Welcome to MOOC course on Introduction to Proteogenomics. After understanding the sequence centric proteogenomics, we will now listen Dr. Kelly Ruggles and she will talk about how to use IGV using one of the examples of a human gene. The prerequisites for the hands-on is to download IGV on your system. You can see this link on your screen. If you have not downloaded the IGV yet, please pause this video and download the software to move forward. Keep in note, you need to have Java on your system before you start using this software and this hands-on session, else IGV will not work. You should also have the VCF file and dot BED files shared with you this week. Please download those files because those will be the input files for the software which we are going to use. Files name will be sequence pgsnps.vcf and sequence pg underscore junctions.bed. So now you have Java and IGV installed in the system. So let us welcome Dr. Kelly Ruggles for today's hands-on session. Okay, so move the rough seek up, click on a specific area and then you should be able to like, you'll hover over this area here and you should be able to drag it down. Sometimes it takes a little, you have to zoom in quite a bit and you should be able to get the sequence information which of course I'm not going to be able to do while I'm doing a demo. There we go. So you should be able to zoom in enough that you're able to then drag it down and you'll get the sequence information. And what this is, is if you zoom in further is the nucleotide sequence and then the actual amino acid three frame translation. So everybody at least trying it to the point where you can see the sequence. Show translation. If you're only getting the nucleotide sequence and not the amino acid sequence, if you left click and it'll give you some options or right click and it'll say show translation. So click on show translation and then it will show you the three frame translation. Yes, same thing. So if you right click, show translation. Yeah. Oh, if you don't have Java, it will not work. Thank you. Java eight. Is that the issue you guys are having? Oh, okay. Sorry. Take for granted, these things. Yeah. So again, if you only see the nucleotide sequence, right click on the sequence and I'll and then it will give you the option of opening the translation. Yeah. So left right click on the sequence. Show translation. Okay, I'm going to give you two, two more questions. Oh, yeah. If you can't open the sequences, you just have to zoom in really, really far and you'll see them. Okay, but you're getting something. Yeah. Then you have to right click on the sequence track right there. I'll show you. And then it should open translation. You're good. But zoom in really far. So here I'll show you. You can do like this. Oh, yeah. You can just select the window. Keep going, keep going. And then it should pop up. And if it doesn't, you drag this down. You play with this until it. Thank you. There you go. Yeah. Okay. You should have your VCF and your bed files ready to go. So go to load from file, and then pick your VCF file. So it should be sequence pg-snips.vcf. So you'll want to put in the example location of the second snip, which is chromosome one, and then a very long number that you should copy. I guess I could say it, but it'll be easier if you copy it. It's one, five, five, six, four, six, three, four, eight. And you'll click on that and it should bring you to that location. So you'll see here that I have a gray box at that exact location. So it's indicating that based on the VCF file we uploaded, the snip is in the same location as that VCF file. So if you've gotten to this point, what you'll notice with this gene that's different from the last one we looked at is that it's on the negative strand, so you have to flip your sequence or else everything's going to be wrong. So hit the arrow here and it'll flip the nucleotide sequence, and it will also do a, it will also flip the translation, so it will be in the correct frame and it will be in the correct direction. So we're moving in the negative direction, right? So we know that our variant is right here and we know from our VCF file, so it goes from a C to a G. In this case, it's a G to a C because we flipped it, right? The objective here is to go through the sequence and just you can go from wherever you want to start and just by hand just figure out how to create this peptide that has this snip in it. So just take some time and what you'll want to do is kind of what I did in the last one where you go from amino acid to amino acid until you hit the snip and then you just make sure that you encode it correctly and then you keep going just to get the final triptych peptide. Does that make sense to everybody? So you're going to do an in silico translation. I chose to start at this D. You can choose to start wherever you want to and you're essentially just going to keep moving, oops, until you hit the variant. So you're just going to move in this direction until you hit the variant and then you figure out, and I already gave you the answer, what this is going to look like. So just kind of think through it and then the junction one is a lot harder so I would rather us work through this now and then. And so you're just going to create a triptych peptide from right to left and then when you hit the snip just make sure you change it accordingly because you know that this G's changed to a C. All I wanted you to do is to take a look at the to go. So this is what you should essentially have in front of you in some level. So if we wanted to put this snip into our database, we would be moving from right to left and we would be creating a peptide sequence. So we know that triptych is going to cut at R. So I guess we could start here and we can go L, Q, Q and then at this Q, we're going to have instead of a C AG, we're going to have a CAC. So when I was showing you guys this during the talk, okay this guy. So you should be able to figure out and so what that that snip is going to encode instead of the one that it is currently. So right now we have a C AG, but really it's changing here. So figuring out what that what that looks like. Is this the right? This is the right example, right? So this is all I wanted you to think about was was how replacing this this nucleotide would end up with a new amino acid that then we would then change the fastafile that we would use in our database. So here is what the quilts. You could put this into quilts as a VCF file. You don't have to actually do this by hand. So if you were to put this one line of the VCF file into quilts, it would give you a new protein sequence that would include that change in the amino acid based on the snip that was given in the VCF file. So that's just sort of what I wanted everyone to be able to like get a feel for using the IGV itself. Does that sound? Does everyone kind of get where the next one is going to be a little more difficult? So the other thing we can do is looking at these novel splice sites. So I made this junction file. So if you upload the junction file very similarly to what you did before. So if we go to file load from file junctions.bed and you open this. So this one I only, if you, I just have junctions for ERBB2. I made it easy. So in the field here, go ERBB2. And it'll bring you to the ERBB2 annotation. Once you're there, you'll see that there's a couple of junctions that should be in your junction file. There, I changed the color so that the purple ones are ones that are annotated. So you can see that they connect known exons here. And the red ones are novels. So the one, I did, we looked at one of these novel ones during the lecture. So the other novel one is what I was. So once you have the file open and it looks like this, we're going to look at what this novel junction to what the translation of that novel junction to would look like if we were to throw it into the sequence database. So what you want to do is zoom in on this second red junction.  So it might take a second to load. There we go. So you should see the end of this exon and then the beginning of this junction. And so the junction is just showing like essentially the RNA seek indicated that there was a connection between this exon, the end of this exon and this some area within this intron. This is what it's telling us. So if you go to the end of the exon, you'll see that you can get, oh, by the way, we're looking at a gene that's going, it's on the forward strand. So change your sequence back, arrow back, or else it's not going to work. It'll be very confusing. Does that make sense to everyone? Okay. So what you'll do here is we're going to make another tryptic peptide. So again, we'll start after the arginine. So it'll be P, E, D, E, C. And then there's this extra G hanging over like we saw in the original. We had two Gs in the last one, but now we have one G. So I'm going to show you in my PowerPoint because I think that might be easier. So you zoom in here and we can get the sequence because we know when there's a boundary. So there's a junction between a known exon and something new, right? So the thing that's known, we can keep as is. We can just take the sequence from that. And then we just have to figure out with the boundary next to it what that extra sequence is going to look like. So we take this sequence. We have this G that's hanging. And then we look at the other side of the boundary. So zoom in to the other side of this boundary here. And this is where you'll get the nucleotide sequence that will continue on from the original exon. And then you can figure out, you can do an in silico translation to figure out what that full peptide would look like. So what these are showing are the boundaries. So it's just showing that these two connect by splicing. So it's just showing that this exon connects to this exon, which we know. This one is connecting these two exons. This we know now. Yeah, we already know that. That's already annotated in the genome. We know that these two exons spliced together. We knew that. That's like somebody else figured that out. It's in the database. So why that is my question. So why it has not come as a exon here then. So it's the junctions just show the boundaries between