RICHARD DAWKINS vs BRET WEINSTEIN for the FIRST TIME EVER! EVOLUTION, BIOLOGY, SCIENCE!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 เม.ย. 2024
- The venue only allowed an "archival level" video to be produced. Sorry for the low quality.
Welcome to the Pangburn Universe, governed by the laws of good faith & helpfulness.
#richarddawkins #bretweinstein #evolution #darwin #darwinism #biology #zoology #science #evolutionarypsychology #evolutionism #religion #atheism #atheist #atheistviews #darkhorselivestreams #naturalselectiontheories #darwinaustralia
An Evening with Richard Dawkins & Bret Weinstein in Chicago on Oct 23rd, 2018.
The awe-inspiring Dawkins sits down with evolutionary theorist Weinstein to talk all things evolution. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
The venue only allowed an "archival level" video to be produced. Sorry for the low quality.
JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?"
Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets
Is this the Brat Whine-stain who refuses to PUBLISH PEER REVIEWED PAPERS in IMMUNOLOGY and VACCINES
and REFUSES to address any of the THOUSANDS of crushing points that Dr Dan Wilson of Debunk the Funk makes?
So instead Brat Whine-stain hangs out on the internet where there is zero peer review.
Its sad when people like Brett lean into pseudo science and religiosity. It's more mainstream/popular to shy away from the hard scientific truths... It is EASY to say "You don't know exactly how evolution works".... Yeah, because the Earth is a complex system from the cosmic, to the climate, to vast variety of environments that have changed over 3 billion years on earth... The mathematical equation to account for ALL of this is immeasurable..
The best we can do is to try to isolate some variables and test some aspects to limit our room for error. But no honest scientist claims we have every variable worked out...
This is the new god of the gaps, "Impress American audiences" approach to science and it is pathetic. It is how the American political system works also. Its laughable that we have to impress the ignorance of Americans... And their "feelings"...
No Brett. You will die and nothing of your ego will remain. Get over it.
Mathematical models. "I have two problems" he says. And they cam be summed up as 'not enough information' and 'too much information'. Dawkins is absolutely correct to say that the solution is 'better models' and not to abandon math.
U missed Weinstein's point. He pointed out that the mathematical model is likely to conclude reasonable answers to your Hypothesis but those answers can very much have nothing to do with REALITY. hence the example with the sphere balancing on a razor or the hot coffee coming to room temp. And he never suggested throwing away math. That comment by Dawkins was redundant, but understandable.
@@user-wr7bj9yn7i I may have to go back and relisten to that part again then. In the example of the sphere on the razor, the subtle imbalances would fall under the 'not enough information' header. Air pressure, motion, viscocity (bet I spelled that wrong) and so on would also all be variables to account for in an attempt to make that model more accurate. It sounded like he was saying that once you start adding more information, the addition of that extra information could alter the result to let you claim almost anything. Which, now that I listened to the rest of the discussion, seems quite an odd thing to say. I'll have another listen. Thanks for the comment.
Yes, and some models only work in certain scenarios, that's why Newtonian physics is still used even though it doesn't work with relativity nor quantum domains.
@@skylarsobczak8040 That whole "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." thing? I have to admit it took me a few seconds of thinking to work out what was being said before I saw the sense in it.
@tehspamgozehere it comes down to the fact that the models are made by mortal humans using finite precision instruments in an incredibly complex system. We will likely never know exactly how systems behave, but we can develop relationships for the 5 or so most relevant factors to reach ~95% accuracy.
This is my favorite discussion with Richard Dawkins yet! even though he is uncomfortable talking about some of the topics
I would have really liked a cultural anthropologist joining this conversation, especially in the final stage
Hahahah yeah I think we heard enough from them about pretty much everything lol
The answer to Brett’s question about why big answers in Biology have not been answered is partly because the funding structures today have been politically motivated with professorship being given to people for representation purposes and giving platform to people who help industrialization of biology rather than those who pursue knowledge not position.
What is your experience in research in biology? I'm just curious if you have any basis for this claim. When I was in college I was close with people who were on the cutting edge of biology, one getting a Ph.D, and I didn't see any of that so what have you observed while being a part of biology research?
Really? I find the answer to that question to be that Darwinian evolution has been debunked.
But another answer that is equally true is that you don’t actually need to know Darwinian evolution to “do” science, but you do need to know it to “teach” science, and not everyone is lining up to be biology teachers.
"...why big answers in Biology have not been answered..." like where children come from.
What is things you made up and never happened on the Internet.
Crap
I´m a big fan of Richard but why would nationalism not be (at least partially) explainable through biology? Nationalist is extended tribalism and later one is a biologically evolved feature. It´s a pity to see Richard getting so impatient about ideas he disagree on. Bret seems to have a point about the extended phenotype/Memmes, too.
Nationalism is not about extended tribalism, its about splitting the tribe and declaring one side less worthy. Its purely symbolic.
