At 2 minutes in, he starts saying that he's OK with people blaming religion for atrocities, as long as you also blame nationalism for atrocities of fascism (the Nazis) and socialism for the atrocities of Marxism (the former U.S.S.R.). Basically, it's a Ti/Fe argument.
A Te/Fi user would have absolutely refused to admit such horrific atrocities are the result of something that he'd defend. He doesn't mind if you criticise Islam, so long as you accept when the criticism will also apply to you, which is something that Te/Fi users do NOT argue, but something that Ti/Fe users argue often.
He definitely uses Fe. I'd lean towards TP.
Cognisant and Kuu have hit the nail on the head. It's just an abstract representation of a real phenomenon.
It's mechanical from a low level, and the larger the system, the less mechanical it becomes (more variables). So quantum mechanics works on small physical systems. It's abstract and inaccurate, but close enough to work practically. They are just ideas and there are many ways to explain the same phenomenon that are equally as valid.
I'm working on some stuff that explains natural phenomena without using much math, if at all. Math is the slow and difficult way of understanding ideas. It doesn't allow you to make connections easily.
It's supposed to be like that. If you're reasonably smart, and reasonably imaginative, you can normally invent arguments for and against anything. The only way to know whether it's right or wrong, is to calculate which one fits better with the details. But doing the calculations on all the details, to know which one fits, is difficult. Maths is how Westerners do those calculations, to know which argument only
seems to be right, and which argument actually IS right.
Einstein for example came up with the idea of relativity while riding a bike, so it's likely that there wasn't much actual math involved. Math is used to explain the idea only after the idea has been had. Does that make sense?
Einstein considered an argument against gravity. He thought about freefall. When you are falling, you feel weightless. Is it that gravity is used up by your increase in speed as you fall, and that's why you don't feel anything while falling? Or is it that you naturally fall, because that's the way that space directs you, and when you are not falling, you feel a push, because you are pushing against the natural trajectory of space itself? Both arguments are theoretically possible. So Einstein couldn't know which was which. He used maths to work out the different formulae for each possibility, so as to work out situations in which the results could tell us which was which.
The maths of relativity could then also be used to calculate how to use it to one's benefit. Again, one can make arguments for and against a satellite providing accurate GPS. But how would you know whether it would work for sure, and if so, how would you have to make the satellite work to get GPS to work? All those questions couldn't really be addressed by an "idea". You would need exact answers, which is where we used maths again.
In reality, maths gives us the formulae by which we can prove the validity of an idea, and the formulae by which we can work out exactly how to make them work.
Put another way, if we had Einstein's idea, but not the maths, could we have proved relativity? Nope. We'd need some way to understand the data of an experiment accurately. Could we have used relativity to make GPS? Nope. We'd have a basic idea, but not the measurements that would determine if it works or not.
Conversely, if we had the mathematical formulae of relativity, but not the idea, could we have proved the theory? Yes, because the formulae would have validated the experimental data. Could we have used relativity to make GPS? Yup. We'd have the formulae to calculate how the GPS satellite's measurements.
But if we had the maths but not the idea, would we have been able to understand the theory? Would it have been palatable to us, to accept a theory that clearly is incredibly accurate, but which we don't understand? Nope. Understanding is how we come to accept ideas.
The mathematical formulae of scientific theories describe what really happens in an accurate fashion. But the ideas of scientific theories are how we make them palatable and acceptable to us.