exons. Okay. So it's just showing how they connect. Okay. Yeah, this is only the junction part. Yes. Yes. So the green are methionines and the red are stop codons. It's just showing starts and stops essentially. So you should be able to get from the sequence data. You should be able to manually figure out what the nucleotide sequence would look like at that boundary. So here in the file I sent you, it actually has it in there. And then you can do an in silico translation to figure out what that amino acid sequence would look like as well. So this sequence here, you would throw into your database to see if this boundary actually came up at the protein level, essentially. So we have software to do this. You don't have to do this by hand. But I think by doing it by hand, you better understand what these databases actually are. And if you, you may at some point have to do something like this by hand. So yeah. So you can hear it just saying that these are the different junctions, right? Six junctions for ER, BV2. What are junctions exactly? They're splicing. Yeah, they're kind of showing how things splice together. So they're showing the connections between exons. Okay, these are the connections. So if I'm zooming it in. Yes. So here. That's just because you're too far in. So, okay, those two ends are going to join. So here, these are the stop codons. So those are only, so you have, since you have three frames, that's why one of the frames in your, in an intron here, so like none of this really matters. Okay, so this is the intron there. Yeah. Okay. So if you zoom out, you won't see a stop codon in an exon. Okay, so these two are going to join because this is the junction, so these two will join. Yes. And here there is no joining, but here it is joining here. In the middle of nowhere. So that's, so that's what you're, what you do want to do is find the sequence here and then the nucleotide sequence here and then figure out what that would look like if it actually joins. Okay, so if it actually joins, what the amino acid does exactly. Exactly. Okay, okay, okay. Yes. First, we are going to the genome. The file will load it. Is it loading for the file? Then can you just interpret what exactly we are doing and what we'll get it? Yeah, so. Please conclude then it will be. So I just wanted to show two examples of if you have a SNP and you, how do we think about how that SNP would be encoded into the, into the proteome so that we could throw it in the database and find it. So if you have that one SNP, how does it impact the peptide? For the junctions, it's if you have some expression. Because of that change in the SNP. Exactly. Whether a new peptide would be there or not. It will be. Yes. And then this one, so for the junctions, the junctions are showing. How to see that? Where, where the two exons are connecting. So, so that say that again? So like this is showing these two exons are connecting. Okay. And this one is showing, the red one is showing that there's an exon that's connecting to the middle of an intron, which makes no sense, right? Like we wouldn't expect to see that because we expect to see two exons joining but not exon, an expression in an intron. So if it's like cancer, we want to see, is that intronic expression real? Is that like some new isoform that we've never seen in normal tissue that is existing in cancer? And if we want to see that, we have to be able to encode the sequence in the intron as a protein because it would never be in a normal database because it's a new expression in an area that's not normally expressed. So, yeah, so that's a good question. If you have, so the whole, the reason we would do this is we would, we would get the new peptides and then we would search the MS data with the new peptides and see if it comes up in our data. So you just want to look at what, so in the FNB file, what this nucleotide was changed to and then change the amino acid to fix that and then I just, that will be the new peptide you would put in your database. Look what we have learned, how to see SNPs in a gene with respect to the reference genome of human and one could also look into their data using the reference genome of the target organisms. SNPs in the genomic viewer enables us to look in all three frames of translation and possible effect of the SNPs on the translation. We also saw how one can find the truncated proteins and slice junctions. We also learned how to look at the junctions which may include axons and part of introns to form the variant peptides due to the SNPs. I hope this hands-on session was useful and now you will be start using this for different applications. Thank you.


Hello and welcome to CMC Markets on the 23rd of December and this year's annual Christmas video. Now the format of this is going to be fairly similar to the one that we did last year when I heard my colleague Matt Bassey and we chatted about the outlook for 2015 and he was actually quite accurate in his estimates that stock markets would actually rise by 10 to 12 percent this year but he was only writing so far as it applied to the S&P. Now joining me today is his colleague Jamie Cole and we'll be talking about the outlook for 2015 whether or not we can expect further gains to stock markets and look at some of the underperformance in the oil and gas sector and the mining sector. After we've done that make it very short and sweet we'll also have a look at some of the more embarrassing moments that we've had in filming those videos this year some outtakes for your delectation and then we'll wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy new year and I'll try and resist the temptation to put my center baby hat on and embarrass myself. Unfortunately I couldn't persuade Jamie here to put a set of reindeer antlers on. Apparently it's just... I think my wife's dignity wouldn't allow it. Anyway without further ado we'll crack on. So as I said earlier the best performing stock market this year has been the S&P 500 up over 10 percent that's been closely followed by the Nikkei not surprising given the fact that we've seen large-scale quantitative easing program by the Bank of Japan. Now the tax after making record highs has started to taper off a little bit and that's not really surprising is it Jamie given the fact that we've seen some fairly weak growth out of the Euro area and the ECB remains very reluctant to really embark on a full-scale easing program what I'm going to focus on is the underperformance of the FTSE 100. That has underperformed and I think we've pretty much known why don't we? I think it's the common the common discussion them you know certain sectors which are the heaviest weighted sectors either miners and the old stocks have underperformed and that's you know that's nothing new to us I don't think we've seen that continuously you know last year when you know the the times as Matt highlighted last year in his piece you know the the tax with you know the heat and record highs the US and so on and and the FTSE was you know almost the pants bomb horse if you like bringing up the bringing up the back. Indeed indeed now we're looking at a chart now of commodity prices and we can see straight away that Brent Crude has basically dropped nearly 50% from its highs over the last few months now the big question I think as we head into 2015 and first and foremost can we expect further gains in the S&P we're approaching 2100 I think the biggest question I think given how badly affected mining stocks have been and oil stocks have been because of this commodity price decline are their pockets a value? I think so I think as I was saying before we went on camera you know I think a few of our clients who trade these stocks historically they're asking are we going to see a consolidation of the sector is the value of these levels I think looking where we are seeing with the commodity market in a moment you know it could be a brave man who tries to pick the bottom on these as we're seeing you know with with OPEC stance and so on at the moment but I think you know the people do you know do get it right we'll be in a very strong position going into the you know the first quarter of next year it may be further out. So I think that the stocks that we've particularly been looking at and it has taken name you know individual stocks but certainly I think the underperformers have been companies like BHP, Rio, Tinto, BP and Royal Dutch Shell so they might well be worth keeping an eye on. I heard no definitely they're the stuff which if anything they're going to foam this market up and and worth watching you know. Okay so that's pretty much the look ahead to 2015 short and sweet I know but without further ado let's move on to some of the more embarrassing outtakes and both Jamie and I feature quite prominently. Funny enough.  Welcome to CMC we're just limbering up. I always find Ella that when you're sort of getting ready to shoot it helps to take the lens cap off. Welcome to the market yeah. Okay. Give me sunshine in your smile. Give me laughter on the one. That's a lovely red dress. Where did you find it? Now our lifestyle section. Eat your carrots. Down the gym today I forgot my trainers and had to do a gym workout and my flip-flops. Healthy is about a healthy body and a healthy mind. I used to play cricket I was in the school team. A long time ago. Long time ago. Okay that's disgusting.  And take five. Now let's zoom in on this price. From the highs in May. I've got a new one for you. Now let's zoom in on this price action here.  How hard is it to say the first of July and the beginning of a new quarter. Okay quarter. What can I say you know I'm lost without you Ella. Clean your mind out young lady. Hand me hint at the end of today's currency snapshot. Yeah until next week and that was a complete. So I'm going to have to do that all over again. Well that's it for this week. Let's start again. That right there is 55 years of most experience. Take two. Take two. Well that's it for this year. Thank you for that. That's it for this year ladies and gentlemen. We hope that you enjoyed some of those outtakes and all that's left for me to do is to wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Dallas put the antlers on. I'm putting my hat on.