@@stoneneils tribalism is a mechanism by which one group is bound together against the "others". Bevor villages and cities emerged this applied to the "tribes" (in the original meaning), small groups of people who knew each other, had the same culture, were (at least partially) related and made their cooperation possible. The theory goes that this unity-feeling is still in our genes. So when the groups extended other features bound people together, like religion, same language, culture, common goals. In nationalism the same mechanism is in place, people cooperate and see each other as one "tribe". Same holds true for sports teams. People can be very tribalistic regarding their teams/schools ect and still have a bigger "tribe" like their nation and go to war against others.
Bret isn't a researcher or an expert on the field. What Dawkins is saying is that trying to frame very delicate topics into simplistic Darwinian terms (especially on social media) can be a dangerous thing. That's why he said that you have to be very careful about it
@@Fractoide Bret might not be a the biggest researcher on the planet but he was professor and probability had his share of input on this topics. Btw Dawkins used others research to come up with his conclusions, too. Here he seems just to be uncomfortable and annoyed to even talk about it. Bret’s approach is that biology plays a bigger role on our behavior and has an impact as well on our political problems, like nationalism, war ect. I think he had good points there. Btw many biologists think that.
@@tomaszdziecielski2634 usually experts on particular topics are hesitant to step out of their respective fields and attempt to provide explanations to very complex and delicate subjects in front of a very big audience. Imagine a physics professor from a small university, who studies classical mechanics, claiming on live TV that the discovery of a new particle at CERN was incorrect. Obviously I'm using an exaggerated example to illustrate it. But I think that's what Dawkins was implying, which is why even himself was hesitant to venture into that topic.
I think Dawkins is actually right here about trying to find a Darwinian explanation of these social/political issues. It’s like trying to describe the ingredients of a cake in terms of the chemistry of the paper & ink on which the ingredients were written.
Except the cake doesn't make itself. It doesn't just spring into existence. It's made by a person who has some base code running that influenced how that recipe came to be.
More like the chemistry of the cake. Biology certainly has something to do with the individual at a fundamental level, so at least reflects society also (not a biologist).
All of the evidence suggests biological chemistry emerged from chemistry. No deities required. @@kutark
Humans: kill eachother for hundreds of thousands of years. Biologists: there's no way this has anything to do with biology 🤡
Evolutionary biology could certainly be used to describe how society acts, but I think Dawkins was emphasizing that it is the domain of psychology and sociology, and they are the professionals that can recognize when human behavior is driven by biology, or not, or how much.
Richard and Bret, regarding the topic of plumage of male vs female birds, I'm quite surprised that you overlooked a significant component of the theory of evolution. Evolution never stops. So I posit that peafowl are still evolving and their current genes may be merely a step with flamboyance is an interim trait that is probably not sufficiently a threat to contued robustness of their species to warrant focused change. Of course genetic changes are random but I'm sure you understand my point.
Best regards, David
By the way: MİT class of 1961.
Bret has a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Not every change requires a benefit, only that it doesn't create such a negative as to lead to that animals extinction. Plumage may not help survival but if it doesn't hurt enough to prevent reproduction, it remains.
doesn't explain why women by (And are enticed) by consumerism for their own survival, wheras men just buy cars fancy cars like peacocks to attract their mate...
Amazing! I'd love to see a another if yalls can make it happen
Bravo on organizing this discussion!! Looking forward to more!
And when you separate memes/ mythology from humans, they fail to replicate the same way if the ponds dried up for the beavers.
And the beavers die
...only BEAVERS CREATE PONDS, ETC...
What exactly does Dawkins mean when he describes some of Weinstein's views as "not helpful". It sounds to me ike he is saying they may be true but are still not acceptable for moral reasons. Is Dawkins a closet priest?
He's saying that that type of thinking is more likely to make things worse than better, so if you want things to get better you should try another way
Good talk. I watched for Dawkins and admit I was expecting to disagree strongly with Weinstein, but I have to admit that was a thought provoking exchange and he makes some very good points on some very interesting topics. I'd like to see more respectful exchanges like this in future. Another point for Pangburn as a good channel to get good content through.
I would like to see more disrespectful exchanges in future. And the answer to the question; where children come from.
@@user-ze8zo5uv2s That's why we have various flavours or kinds or tiers of counter-apologetics. If you want someone more disrespectful, try Professor Dave. "Science isn't wrong. You're just stupid." If you want more energy and emphasis, Aron Ra's "YOU! ARE! A! MONKEY!!" is pretty good. More sass and silly mocking? Logicked. More calm detail and subtle snark? Viced Rhino. Excruciating detail and subtle snark? Gutsick Gibbon (though she's more science than apologetic). Deep research and interviews? Paulogia. Ridiculous animations? darkmatter2525. Mostly polite then SNAP? Matt Dillahunty. (The camel and the straw.) I'm sure I've forgotten a few. More than a few. Matching apologist to counter-apologist, or science communicator to science denier. That's a whole thing. And a whole issue. Poor matchings do no one any favours on either side of a debate.
