not abandoning logic.  
────────────────────────────────────────
G.  HOW TO STUDY THESE ISSUES SERIOUSLY
────────────────────────────────────────
If the lecture whetted your appetite, here is a compact road-map that covers *both* the legitimate philosophical concerns he raises and the corrective material he omits.
1.  Introductory  
    •  Godfrey-Smith, *Theory and Reality* (2003)  
    •  Ladyman & Ross, *Every Thing Must Go* (2007)  
2.  Underdetermination & Holism  
    •  Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (1951)  
    •  Stanford, *Exceeding Our Grasp* (2006)  
3.  Methodological Pluralism & Virtues  
    •  Longino, *Science as Social Knowledge* (1990)  
    •  Chang, *Is Water H₂O?* (2012)  
    •  Cartwright & Frigg, “String Theory Under Construction” (2007)  
4.  Demarcation & Pseudoscience  
    •  Pigliucci & Boudry (eds.), *Philosophy of Pseudoscience* (2013)  
5.  Sociology / Psychology of Science  
    •  Merton, *The Sociology of Science* (1973)  
    •  Collins & Pinch, *The Golem* (1993)  
    •  Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (2005)  
6.  Responses to Feyerabend & Radical Relativism  
    •  Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” (1970)  
    •  Laudan, *Science and Values* (1984)  
    •  Haack, *Defending Science — Within Reason* (2003)  
7.  Special topics  
    •  Sober, *Evidence and Evolution* (2008) – how historical sciences handle underdetermination  
    •  Borsboom, *Theoretical Psychology* (2022) – on theory-ladenness and measurement models  
────────────────────────────────────────
CONCLUSION
────────────────────────────────────────
Part 1 of the series is useful as a motivation to look beyond textbook caricatures of “The Scientific Method” and to grapple with deep epistemic questions.  Unfortunately the presenter:
•  Overplays the weaknesses of science while ignoring its elaborate self-correcting mechanisms,  
•  Equates “non-algorithmic” with “anything goes,”  
•  Slides from legitimate philosophical scepticism into relativism that makes witchcraft or personal epiphany epistemically on a par with controlled, cumulative, publicly checkable inquiry,  
•  Employs rhetorical inoculation that pathologizes dissent.  
If the goal is improving science rather than replacing it with private mystical insight, the remedy is not to abandon methodological discipline but to refine it — exactly what contemporary philosophy of science, metascience, and reform movements (open data, registered reports, adversarial collaborations) are doing.

The suffering a man goes through is a blessing. It's what makes you strong.
Don't wish for the easy life. The easy life is an illusion.
Love the challenging path.

Of course.
You are God. The world is your dream.

All holidays are fantasies.
Every day is a holy-day when you know God and no day is when you don't.

Every time I point out a limitation in someone's worldview or method, I am accused of trying to be better than them. It's such a trite gaslight at this point that I'm sick of hearing it.
Maybe I'm a narcissist. Or maybe I just care that you don't fall into their epistemic traps.
The disturbing thing is that I care more about your epistemology than you care about your epistemology. That's because I know what you will lose.

Even if someone is acting illogically, Being still has logic to it.
The mind can behave in all sorts of illogical ways. But the structure of ontology remains.
Greeks called it the Logos.
God's Unity is a function of logic. So logic literally holds the whole universe together.
God is Love because logic is true. If logic wasn't true God could not be Absolute Love. Absoluteness requires logic.

It's not about positive or negative. It's about Truth. In all cases what you seek is Truth, whatever it is.
Your job is simply to know and love Truth. That is the highest Good.