Hi, this is Professor Gerald Friedman, Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, and we're here today to talk about social insurance and why private insurance usually won't work, especially not in the healthcare sector. Now first of all, what do we mean by insurance? Insurance is the process where you give up something now, a guaranteed loss now, in order to minimize the really bad things that might happen and might not.  I spent all this money on premiums and I never died. Well, when you die, your children, your spouse will be happy that you have a life insurance. The same for sickness, health insurance. You go along being healthy and thinking what a bad idea it is for you to continue to carry life, health insurance, until you get sick, and then you'll be glad. Now, the problem with private insurance, as we find in the United States, the only country in the world that relies on private health insurance to provide health coverage for its population, we're the only country. We also note we spend way more on healthcare, including insurance than any other country, and we are significantly less healthy than other countries at our level of income, and way less healthy than other countries at anything like our level of healthcare expenditures. Think about it. Private healthcare, less healthy outcomes, and spend more. It has to be that way. This isn't an accident. Private healthcare, health insurance, is inherently inefficient, and at some of it's on the side of the consumers. There's moral hazard. You don't want health insurance when you're healthy. You don't want to spend the money. Young people think, okay, I'll be healthy forever, I don't need health insurance. Who gets health insurance? People who think they're going to be sick, or even, this is the moral hazard problem, people who know they're sick. So the health insurance companies are constantly monitoring to keep out people who are already sick. That's problem one. With that goes companies waste huge amounts, cherry picking and lemon dropping, cherry picking the possible clients for the people who are not going to need that coverage, and lemon dropping to get rid of people. The problem is that 70% of your expenditures as a health insurance company goes to 10% of your clients. People are healthy. They're cheap for you.  That's why we want health insurance. We want insurance in case we have an accident and we're in the ICU at $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 a day. We want insurance in case we get cancer and mastectomy, of course $50,000, radiation $1,000, $1,000 more. We want insurance because when we get sick it's really expensive. And what about the company? That's when they want to get rid of you. They only want you when you're healthy. They sit there thinking, God, if only we could get rid of the sick people, we'd make so much money. Think about it. They don't just think about it, they act on it. Companies engage. Private health insurance companies are always out there figuring out ways to cherry pick. Select only the healthy people and lemon drop, get rid of the people who are not healthy. And how do you do this? You do things like you have people, anybody can sign up for health insurance, this was Casey Milwaukee. Companies that anybody can sign up for health insurance with us, they just need to fill out a form. And the form is available at our office, which is on the fourth floor of a walkup with an elevator. Not very many people using wheelchairs. You apply for insurance at that company. You do things like that. You companies profit by selling more shoes. Insurance companies profit by not selling to some people. You know, upper floor offices, paperwork and the hassle factor. You just make it really hard to file claims. Now who's going to care about that? Healthy people don't even know it's hard to file claims, that they have to file in triplicate, that they have to fill out these things, that you have to get your doctors to sign these things and write reports and all this. Healthy people don't even know. It's the sick people who know about those things and they start looking for other companies. They look for other companies. This is wasteful. Then there's just plain recisions, which are banned under the healthcare law passed last year in Congress. But we're very widespread before that and we'll see if the companies figure out a way to do it. California, in 2008, California insurance companies dropped 20,000 sick people. They just canceled the insurance.  They were hit by cars. Insurance was canceled. I wish they would let me buy insurance after I got sick. They won't let me do that. I don't understand the logic of saying you can cancel insurance. But anyway, think about it from the insurance company's perspective. If they don't do things like that, then they risk going into the hospital. That's spiral. Cheating is necessary to inflate your profits. But cheating is also necessary to protect you. Provide good coverage. What kind of people are you going to get applying for insurance in your company? You have good coverage. You treat people nicely. You're respectful. You don't hassle people.   You have to raise your rates. Raise your rates. Who's going to leave? Who's going to stay with you? The sick people will still stay with you because you have good coverage.  Healthy people. And don't say, I don't know. Those rates are pretty high.  So I think I'll just find do without or I'll find a company that has lower rates.  So you get a group that's ever sicker. And then you have to raise your rates more. And when you raise your rates more, more healthy people leave and you get a clientele that's even sicker. Yeah. That's the insurance company death spiral. And that's why even nice people. And okay. I am willing to admit that it is possible. It is conceivable that there is a decent person in management of an American health insurance company. It's possible. I find it unlikely, but it's possible. It is possible that there's a decent person there. It's possible that there's a decent person in the tobacco industry. It's possible that there's a decent person in the porn industry. It's possible. Even that decent person will get rid of the good coverage. Bad coverage. Nasty forms. Lots of work. Get healthy.  We'll get healthy clients. Lower rates. Lower rates will attract healthy people. And then lower rates. Attracting more healthy people and more profits. That's what the insurance companies want to do. And that's why they're evil. Because we don't need insurance for the healthy people. We need insurance for when we get sick. And we don't need all these bureaucratic forms and all this paperwork and all this advertising and all this selection business. We want everybody to be covered. The insurance companies spend a ton of money reducing the number of people covered. It has been estimated that in Massachusetts alone, a state with 2% of the American population, and the state with a relatively efficient healthcare system because of the healthcare law sponsored by former Governor Romney, who's now running for president campaigning against the national version of his law. But that's another story. In Massachusetts alone, abolishing private health insurance and moving to a single payer system sponsored by the state would save about $5 billion in the first year. That is almost $1,000 a person. Now economists have a joke that George Stigler, an economist at the University of Chicago was walking down the street with a graduate student. And the graduate student said, oh, look, there's a $20 bill on the street. I'll go get it. And Stigler said to her, don't bother. Just if it were there, if it were real, somebody else would have picked it up already. We have a $1,000 bill in Massachusetts sitting on the street.  Until then, thank you and have a nice day. Bye-bye.