Oh, and children come from the cabbage patch. Cabbage Patch Kids. Those faces...
Brett would not accept that he was formulating a non-Darwinian question and kinda demanding a Darwinian answer. Richard told him about three times and Brett would not move on. Overall, much better than the Peterson / Dawkins conversation.
It's a darwinian question.
The reason for that stagnation in science is Dawkin’s answer for its reason, “perhaps we got it right”. You dont even get science “right” (at least only once, and we aren’t nearly there), you simply get less wrong with each new discovery.
Ridiculous... There are absolutely many things that we got right ... Just because the whole puzzle isn't complete doesn't mean every piece is blurry.
@@TheNiteinjail Thats what I said, Newton wasn’t wrong, Einstein was more correct, someday someone will be more correct still. That is Dawkin’s flaw, he (like most Boomers) assumes he has to be at the end of history.
I would have to double check but I think Feynman said the best a Scientist can hope for is to not be proven wrong in his lifetime.
There are theories in sience which are more solid and clear and stable., while there are other areas of science which change more often because we are learning. So there does come a time when some theories withstand the storms of rigorous investigations. These are the ones we cansay we got 'right'. That is what Dawkins said. He did not say stop checking and questioning and sciencing on the more stable theories. He did not mean right as absolute right as there is no such thing as absolute right in Science because we must subject everything to investigation.
@@ml4173 l am not sure you watched the same video as the rest of us boomer end of history what a pile of crap
This should be titled The Lost Art of Debate.
I respect Richard Dawkins at the point when he says the answers belong in a different domain.
The science is based on facts. Religious beliefs are based on superstition and fiction.
Funny, I thought that was a cowardly manoeuvre.
Indeed, religion belongs in the category fiction!
@@rudysimoens570but the conjuring of such fiction in one's mind is a feature of human psychology and evolution just like the rest of the discussion, so why write that one off but not the others?
@@alexanderhamilton6370 because believing in irrational supernatural nonsense is not harmless at all! The harm religious people have done and still do on the basis of those bronze age myths, doctrines and rules both to the individuals and the societies is unimaginable! The list is very long!
So, it's better to leave all that supernatural nonsense of ANY religion and all those bronze age myths behind and to deal with REALITY!
Anxiety inducing layout with how close the top image is to their heads lol.
I'm beginning to think that Weinstein doesn't understand darwinian evolution.
Thoroughly enjoyed this and lots covered. I think we were getting to some very key things from which id love to hear more from both of them.
I really respected Richard Dawkins saying how answers in certain realms were likely best discussed in other domains.
We were getting into how religion fits with all of this. Im curious how Richard Dawkins uses the word 'delusion' for example (a psychiatric term) in his book The God delusion but yet Psychiatrists dont agree with this nor have changed anything from his book.
Im not sure about his approach to religion and just seeing it as pathology is at all helpful and i think thats what we were getting into.
So great we get to watch stuff like this. I learned stuff from both of them. More please:)
This is wonderful and I feel I understand all of what they are saying. Well done
This is at least the third time this exact video has been re-posted to this channel. As recent as just 7 months ago it was already uploaded. Originally it was uploaded in 2018.
The really interesting debate would be with David Sloan Wilson.
Next time I can point my telescope from my video to help with the videotaping process.
Felt like I was watching the Golden Globe awards when the audience applauded following Bret’s mention of eradicating genocide.
Here, we are giving opinions grounded in our belief systems whilst science exists and continues to reveal the wonders of creation.
😂😂creation😂😂
Weinstein thinks he is way smarter than he actually is...at times I think Dawkins wanted to say he was full of shit!
You're too woke to see Dawkins argues in bad faith
@@matt12.8 hehe, let me guess, Dawkins works for the deep state, the vaccine conspiracy? Oooooo
I've found Weinstein unfortunately sometimes has a way of wording things that makes him sound like a sophist - I don't think he is though. Whenever given the opportunity to rephrase or elaborate his points, it usually turns out there's real deep thought behind them.
@@matt12.8What evidence do you even have that's he's "woke"? There's no way you can even make that judgment coherently.
@@matt12.8 Another dumb use of the word woke.
The idea of having an intellectual debate with people who believe in magic! Religion is the main reason we lost 1000 years of human progress after the fall of th Roman Empire!
I do not care about religions but I believe in Christianity and its worldview that made it possible to invent science. Christians (like, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Mendel, Copernicus) were able to invent science and follow math and logic because they believed that the universe was designed and man, being made in the image of God was able to understand the laws of nature.
@@bhocatbho " and its worldview that made it possible to invent science"
Stop being stupid, science predates christianity.