These are those days where we're doing a little something different. We do some exhaust hood stuff but what we had was a motor that had bad start windings. It wouldn't start on its own every time even though it's been freely. You've got four brackets around the outside corner. I mean you had two other brackets around the outside edge corner and this is the way I found out to be easiest. This one here, depending on how far that comes out, this little ledge here just comes down really close to the outside edge. If you're too far in, you'll hit it. If you're too far back, you'll lose some of your suction. If you guys are new, these things would appear from backwards. They get kind of like backhand the air and that's how it actually pulls out. Getting back to how I decided where it goes. I measured from here to there then wrote it down somewhere where I can remember. Two inches seven eighths is the gap between here and there. That way it should be identical. Then you have a locking nut here which you want to loosen that first then you could do your square head and if you didn't know also the square heads here will match your refrigeration wrenches. So you're able to use those and don't use an open end wrench on this. Even my great Bakko there would have stripped it. Use a box wrench preferably a six-sided wrench. This one here is going to take us a little bit of modification. The plug on it's a little bit different but most importantly here we want to make sure our amperages or RPMs are the same and just do off the wiring diagram there what we need whether tie voltage or low voltage. So we'll just be chopping the plug, wiring it the way it needs to go but when it was powered up that's when it would seize up and just lock into place and check faster and that wasn't the issue. If you wanted to try to take this out which would have appeared to have been easier there's no way to hold that very easily and this is a greasy nasty mess.  Hot diggity dogs. Fits. Our next question is going to be the shaft length. That shaft looks a little bit longer. That's kind of scary. I hope it works. If this will fit, it'll work. I think we might be alright. It's about the maximum there. There's two inches, two and seven eighths. It's probably not going to work. Two and a quarter. That's fantastic. Alright I just found out captive air is where we got it at. That's who made it so I'm going to call them and make sure this is going to work. Thank you for calling the CAS Service Technical Support and Park Center. Okay well they said that it is the motor that goes with it because that motor is no longer made so if this don't work we've covered our bases. I'm going to put this out as far as I can get it without having problems. There's the set screw. I don't want to be at the very very end of that shaft. That would probably not be good. That is about as far as I think I should go. Got that one with this one. Basically these little puppies here pop into those holes inside there and try to get her back in here. I was here originally to work on their cooler but he said something was acting funny up here so I came up and looked at it. I thought maybe it was just a belt. It wasn't. This has got to rotate around because that's got a match. See how that's got a match up that's where your power comes through. We'll get her in and we'll rotate it into place. Not refrigeration but it's all related. The more you keep in the door keep the other companies out the better. My fingers actually can't get in between there so it looks like it feels like it's actually proper fit. The other one might have been set too far in and honestly what I noticed when I was sizing it up and kind of checking it over if I moved it very much it actually hit back here in the back so it may have been set too deep to begin with. Yep there we go you can see the holes right there.  Not bad. Things intact as much as I can. This is just for this particular motor. They do a good job. I particularly like my other one for big wheel riders but these work great for pretty much everything.  I'm going to pierce some tappers just like that. Here tie this together that keeps the plug from pulling apart and from anything dangling rubbing into something else. I don't need my ground in there so I'll keep my plugs together like that. Keep some from vibrating in anything properly grounded now. If we double checked our rotation. Thank you for taking the time to check out the video. If you liked it please give it a thumbs up and consider subscribing. Make sure you check out the link section down below. Until next time we'll catch you on the next one.


I want to thank you for this remarkable opportunity. In particular, I wanted to thank Engineering for Change and ASME. Somehow, you guys have managed to marry, you have the secret sauce, to marry indigenous wisdom, developed world engineering expertise, together to solve intractable challenges in the developing and emerging world. And that is remarkable. In addition, let me just thank Barbara and Siemens. You know, when I was at PepsiCo, we bought a lot of Siemens technology for water treatment. And I was asked to speak to Siemens senior leadership team years ago in Berlin. And the one thing I learned about Siemens that I did not know is corporate social responsibility, social conscience has been embedded in that company literally since it was founded over a century ago. And why do I bring that up? Because it's important to have the authenticity of the hosts and the sponsors for any challenge like this. And you don't get more authentic than E4C, ASME, and Siemens. I did want to talk a little bit, you know, the previous speakers did my work for me in talking about the SDGs, which is remarkable. I want to talk just a bit about the urgency of why the clean water track is so critically important. And even before the SDGs were ratified by 193 countries, there was something called UN Human Right to Water. And in fact, this year is the 10th anniversary of Human Right to Water. And that right defines safe, sufficient, accessible, acceptable and affordable water for all. That's a mouthful, both to say and to reach. But it's because of challenges like this and innovation like this that I see there's a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. Let me just calibrate everyone. Today, as we sit here enjoying this remarkable event, over 200 million people, mostly women and girls, spend 30 minutes round trip to collect water from an improved water source. That's not even safe. That's just an improved water source. Over 2 billion people today lack access to safely managed water supplies. Equally, over 2 billion people drink water contaminated with feces. It's remarkable, right? When you think about the unbelievable innovation that we have, the technology that is allowing us to connect all over the world and then you hear things like that, that's a disconnect, right? And it's not only the developing and emerging world. It happens in the USA. I mean, several years ago, the last infrastructure report card that the US drinking water infrastructure got from the ASCE was a grade of D. And that wasn't the first time we got a grade of D. The million miles of pipe in the US for drinking water is in sorry need of upkeep at the cost of about a trillion dollars over the next 25 years. So this problem, this urgency is not just a developing and emerging world problem. It is a global problem. And let me tell you one last statistic. When we shift to solutions, and there have been a tremendous amount of organizations that have focused on solutions. 50% of projects fail in the first five years because they lack looking at the deployment ecosystem. They focus exclusively on the technology and not everything that is needed to advance the technology. Well, this challenge is different. You made sure that through the phases, all of those things within the deployment ecosystem were focused on supply chain, regulations, community engagement, everything that is so critical to sustained success is part of this challenge. And I applaud all of the finalists. I applaud the hosts, the sponsors for that. It has been remarkable. Now, if I had a drumroll, I would love to be able to use a drum and do that because I want to announce the winner. Before I announce the winner though, I want to share just a little bit of a distillation of what the judges comments were across all of the phases. There was one thing that was remarkable that the winning team did. Every finalist did technology really well. Every finalist to some level talked about regulations, which is really important. This team in particular focused on community engagement and not only as a single snapshot, they didn't only go into the community and do a survey. They literally made the community part of the process from the beginning all the way through to the community actually co-creating and co-owning improvements to that process. And why that's important is all too often we tend to impose what we think communities need on those communities. And we don't think of asking the communities what they want. This team did that. So it is my absolute pleasure on behalf of all of the judges of the Clean Water Track to announce the winner, which is team of Puyawin, the Guardian of Water, represented by John Aguilar, Manuel Mejia, Monica Gutierrez, Alex Trujillo and Sebastián Rodriguez. Turn it to them for their acceptance speech and let's give them a round of applause. Hi. You cannot believe, I don't know if you can see us. There is a whole production here behind everything. We are pretty happy. I mean, we are really excited with this project for us, the engagement with the community and the participation with them has been such a learning experience for us. And we are really eager to keep on developing it. And the fact that we just one push us further in the development of the project. I want to thank all the members of the team, Alex, Manuel, Sebastián, John. And no, I don't know what to say. I am ashamed of you. Yeah. So really, thank you. Thanks, Manuel. Thank you.


Easy. Rani, I hope housing market crashes. I earn pretty good money and I have a few 100k saved and I can't find a reasonable price house in my town. Yeah, Rani, my advice to anyone that wants to buy a house right now, don't. Right? But I know we're not. Share of mortgages are down because individuals can't compete with institutional buyers. It's a huge component. Yeah, agreed, agreed, agreed. That's where a lot of money has been been laundered through Wall Street, right?  And what do they do with that taxpayer bailout money? They go and buy houses bidding against the taxpayers who are trying to buy a house for their families to live in. So the government has come along, taxed American citizens and Canadian citizens, Western citizens, right? Taking that money and giving it to Wall Street and those Wall Street, the money that was given to Wall Street is coming back to bid against people that were taxed with their own damn money filtered through Wall Street for them to buy houses. Insanity.


Then a guy called Wool, Cole. And a guy called Cole here took monkeys, and he did a different thing. He basically disconnected the muscles, repositioned them so they were stretched further. I know poor animals. We do do this in science sometimes. It teaches it a lot. And what happened was it shortened the face. So you see, this was the lower border of the mandible pre-vis, to the experiment, ac mae'r bapwyr y ddaig yn preventing? Cymru'r bapwyr mae'n gweld... ..so'r bapwyr ystafell hwnna nes gael'r ddweud. Dwi'n digwydd y dyfodd o'r llwyffydd, mae'n dechrau. A nhw'n hefyd filed ydw i'r bobl yn dynion... ..o'r bobl yn dynion'n hefyd yn dechrau. Felly rydym yn Thankyou ac Panthafoedd. Yn ymwybodio'r bobl yn dynion dynion.. ..o cymryd gwirbwyng. Mae gael ddweud o ddim yn rhan o'r dweud, ond mae'n bwysig i'w blaidio. Mae'n bwysig i'w blaidio yn ysgrifennu, mae'n eich ddweud, mae'n leolau. Mae'n gweld bod yn cyflodd neu gweld. Dyn ni'n gweld bod yn cyflodd neu gweld, mae mae'n ymwneud bod yw'r mawr o'r ddaeth. Yn ymwneud bod yw'r mawr, mae'n ddweud ymlaen i'w gwybod, a mae'n ddweud i'w gwybod. Mae'n ddweud i'w pwysig o'r ddweud, ..that we're very nicely exhibiting for us here. He's gone from this to this. And in doing so he's completely affected... ...the pattern of his facial growth.  Now, if I'm trying to try and give you two examples! Two examples with good facial growth, good horizontal facial growth... ...or we've got the vertical growth. And this is the problem I'm describing, is this vertical growth. Now this is an example here of the good horizontal facial growth. Oh... You don't have the same version of PowerPoint a I do! Ok, I'll have to describe for you. The face would normally move forwards Yes! and you get the tight muscles and the closed mouth posture restrict the facial growth. so the facial growth goes forwards Rydych chi'n gweithio y ddweud y bydd yng nghylch yn dweud a ddweud y bydd yn dweud, a y diolf yn gweithio ac mae diolf y ddweud. Ddiolf yn cyffinol, mae'r ddweud y diolf yn dweud. Dwi'n ddweud y ddweud wrth y bydd y bydd yn ddechrau. Mae'r ddiolf yn ddechrau gynhyrch. Dwi'n ddweud y bydd yn dweud y ddweud, ond rwy'n gweithio'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. It doesn't even matter how hard I try that, it's not going to happen, and that's quite important.  Now a graphic illustration of this is that these two mandibles are the same length. One of them is coming from a horizontal grower, this mandible here, and the other ones come from a vertical grower, this mandible here. And of course, in that increase in the vertical change, there's changed that shape of that mandible. And although they're the same length, the actual space for the teeth is shorter, is longer on the square mandible, than on the shallow mandible. And this explains a great deal why we're getting impacted wisdom teeth and we're getting crowding at the front of the jaw. Only a thousand years ago, all of the skulls dug up in several Danish experiments or study work, had every single wisdom tooth present working and in function in a time when you couldn't take these teeth out. So certainly our ancestors had a very different situation than we do and fairly recent ancestors and a fairly purebred population. Now, again we're not going to see this one running as well, now a guy called Markot noticed that it doesn't matter who you are, but almost all of us keep the point nasion just here and the point bagonian just here above each other.  I think this is probably because we're social animals and that's what we like to do. And that's described with this woman here.  You see she's got, hang on, let's see if it's going to work properly. No, she's got a sloping forehead. Why's she got a sloping forehead? Very strange because it's not neanderthalic in any way. Because sloping forehead, because her face has melted down, cheekbones have disappeared, the nose looks larger because of it.  Now she's rotated her head upwards, it makes the forehead look like it's sloping backwards. See people with big noses often have sloping foreheads. It's not a coincidence, it's the way they've grown. Now what I often describe this is I describe it as a bit like a waxwork model. Someone's got a little bit close to the fire and it's melted away. Now that's this increase in vertical growth. And it comes from the musculature and it comes from the tongue posture. Now we're going to ask, again when you look at something, you need to look at the epidemiology of it. It's part of making science is looking at the epidemiology. We know for something like sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia started in two places in Africa and one place in India because it had an advantage in the sickle cell trait against malaria. It was passed on and you can see the spread of the populations around like contours on a map of the percentiles that have these particular feature within them. If we look at blood type here, blood type O within the population, it gives you an idea of the spread of populations, the spread of the genetics around the planet. And although you do see a pattern of types of malocclusion around the world, it's only tendencies, it's not an obvious thing. And also you think where was the first case, where did it come from? Well, it came in all races, in all members of those races, in all areas, roughly when we started becoming civilised. If you ask anthropologists and archaeologists, they say that happens when we become civilised. And about from the Neolithic period, 10,000 years ago when we got animals and crops and we got the great serial killers. And it's a little bit chicken egg. There's a definite interaction between the genes and the environment, but it's a cause and a predictor. The genes predict what type of malocclusion you'll get if the environment will cause it. For example, where are those kids growing? They're growing downwards. Where are we growing? The muscles have changed, their motor tone and their function, the tongue and the jaw has dropped. And that's what's happening. Here's an ancient skull on top of a normal modern skull. We don't have a lot of those ancient skulls, unfortunately. And I think that's part of the problem.