And also the reason we got Chartres, Michelangelo and Bach. Expand your data set if you want to affirm the consequent.
@@willmercury non sequitur
I have the utmost respect for Dawkins, and I have nothing of the sort for Weinstein. Dawkins concentrates on genes, Weinstein talks about memes (also defined by Dawkins) and doesn't know the difference. Weinstein's phenotype will not survive into the future.
The nerd burns are cutting deep on this thread lol
Yea there's some hilarious butthurt going in the comments section.
Hilarious to hear Dawkins reverence for Darwin in light of his dressing down of Fred Hoyle in Chapter 4
of "The God Delusion". Dawkins' remonstrance of Hoyle's "life beginning naturally on earth is as likely as
a hurricane assembling a fully functioning Boeing 747 going through a junkyard", is that Hoyle fails
to fully appreciate "natural selection". Hoyle appreciated that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics NEVER
allows "numerous, successive, slight modification" (6th Chapter, "On the Origin,,,") in the inanimate.
Dawkins says many pregnantly, provably ignorant things....but THAT'S unforgivable.
Same. The reason this guy was able to teach at Evergreen is because he is such a low quality scientific minds. For example his talk about bringing Darwinian evolution into political arenas. That is more the realm of behavioral sciences, political science, and/or sociology….not evolution. He isn’t a sharp knife, he is a Rogan mystic…
@@MrGregorypaulscott what have you done? I’ve heard of him before but not you
To disagree one does not have to be disagreeable, by diminishing others to secure a supposedly winning point only serves to prevent an open minded examination of a valid path to achieving a shared reality/truth. Kind regards Tim
I’ve listened to this multiple times and at first thought it was so obvious that Bret was more progressive but now understand that this is not Darwinism
Dawkins' suggestion that social/political issues are outside the scope of Darwinism, started to sound suspiciously like he subconsciously believes in the divinity of humans 😁 Great conversation.
He’s not hinting at that, nor is this an expression of subconscious belief. He states, pretty clearly, not that they fall “outside” of Darwinianism, but that national/international sociopolitical issues are too complex (I.e. there are significantly more inputs and interactions between inputs) to be described accurately merely through the lens of genes and biology.
He’s the last person to label as having any belief in the divine.
50:17 plus this practice prevents parricide. It's match with the idea of inverting material legacy if you look at it through long term pattern recognition.
Is it possibly time to use a new camera for Pangburn, as in, at least 1080p?
Read the note about the video quality up top.
Is it just me or was that the most uncomfortable conversation I’ve ever heard? I almost started sweating.
Uncomfortable? Not sure I'd use that word. It was certainly tense and charged though. Strong and deep topics on issues that can be used by firebrands to excite followers.
Richard is always a bit rigid. I don't think it's a good fit for Brett who always wants to start the conversation at genocide or other social extremes.
It's the wokster Dawkins trying and failing to look like a scientist
@@matt12.8 How exactly is Dawkins a "wokster" ??
@@matt12.8 What? He is anti-woke. And he is objectively a scientist. Which echo-chamber have you come from?
Richard just wants solid answers to pressing questions through science and Bret just wants to be an internet sensation through smug verbosity and cringe.
I’d suggest to not use a venue that doesn’t allow professional video being taken anymore.. especially not for such a great debate
Yeah that's either an excuse or some real BS.
Absolutely, although it was kind of amusing on my screen they both had florescent yellow skin and I initially thought they had both used make up for a laugh.
At this point I don't see why we're even having debates about this. If the theory of evolution isn't true then the entire scientific process would be so fundamentally flawed that basically every other theory and scientific fact would be too. To the extent that we couldn't have modern medicine, communications, Internet, the oil industry, chemistry etc etc.
Some people just have a fundamental "feeling" that they want their life to mean more than just the material. They cannot accept that's all there is. They want to feel special.
This wasn't a debate about whether evolution is true.
Personally i find this entire genre the reason gen-z are a bunch of depressed geeks. We had led-zeppelin, they have the Weinsteins.
@@stoneneils
So in other words you give a shit about evolution and take the staircase right to haven. 😅
Oooo... got very chilly there at 30mins...
Richard knows his lane but Bret is unfortunately wrapped in hubris much like his brother. The bubble he lives in with Heather has cause myopia.
would a real scientist stay in a lane?
Can you give example?
@BradSayers yes that's kind of the point. Research is about specializing and developing your area of expertise. There are no mathematician physicists building biochemically driven robots in their garages.
@@aukuniBret's brothers absurd recent "math physics" paper is a good example of gibberish fueled by hubris
@@Pleasekillmysonsdad😂 The point is not specialization. The point is understanding. Generalists are able to understand a subject within a broader context. Overspecialization is one of the many reasons our so many fields are in jeopardy. Medicine is a great example, specialists staying in their lane don’t bother to look at effects across the rest of the body. The greatest minds in history were generalists, not specialists.
anyone who is against using math clearly cannot do math. math is simply a language so to say that math is not speaking is simply stunning coming from an educated person.