Hello everybody, I think we'll get started now. This lecture will be, for those of you who were unfortunate enough to go to my previous lectures, this lecture will be something of a review, although we'll cover some new material as well. Some of the ideas that I discussed so far, especially in my first lecture, are rather difficult, so I think it's a good idea to go over them again. I'll be trying to add some new stuff. If you'll allow me just one story about repeating material. My greatest teacher when I was at UCLA was Walter Starkey, who had been professor at Trinity College Dublin in the 1920s. He knew practically everyone's significant. So once after one of his, when he started one of his lectures, the student put up his hand and he said, you're giving the same lecture as last time. And Dr. Starkey said, it's not exactly the same. And the student made the mistake of saying, yes, it's exactly the same. And Dr. Starkey said to him, that's the trouble with you Americans. You never want to hear the same thing twice. So I'm afraid we are going to be hearing, some of you will be hearing the same thing twice in this lecture. Now I want to deal first with the contrast between praxeology and history, where praxeology is a general science of human action. And praxeology, we're considering what is true of all actions, what is true of action as such. So we have the concept of action and we're trying to determine various laws of human action. But history isn't like that. History consists of particular events. So the question might come up, why can't we have laws of history? They might not be praxeological laws. We can't just think about history and come up with laws that just by thinking about laws saying what particular events have happened or are going to happen. But why couldn't we have inductive laws of history similar to those in the physical sciences? And Mises gives us a reason why in his view we can't have such laws is that the way in which in the physical sciences we can arrive at laws is through controlled experiments. In a controlled experiment, the experimenter can hold all the relevant variables constant and then just vary one or a few to see what will happen. But we can't do that when we're studying history. We can't say replay the origin of the US Civil War and say what would have happened if say imagine the situation where Lincoln doesn't reinforce the Fort Sumter in 1861. We can't do a controlled experiment and see what would happen then. We're just not able to perform such experiments so we're unable to come up with historical laws. So this limits the use of generalizations in history. Now in praxeology as I say it's a formal discipline so what we're doing in praxeology is asking what are the essential characteristics of action? Now in the in order to according to the way Mises views this matter which is somewhat different from Murray Rothbard, Mises says in order to understand human experience we need the concept of action. Say we didn't have the concept of action, we could see physical motions of various kinds, we could see say people's arms moving or legs moving, we could see various physical motions but we wouldn't understand what was going on unless we had the concept of action. Now if Mises is right about that he says we couldn't understand human experience without the concept of action then we need, if he's right we need the concept of action in order to understand human experience then we don't get the concept of action from human experience and can you see why that is the argument is if we need the concept in order to understand human experience then we can't get it from human experience because in order to make sense of human experience we have to have a concept already so we can't derive it from human experience. This is those of you who study philosophy, this is a Kantian view similar to that but Immanuel Kant had on certain concepts that we have to have these concepts in order to make sense of experience so Mises is saying we have to have this concept of action if we're going to make sense of human experience therefore it's not derived from human experience and this is what he calls an a priori concept. Now as I mentioned in the first section we'll be getting more of this further on we have to be very careful to distinguish a priori concept from a priori judgment a concept is just an idea that we have of something concepts or ideas so an a priori concept would be one that you need to make in order to make sense of experience. Now one very crucial point to take note of is many people can get this wrong for example there's a very good book by generally very good book by Barry Smith called on Austrian philosophy where he deals with Austrian economics extensively I recommended the I recommend the book in fact it I gave the book a favorable review when it came out and you'll for those of you who know my book reviews that doesn't happen very often I mean I feel book reviews if you can't say something bad about a book why say it at all but of course I'm not as I'm not as vicious as I used to be in my younger days but one still finds many books around that extend the bounds of human stupidity so this gives me a chance to operate so this the mistake to avoid which Barry Smith is one of those who commits this is to confuse when we say talk about a priori concept with innate concept now an innate concept would be somewhat of a biological notion say one could have people have held their various people hold this view that the human brain is structured in such a way that we have to grasp the world in certain ways there are various evolutionary arguments for that that people have given so according to this theory this account of things people are structured in brains are structured in certain ways and that's opposed to an empiricist theory which would be we get all our concepts from experience now this isn't what we're talking about one we're talking about a priori concept now to take an a priori proposition which is not a concept suppose we just considered two plus two equals four so as I mentioned the first section a priori judgment is one that we can grasp to be true just by understanding the proposition we don't need to investigate whether it's true we don't need to test it out so an a priori proposition isn't an also would be true a priori concept the question wouldn't be how did we acquire the concept but it's one that we can see it for the a priori proposition is one that we can grasp be true an a priori concept is one that we need in order to make sense of a certain aspect of experience but it's not a theory it's not to say something an a priori concept we're not talking making any kind of biological claim on that it's innate we're not giving some kind of account of the genesis of the concept in our mind or brain which are not the same thing incidentally because although some people think that they are there is a lot I must give one further digression there I'm afraid I'm as I get older I give more and more digressions in there was an article that came out by Robert knows it called on Austrian methodology and then someone who's a very well-known Austrian economist did a very long response to the to the article so one of the points that in this response was that how is how it's relevant to knows it's argument I don't need to go into but the author the response said well some some people might argue that the events in the mind are correlated with events in the brain but no one would say that the mind is identical to the brain or a mental event is identical to the event in the mind and the funny thing is that's one of the leading theories so there are lots of people who'd say exactly that but I say that's just a digression but I just point out because we have to see this the innate ideas view is a view biological view and this isn't what's meant what we're talking about when we're talking about a priori concept now we can see why would we want to why is it important to make this distinction well supposing we made the mistake of think that just thinking that a priori concepts were meant something like that the brain is structured in a certain way so that we have to think that way then we would have the problem well if that's right why should we think that using those concepts enables us to have any contact with the truth maybe that's just the way our mind our brain or mind is structured but we're going to be coming up with false ideas but the point of saying it's an a priori concept is that the certain field of experience doesn't make sense without the a priori concept so that it's a logical point it's saying this doesn't make sense without the concept it's not a point of biology now there is a passage one of the I should mention one of the if you're interested in praxeology in it want to study methodology of economics one of the most important books is the one by Mises epistemological problems of economics now in there's a statement in the edition published by the Mises Institute there's a statement by Mises that might lead you to think that he's favoring this biological model the one I said was the wrong one he says reason history and logic are historical phenomena human logic is a historical phase between pre-human non-logic on the one hand and superhuman logic on the other so you might think if you when you read this you might think oh well Mises is some kind of relativistic saying there's some stage when human beings didn't think in logically the way we do now and maybe there'll be some stage in the future where people think in some kind of superhuman terms we can't grasp that now but in fact what he's doing in that passage is stating the view he's opposing he's not stating his own view so people sometimes get confused in that in fact that's a general problem in reading Mises that he'll very often go on for a long time and expressing a certain view and it's the view he's going to oppose but people will think oh this is his view but he he's sometimes isn't complete explicit and he won't say here's the view I'm opposing he'll just say here's a view and he'll sketch it out and then he'll give the refutation later so as I say he's just giving the view he's opposed to he's not giving the view he favors himself now what Mises does say and this is his his real position is that we can't conceive of a thought that doesn't follow the rules of logic in the way we know them and he's reluctant to make statements about reality apart from our concepts because he's a follower of Kant but we have our concepts give us knowledge of what he called the phenomenal world but there is a numinal world and interpretation of that is extremely disputed to which our concepts don't apply we can't have knowledge of that so Mises is reluctant to say anything about absolute reality but you should remember that in Kant in terms of phenomenal world covers everything to which the law of causality applies law of non-contradiction so it covers a lot of territory so if you say this is if you say Mises says or Kant would say this is true of the phenomenal world that's a very strong claim in it the fact that he he reluctant to talk about reality as such shouldn't be taken as an indication of skepticism on his part or the part of Kant either I ran to the contrary not withstanding now here again we'll deal with a point I covered in the first lecture is that Mises often talks about a priori concept such as the concept of action that I've been talking about but he will very often even though he says he says he he's discussed a priori concept very often what he'll actually be talking about is an a priori proposition for example he says action aims to to reduce felt uneasiness so this how do we know that lies is a proposition or a judgment rather than a concept well because it has more than one idea in it so a concept remember is something we can think about and a proposition is is just an assertion it's really the verbal expression of a judgment now you know some one of the previous sides I wasn't very careful about that of course I put that in just to see people would spot the problem but you see the difference the concept is an idea and the the judgment is an assertion about concept in the proposition is the verbal expression of the judgment and there's also a distinction between propositions and sentences but I don't think I need to go into that or even if I do need to go into it I'm not going to now what do we mean when we talk about an a priori proposition well this is one that can be known apart from experience we don't have to test it out for example two plus two equals four I don't have to keep taking pairs of objects and then putting one pair and another pair saying does this add up to four and then keep testing that out well so far two plus two equals four but you never know the next time you try it no that wouldn't be right it's as soon as I understand the proposition I realize it's correct I realize it's it's true now you notice I phrase this as an a priori proposition is one that can be known to be true apart from experience it doesn't have to be uh known to be true apart from experience for example uh someone could learn an a priori truth uh just say just from having someone tell them it's true someone reliable say imagine you're in a math class and your instructor tells you that some mathematical theorem is true and you believe that the theorem is true and you have good grounds for doing so because that teacher is very reliable so then you would you would believe the the theorem is true not because you've thought about it or proved it and realized it's true because you believe the teacher so you would know it's true but you wouldn't but you would be uh learning it uh in a way that involved experience so there you would not be acquiring that you would not be knowing it's true just by thinking about it but it's an a priori proposition because it could be known to be true apart from experience now there's another complication again in philosophy there's always more and more complication that's what makes it so much fun but one is when we talk about could be known apart from experience apart from whose experience we could have cases where some people could realize a proposition is true just by thinking it and others others couldn't but so what the requirement there that's a difficult issue but again that's one another one i'm going to to a sidestep in this lecture now here's one place where it's very important to distinguish between a priori concept remember concept is an idea an a priori proposition an a priori concept remember is one that's not acquired from experience because or at least from because you need that concept in order to make excuse me you you need that concept excuse me sorry about that i guess some of the anti-praxeologists would rather i stop so you need the concept in order to make sense of a certain part of experience so remember the argument is you don't can't you don't acquire that concept from experience because you need it in order to understand the experience in the first place now a priori proposition is different an a priori proposition is just an assertion about a verbal expression an assertion about a concept so an a priori proposition is one that you can know to be true just by thinking about it but it doesn't follow and many people get this wrong it doesn't follow that an a that an a priori proposition has to consist of a priori concepts let's take say the proposition nothing can be red or green all over at the same time well it's seen quite plausible that red and green or concepts acquired through experience they're not they're not a priori concepts but nevertheless if people who think that's an a priori truth are right it's one that we can know to be true just by thinking about it so another example the one i gave in the initial lecture consider the proposition Aristotle could not have been a piece of tissue paper that's one neither Aristotle nor tissue paper is an a priori concept but the proposition Aristotle couldn't have been a piece of tissue paper is nevertheless a priori true so uh someone who who doesn't like Kantian theory of knowledge or Mises variant on it somebody thinks that all concepts required through experience could nevertheless accept a priori knowledge and Murray Rothbard was fell into this group entirely Rothbard in his philosophical views was an Aristotelian Tomas and he thought that all our concepts required through experience he didn't accept a priori concepts but he still accepted a priori propositions because just for the point on the grounds i mentioned that you're not committed to a priori concepts if you accept a priori propositions now before i get into this slide i'll just mention one other point that sometimes people have made me gotten wrong it sometimes happens suppose you you're trying to figure out is a proposition a priori sometimes you can test that out by what's called a performative contradiction in that you're very if you deny the proposition you couldn't deny the proposition unless the proposition were true let me give you an example suppose i said i have never i say said in english i have never spoken in english sentence so i couldn't i couldn't say that proposition i have never spoken in english sentence without speaking in english sentence so my very attempt to assert the proposition shows that the proposition is false i say i've never spoken in english sentence but that is an english sentence so it's false that i've never spoken in english sentence my my saying it shows that it's false and now the point to bear in mind this is i think a very useful technique this performative contradiction but it isn't in general true that denying an a priori proposition involves a performative contradiction for example suppose i say two plus two equals five that's the negation of the a priori or a negate it implies the falsity of the a priori proposition two plus two equals four but it's not the case or at least i'm not seeing its case that my saying two i could only say two plus two equals five if in fact two plus two equals four so my saying two plus two equals five doesn't manifest or show that two plus two equals four or similarly uh if i use the example i gave a few minutes ago if i say Aristotle could have been a piece of tissue paper my saying that doesn't show that he couldn't have been so it's not a test for an a priori proposition that denying it leads to a performative performative contradiction now many people find the idea of a priori truth to be very hard to accept they say how could we learn truths about the world just by thinking about them uh suppose say i wanted to find out how many people are in this lecture i'd have to count how many there are i couldn't just think to myself it must be that there are so and so many people here i'd have to investigate i'd have to look into what the truth of the matter is so some people say doesn't this rule out a priori knowledge uh so one way and this is the way the logical positivists uh made room for a priori truth the logical positivists did not reject a priori truth but they said a priori truth or what they call analytic propositions or tautology suppose they would say suppose we have two plus two equals four they would say four is just another way of saying two plus two so two plus two equals four isn't really telling you anything and so the contrast