I'll take this opposite to pay my respects to Dan Dennett whom we just lost. Richard and Him are among my heroes. He's gonna be missed.
Oh no!! I hadn't heard. It did have to come someday 😢 as it will for us all. He is one of those people to whom I never did send that letter.
I think this is often a blurred issue, some of the human traits such as suicide are less prevalent in the wider animal kingdom, more often than not suicidal thoughts are present in persons who feel for one reason or another that they don't belong within society. I don't think there is a genetic marker for Suicide, this is the complex psychology of the human condition and it is why we ponder and philosiphise on why we are here. Evolution is essentially a force that we don't consciously participate in, but we have it done to us.
It’s more about the evolved mechanisms to prevent suicide failing. There is a theory about how once a certain threshold of depression (which is an adaptive behavior) is passed and the individual is so depressed they may kill themself, all the actions required to do the act become too cumbersome to carry out. This fails when the individual kills themself before that threshold is reached. Just one example, but the literature on the evolution of suicide is fascinating. There is some evidence to suggest that in the EEA, suicide aided in kin selection where the act either increases resources available to their kin or the greater community offers support and resources to the grieving kin. I don’t think there would be a suicide gene or anything like that rather it’s a signaling behavior linked to the benefits of depression as a whole. It’s just that the mechanisms to prevent it break down and I think it’s easier in modern society for them to break down precisely because we don’t live closely with our “tribe” anymore. We are isolated in our little huts hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles away from those who love us.
@@BlackPhi1ip I think you make a good point there. Depression in and of itself I view as a signal to the person who is affected by it and, if you look at it that way, is not totally an illness, but an inherent need in the person to resolve what has triggered the depression. However, if the depressive person sees no solution, if he experiences no hope of improvement in his condition, for example because he is treated like a victim by those around him (privately and professionally), the depression can intensify to such an extent that he believes he can only take his own life in order to escape the depressive state.
A depressive person should be challenged by the world around them, not permanently treated as a sick person, but as a healthy person who is trying to understand their condition, as I understand it. Biological explanations alone are not enough, especially as medication with anti-depressants only treats symptoms, but not the cause.
If man is a tribal being, and in my opinion he undoubtedly is, then he needs the prospect of this and the courage to be, if not close to his blood relatives, then at least to those who come second best. In other words: the formation of a stable community with a man/woman/children and extended family, whose values he shares.
Yes, isolation is a huge depression trigger, I agree.
thank god we have intellects like these
Religuous folk: "Evolution is fake! Humans do what we do because God designed everyone!"
Meanwhile, Evolutionists: "Lets ask some really uncomfortable questions and see if we can solve actual problems with humanity".
The biological code didn’t write itself.
Hmmm, Bret veers into linguistics first language acquisition territory, a well understood territory, and overlays an evolutionary "purpose" to why children can be native speakers in two languages.
Weinsteins love to put things in a sentence as a way of somehow "inventing" some new thing.
At risk of wading in controversial waters we might propose a couple of researchable questions to generate a “new” theories related to the biology of homosexuality: specifically to provide a framework for why right handed males with more older brothers have higher rates of homosexuality. One question might be “What is the relationship between a father’s declining testosterone rate and/or the mother’s reduced sexual attractive phenotypical traits as they age and the development of more feminine traits in younger boys with large families of brothers?” And “What is the relationship between homosexual play in male youths (which often occurs in males who often go onto develop heterosexuality) and the comparative rate of homosexual play in a male youths with more older brothers?
What about this "it is not helpful to think about this" argument? How can you simply ignore this? Why shouldnt we at least find out if the points are relevant to look at or maybe even true?
Especially as a Scientist
Resources come here! Where ye came from? From thy Footstool! Well said!
The biological sciences have continued to progress over the past 30 years. The answers are not discovered in neo-Darwinism but much more likely Intelligent Design.
About Genocide:
It seems to me that biology, psychology and sociology are closely linked here. I assume that the urge to behave as a national impulse-driven person and therefore to support something like genocide can be explained by self-insecurity. A person's psychological stability begins in childhood, and as long as a child was brought up in stable circumstances, both biological parents were able to manage many years of upbringing at their own sacrifice, did not develop drug and other addictions, ate, slept and worked sensibly, invested in their couple relationship and other visible adult relationships, they gave the child everything it needed for self-security.
This also requires several decades of economic security. Insofar as this is given, a person who has grown up under such circumstances is far less likely to allow himself to be induced to live out a national tribalism, because he has experienced enough familial tribalisation.
However, economic insecurity, coupled with family insecurity, adds to individual insecurity and makes people susceptible to seeking protection from those who hold the strongest weapons. Which could mean accepting genocide,, without being the ones to actively kill but let the killing happen.
Why can't things like reason, rationality, empathy, be phenotypes that in part function as a countermeasure against stuff like "my genes are superior, therefore genocide?"
To a degree, they are. And one could argue that content like this and the counter-apologetics channels and debates are expressions of the reason meme in a society. I see people being reasonable and respectful and I want to emulate them. Thus the behavior of being reasonable and respectful 'reproduces' and spreads. How well it spreads is heavily influenced by those it uses to spread.
In other words, keep being reasonable, rational and empathetic in order to help reason, rationality and empathy press back against the fundie-style extremists.
Because those traits are not always beneficial to the gene pool as a whole.
Many mammals, chimpanzees for example practice "genocide" on a regular basis, usually to the advantage of their own tribe.
Canabalism makes sure that the victim's meat is not wasted
I used to work for Bret Weinstein. I quit when I had a supernatural encounter with Jesus. Most will deny this, but it's true.
I've had numerous profound spiritual experiences in my life. I used to think they affirmed my specific Christian theology, but a lifetime of pursuit has made me less certain that such experiences are indicative of an intrinsic theology. Specifically, I find that petitioning God, or attempting to discern his "voice" has little real-world effectiveness beyond confirmation bias regardless of how compelling that experience is. Moreover, critical issues with the origins of biblical mythology and biblical incongruence with historical and biological evidence make it difficult for me to claim with honesty that Christianity holds any transcendent truth. I still believe in some general sense. Consciousness and the human experience screams of some greater meaning to me. But I no longer claim to have "the" answer. I still live as a Christian and I still pray. Life's complicated.
@sean_miller you've never met Jesus then. It's not confirmation bias. When you encounter Him and are born again, His presence is readily observable. No guess work needed. He's a living person who you can communicate with.
Was he the guy mowing your lawn?
@@Hannah11235 You cannot fathom the absolute deafness of that statement you just made. I was saved at 5 years old through a divine "encounter" of sorts. I have had exactly the relationship with Jesus that you describe and more. I still have it. I'm just no longer convinced it is what I believed it was. Religious experiences are not merely a Christian phenomenon. Moreover, if the God I know is real, He seems to be an intentional deceiver. I'm not bitter about it, but I don't really know what to do with it. The deconstruction of my faith was and is the greatest pain I've ever known. I spent two years severely depressed. I'm still in the church. I still follow. I just don't claim to have an absolute grasp on truth...if any. You would be wise to judge other people's stories less harshly. Never in a million years could I have imagined being on this side of the discussion. I am your reflection. Pray you never see yourself from this side.
@sean_miller Doesn't sound like you've had my experience at all. if you were really saved and walked away from Jesus, any true Christian who knows Jesus will question that. If you were a Christian you'd know that.
I was in the new age and occult, I've experienced other things. Nothing even comes close to Jesus. He is the truth, the way, and the life. Nothing even compares. I hope you find the truth. If you found it, you wouldn't be speaking as you are. May God bless you
As soon as someone says mathematics is not helpful...
You are quite correct but didn't I say essentially the same thing?
Dave
It blows my mind when people say evolution is ridiculous, while they believe in talking snakes and man created from a golem spell. But Yeeaaah evolution is the crazy idea. Its like astrologist telling astronomers that they are dumb, and not seeing the irony
Maybe you were a monkey but I sure wasn’t
@@Roastanus you sure sound like one
@@patman142Sound like what??
@@roccotarli762 looks like he deleted his comment
It in the same way that accepting that we came from apes is so smart !!!!!!! Don't insult my faith and show how condescending you are.
We do share a common ancestor with fish. In fact, we share common ancestors with ALL life! Mushrooms, alfalfa sprouts, flies, birds, and yes, apes (we are also apes). Educate yourself.
What about Subsurface Lithoautotrophic Ecosystems? [SLIMES]
It is an entire viable ecosystem that does not require sunlight as an energy source.
Educate yourself.
@@bimmjim Ok, I did read a little, but I'm no expert. They are bacteria, viruses, and fungi. They get energy from minerals. How does this disprove common ancestry?
@@bimmjim Also, how does this disprove we are related to apes? There are multiple lines of convergent evidence gathered from many disparate fields of scientific study which all confirm common descent. The DNA evidence alone is a slam dunk. Educate me.
We zijn allen apen (we are all monkeys)
yes, women even give off an evolutionary aphrodisiac scent of fish, to lure her next victim, to steal the soul of a man...
Classic: I believe this was one of my first introductions to Bret Weinstein. During this debate Bret included religion itself as what Dawkins called "the extended phenotype." So many divisions since the covid debacle, but I wound up sticking with Bret. Thanks.
Make sure to check out the dark Horse podcast.
His wife, Heather is also an evolutionary biologist and they have some banger episodes
@@faceplants2 Bret and Heather helped me through Covid. 👍
Same.