would be with what's called synthetic propositions which are not tautology so in this view they're synthetic they're analytic propositions which are tautologies they're not telling you anything new and they're synthetic or empirical propositions that are telling you new uh facts about the world and you remember i won't mention it now but there's a distinction between the i mentioned the first lecture there's a distinction between how can't define a synthetic truth it's anything that's non-analytic and the positivists had a different definition they thought synthetic meant empirical which would mean a proposition that has to be confirmed by the senses to know whether it's true or false now surprisingly a lot of people think that mesis thought that the truths of economics are synthetic a priori but in he doesn't actually say this in human action he says in human action that the truths of economics the principles of human action are tautologies so this seems kind of something we we wouldn't expect him to say wouldn't we say well if he says they're tautologies then isn't he saying they're not giving us any new knowledge they're he's just saying it's a way of conventions about how we use words but his way out of this he seems to be put in a kind of a box he says he doesn't want to say the proposition he doesn't say the propositions are synthetic but if they're tautologies then they're not telling us anything useful so that's what he denies he denies the logical positivist view of tautologies he says we can have useful tautologies now we could certainly come up with examples of a useless tautology for example the great philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein gives as an example he says imagine that you ask somebody about the weather and the person answers you well it's either raining or it's not raining well that's it tautologies and applicates an instance of a law of non-contradiction but it doesn't tell you anything about the weather so it's that sort of example that the positivist had in mind they said look aren't tautol if you if you just have tautologies well they're true enough they're just definitions or applications of law of logic parts of definition but they're not telling you anything interesting or important so Mises answered he said well he thinks that this isn't true of all tautologies there are tautologies that do convey information to us for example mathematics according to the positivists consists of tautologies but we certainly learn say we learn mathematical theorems they're not theorems that are obvious to us we learn about them so we can have cases of tautologies that do convey useful information there's a very good article by someone who accepted this view namely that economics is a priori a priori propositions of tautology but some tautologies are useful and this is uh Leland Jaeger who for many years was a professor at Auburn and used to until the past few years he very often used to lecture the Mises Institute so he has I think I put the reference here in the note a very good article defending this point of view I should say it's not the point of view I would myself favor but he gives a very strong case for this now in one of Mises last words the ultimate foundation of economic science Mises seems more sympathetic to the notion of synthetic a priori truth a synthetic a priori truth would be one that we can know to be true by thinking about it but isn't a tautology it does give us new knowledge of the world so what Mises even that book though Mises doesn't say that economics consists of synthetic a priori truth he just says which I think is a quite interesting point he says suppose someone says there are no synthetic a priori truth he says that appears to be a synthetic a priori truth if it is true so he thinks this would raise a problem for those who hold that position now I should say one just to say there are all sorts of complications in philosophy just one other that I'll mention is an a priori truth remember is one that I can know to be true just by thinking about it once I see understand the proposition I grasp that it's true so we're talking here about a theory of knowledge we talk about epistemology but this isn't the same as saying that a truth is necessary when we say something couldn't be otherwise something couldn't be otherwise it's something as opposed to contingent something might or might not be true say it's a contingent truth that you're all here in this lecture room you might have been somewhere else but we can have a priori propositions that are not necessary suppose I take the considered statement I now exist so I can by understanding this proposition I grasp but it's true but it's not by any means not by any means necessary it might have been that I didn't exist at this moment I could have just died right right right now I hope that doesn't come around for a while at least a while yet but it isn't necessary that I exist but I now exist is a priori now I've covered the a priori at excessive length but I want to deal with a few other points in the in the time remaining one is me's attach great importance we call methodological individualism that's the view that only individuals act so suppose we say innate the united states declared war on japan uh december 8th 1941 that would be explained as uh uh president rosevelt made a speech to congress on that day and after that congress voted for a declaration of war and as a result of that and because of the system american legal system various consequences happened from that it isn't that there's some kind of entity the united states that was acting apart from the actions of particular individuals so important point to bear in mind on this is that it doesn't follow from methodological individualism that only individuals exist that nations classes and so on don't exist that would be view we could call eliminativism about nations or classes but the view isn't say that there's no such thing as a nation or class it's just that only individuals act now another point to bear in mind i've seen people wrongly say this we shouldn't say that it's a metaphor to say that the united states declared war on japan december 8th 1941 a metaphor is uh metaphors are false say if i say uh of someone he was a lion in controversy he's not the person isn't a real lion but it's not a metaphor that the united states declared war on japan on december 8th 1941 it's a perfectly true statement it's just that the way the truth conditions of a statement are given by the actions of individuals but it's not a metaphorical statement and a point mesis makes on methodological individualism is that he's not saying that individuals come in tying before groups say we're born into families and we live in society so he's not saying well we started off with just one individual and then families and societies developed after that this is a view again on how action is to be understood only individuals act uh one that i i didn't go into in the lecture on history what i did say is that the historian is opposed to the praxeologists is trying to understand individual events you remember those who came to my lecture yesterday the historian is using the method of specific understanding in order to grasp the individuality of an act and one way that the historian does that is by constructing what's called ideal types an ideal type it was the main theorist who used that was used that concept was the great sociologist max vapor the one gary north was talking about in his lecture earlier this morning one mesis friend so what we do in an ideal type is mesis says it's the representation of complex phenomena of reality you're men of institutions or ideology so even when you're talking about an institution or an ideology you'll make the person construct the ideal type will be talking about human motivation so what you do in an ideal type is to exaggerate certain characteristics like suppose you say the ideal type of the capitalist or the bourgeois will be you'll just attribute certain personality traits to uh someone of that ideal type and you'll try to say how would someone given just those personality traits act say we have the uh the how would say someone who is a typical member of the bourgeoisie act and then after we've constructed the ideal type then we can use that to help us explain uh the actions of individuals they won't conform perfectly to the ideal type but uh using the ideal type won't nevertheless help us do so so I think uh I don't know whether this is the ideal way to end the lecture but I think I will end it at this point so thanks very much


They're a very athletic football team and you know, coach has done a great job with those guys recruiting this offseason, brought in some transfers to mix in with the returners that they bring back. So they got some guys that have experience that played a lot last year. So you know, they're looking to get over the hump, but you know, we're looking to rebound this past week's lost and to get back in the win column and continue to improve. Stuff force, you know, he's a leader on this football team and now he's got to take a different role this year. You know, continuing to be a leader on this team and to help the young guys as they continue to grow on this team and he's got to be a supportive guy now for those guys and to be a teacher and an extension of the coaching staff.  Losing to Brown is definitely a huge loss. Defensively, it's going to have to be next man up. Got a lot of young guys that ready to step in and contribute right away. That's a big loss for him.  So I felt like losing him, we got to find another person to step up and bring that energy to our defense in the back end.