I recall my best friend being pretty concerned with Ebola and other past publicized things like SARS and Swine Flu etc, he was surprised i was pretty 'meh' about it. I said it seemed like they just used them to scare people, it was about one new one few years or so.
So when Covid took off i was already skeptical, and cautiously seeing that the response wasn't science based it was whimsical.
Luckily for me, Bret and Heather had already earned my respect, and although they didn't get everything right, I could trust that they were genuinely trying to present us the facts of the matter.
Even though Dawkins clearly exposes Weinstein as an utter fool pretending to be a biologist here?
I wish you all could have used a decent video camera. Did you use an iPhone on a tripod?
Ngl Richard Rorty would put an end to the shenanigans of both participants
Thank you for continuing to think, Bret, & questioning doxa in order to learn. I so appreciate you not living by codes & believed commands, and instead by curiosity & inquiry. Clear demonstration of science (Bret) vs scientism/religion (Richard)
Whenever I see Bret on equal footing with celebrated scientists I have to remind myself that America is the only place where the milk rises to the top.
What does that mean?
I think he's complimenting your milk
I thought it was the cream that rises to the top in milk.
@@sassyrobin420😂
"milk rises to the top" 🥴
Brett only wants a mathematical model that explains why Elon blocked him on Twitter 😂💀
Meanwhile you are unable to wipe your butt clean with your room temperature IQ 😂 🤡
Good to see the Weinstein's word salad hubris directly addressed. Now debate Wilson.
It doesn't seem obvious why there's more species around the equator? Is sunlight not crucial to biology?
More plants therefore more insects ,more invertebrates, more water from rainfall, possibly. The poles are just too damn cold .
Good point...
Yeah. No need for a PhD to figure that out.
Also the climate is far more stable which requires less adaptation
there is plenty of life around hydrothermal vents. no need for sunlight at all, not even byproducts of it.
Catholics are eusocial. Nuns are drones! I'm amused. And yes, it's memetic or meme-level rather than genetic. And it's so refreshing to hear memes being discussed in proper context and meaning. It's such a fascinating concept and area of study. So much more than funny cat pictures.
Public intellectuals have as primary role to say things people will understand. Bret, as well as his brother Eric, is trying to loose people in rethoric to appear smarter than he is.
Your comment shows you are not very bright.
@@anomietoponymie2140 You obviously didn't get the point of my comment. I'm not saying I don't understand, I mean the Weinstein put effort in making what they're saying sound more complicated than it is by using endless rhetorical detours.
I didn’t catch if he did it here, but Bret also frequently phrases really common idioms like he invented them. The biggest example is when he’s talking about political parties, he acts like he invented calling them the red team and the blue team.
You sound similarly insecure and arrogant as the Weinstein's.
I don't think ur right
This was very down to earth with explanations to keep the audience with the meaning of the terms
With Eric u might have a point, but I don't think it is done with malice. I think it is just the fatigue from having to always dumb down complex ideas
If you can't answer a question year after year, it's very likely you're asking the wrong question.
: Note : how Dawkins reminded the other person that “I think we are out of time” as sone as his adversary ventured onto ground that could entail a question about (God). I.e. what makes people repulsed by mass-murder?
Not saying this is his reasoning, but Dawkins has been cancelled pretty hard a few times recently so it's understandable that he'd want to avoid some topics and be at least wary of others. He's a favourite target for quote miners. I had the feeling that they'd more or less agreed to avoid religion as a central topic. You'll note that when talking about eusocial behavior and Catholics, the belief itself was secondary to the behavior, meme and expression discussion.
Dawkins came here to talk about evolution and biology, God was NOT in the agenda, so quite rightly Dawkins shut it down, and I do not blame him.
I don’t think Dawkins did that out of any sort of fear. Altruistic behavior is a millions of years old trait and religious thinking is more on the tens or hundreds of thousands of years time frame. We hated malevolent acts long before we began to attribute that hate to beings that command us to hate malevolence.
Heirs Hosts remind unto all! Who are ye ALL in front? I'll wait right Here! Better yet who ye all will say WHO I AM?
Thoughts on disease being caused by parasites?
36:39 I think Dawkins is making the mistaken assumption that if something is explainable through evolutionary terms then it somehow justifies that behaviour which does not. Humans are a special kind of preacher in that we can self reflect and choose or at least attempt to choose what kind of behaviours we wish to, do and which we will take actions to avoid.
Maybe peahens consider other factors apart from the peacock tail. Such as male voice, head markings, body size ,or whatever.
It would seem to be an an advantage to the species as whole if peahen the egg layer had an advantage avoiding predators over the male with his cumbersome tail feathers. He is the natural fall guy for the species
3 mins in and I am thinking Weinstein missed; Nick Lane, Michel Levin...
Terrible video quality along with an annoying graphic at the top of the screen.
Given a platform where objects can replicate with a differential, and a process of selection exists, there is evolution. Now a network of human brains is such a platform. Words, languages, and cultural elements, religions are objects on that platform which do replicate and get selected. They are mems. The formation or contribution to the formation of such a platform may be regarded an extended phenotype. Bever dams are not memes.
"important discoveries about evolution we all agree are true" No, we do not all agree!
Is it just me or is Weinstein talking eugenics 2.0? VERY UNCOMFORTABLE
So you were comfortable with the meanings but not a label that could be associated? That makes ME uncomfortable.
You poor thing.
Would like to hear their thoughts on Autism
at 43 minutes who are you talking about Biden
Wouldn't a sphere balance on a razor in a vacuum
Not if gravity is present
I feel like Bret is just on a mission to argue with Richard or to catch him in an “aha!“ Moment or something. Just doesn’t seem very genuinely interested in the conversation. When you watch Richard, he stares intently at Bret, listening to his every word. Sorry Bret, you’re not smarter than Big Dick Dawkins.
Dawkins' reduction to memes, genes and viruses was very interesting, and it makes me wonder if it helps to explain the destructive tendencies of social media.
A gene replicates itself by preserving a body. A virus does not.
What is the "body" for a meme? It's society.
Is the meme more like a gene (that wants to preserve the body) or more like a virus (that doesn't care about the body)?
It seems more the latter.
My only argument with evolution is that evolution depends on life for it to evolve, so where did the first cells (living cells) evolve from?
The argument fails. Biological evolution is the process of species formation. Not life.
They didn't evolve from anything; they were created by the word of God.
We don’t know for sure but there are non-living self replicating molecules so that would be a possible starting place.
Abiogenesis and evolution are two different fields. Evolution does not attempt to explain abiogenesis.
I'm ok with "God created one cell. And it was good." lol
Bret Weinstein reminds me of when Chomsky talks about intellectual charlatans. I can only imagine Weinstein trying to explain tying your shoes to a 5 year old.
Yes he would be able to explain it in both pragmatic and complex terms that carry both functionality and meta narrative. The best thing you could do for a child, how is that a bad thing?
@@hypno5690 Bret, is this you?
@@smoovjazz8029 youre too old to act like such a child. Was this a cry for help? Nobody taught you to tie your shoes?
@@smoovjazz8029 get a hair transplant
I wonder if it is a mistake to theorize that all causes of human behavior flows from a single level of adaptation. How much of evolution is genetic and how much is memetic? Maybe there is no elegant set of laws for all aspects of life!
Dawkins opens his mouth: just so story incoming…
#DarkMatter 🤔 Math variables tend to fix old jalopies like duct tape and keep paradigms alive by killing progress and sending generations of great minds on a wild goose chase.
I would buy stock in this channel if I could. Excellent content. Thank you
We even share common ancestors with creationists.
I've always loved Dawkins, but he is so salty and difficult to get along with. Imagine dinner at the Dawkins household..
I’d love that.
This is not a "meeting of great minds", as Bret is nowhere near the level of Dawkins, and I'm not sure why he even deserves to be given such a debate. There are much more deserving biologists from the US that should be debating Dawkins instead. AFAIK Weinstein's rise in popularity is mostly due to having controversial culture war political opinions, and not due to any work in biology.
He wasn't even a good biologist when he was active.
10:16 why there is less progress than before, because the many easier questions have been answered and the hardest questions are now left, that is always the case within all fields like physics, genetics, consciousness…..
Human’s propensity towards ideology is a Darwinian phenomenon.
The way humans behave in response to their specific adopted ideology isn’t explainable in Darwinian terms.
34:00 ish - Lineage selection over genetic or replicator selection. Oof, what an issue. I think I agree with Dawkins that this shouldn't be couched in Darwinian terms, especially considering the kind of backlash we already see from people who try and blame "social evolution" and WW2 on Darwin. However, there are components of this larger social level issue that are biological and evolutionary in nature. So Darwinian terms are a part of the issue, but only a part. To "couch" the issue in Darwinian terms would be to shift the focus slightly or possibly downplay other elements (eg sociopolitical and memetic) and also risk backlash from people who don't understand the difference, often provoked by those who don't WANT to understand the difference.
So biology plays a role in the issue Bret speaks on, but there are multiple reasons to avoid focusing on it. It IS something that ought to be explored however, but carefully and with equal focus on the other components.
A stage in front of a few hundred or thousand people out in public where quote miners and sensationalist journalists may grab and run with things is probably not sufficiently careful. My thought is that Dawkins understood that when he tried to avoid the topic. Consider how often he's faced people twisting his words and overreacting to things he only seems to have said.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Is there a possibility that the male stays with the female and draws preditors away helping the chicks to survive? Seams like offspring is likely already secured if the male succumbs?
The way Dawkins speaks of sexual attraction in animals applies to humans as well.
Remember that, fellas.
Happy to see the Simpsons are still relevant.