Evolution Debate - Richard Dawkins vs Bret Weinstein
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ย. 2018
- #richarddawkins #bretweinstein #evolution #biology #naturalselectiontheories #darwin
An Evening with Richard Dawkins & Bret Weinstein in Chicago on Oct 23rd.
The awe-inspiring Dawkins sits down with evolutionary theorist Weinstein to talk all things evolution.
Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER th-cam.com/video/5pbHsRz8A7w/w-d-xo.html
The Cosmic Microwave Background really tied this conversation together.
Gives perspective on the whole conversation
That’s a proper science nerd joke but I found it really funny
@@Tommyggs5432 If you're not a "proper science nerd" you probably didn't make it very far through this video.
I love nerd jokes ! good one ! :)
What??
It's unfortunate that you've zoomed in so close. I can't see the moon.
win
Sarcasm level 99
I actually laughed out loud at this, congrats.
Is Bret's argument simply that people don't have ideas, ideas have people and that ideas use evolution as it's tool to create a more diverse and ever more complex future?
Sure, because how these two guys look is the most important take away from this discussion. Maybe you should rethink (as in "think") your priorities.
Whoever decided to choose this camera didn’t get the best genes passed and belongs in the gulag.
Bruh don't make me laugh this hard
Lol
Haha, Warzone fan ey? Too funny bro👍🏻
👍
I bet they have the best peacock feathers though.
When Richard Dawkins explains, there is so much sense through the simplification of a complex idea that makes it a joy to learn. This is one of the most insightful and enlightening discussions on TH-cam!
That loser hates to learn. He runs away from science.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
One can't believe in God/Jesus and not believe in his word (the bible). They are one. Jesus is the living word. That's how everything came into being, by his word. When one truly believes in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus (the living word) then they worship God/Jesus in spirit and truth. Jesus is the King of Glory. No one will see the truth, know the truth or know life (spiritual life) except through faith in Christ Jesus and the work he did on the cross. Jesus died to pardon us of our guilty sinful condition. One must see that, believe that in order to be saved (given eternal life). The only other option is unbelief. Jesus the Christ (our creator) says those who do not believe are condemned already "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
@@paulgemme6056 you’ve caught a brain worm bud, should get it checked out
@@paulgemme6056 Do you listen to true academics speak and then decide that what people are missing is some comment on an unprovable belief based on documents written by peasants? What if the bible is the Scientology of 2,000 years ago? Have you thought about that?
@@dsc7914 Just sharing the good news so others can also come to know the peace and joy one receives when they come to know God/Jesus Christ. No religion needed. Just faith, faith plus nothing.
I think the Hissing in the background made a lot of interesting points.
Sir Hissing.
Jimmy Page must have recorded it.
It adds that old news channel vibe
... the sound of air leaking out of the tire of Western Civilization ...
@@guntherhochleitner3177 whitty, cultured and ... 🤔 no swinery detected ... master class in wordplay oldman
Who’s here from the Weinstein squared Portal podcast?
That's me. Did Weinstein and Dawkins have any other interactions?
@@elontusk610 Dawkins was a bit defensive and denigrating.
I got the impression most reluctance came from fear of political implications that lineage selection would entail.
Is it weird that the video cuts ahead right after Bret mentioned he worked on the telomere problem in grad school? Does anyone know how much he said?
I didn't want to Watch Dawkins..he's such an ASS but after the Portal squared...I JUST HAD TO SEE what Eric was talking about.
Eric was trying his best to suggest expanding on prevailing theories but Dawkins hardly budged. New ideas will always meet resistance from the orthodoxy I guess.
After Eric sort of had a pep talk with his bro Bret in the portal, I came straight here.
Me too
Check!
Ditto
From the podcast, I got the impression Dawkins was disrespectful, but I don't think that was the case. Dawkins seemed more respectful than I've ever seen him before, and for good reason, because Bret was making the best points. I think Dawkins handled that pretty well. It is not easy being an old God who is challenged by someone young and fit.
I left that podcast not even 25 minute in, just like the older brother said it wasn't going going anywhere, it's like beating water in butter churn
"I'm going to introduce 2 of the most intellectual men of our time... I think I'll wear my best superman shirt and stained jeans.... yea"
hehe yea my thought exactly
hahahahaha
LOL, 2 of the most intellectual men of our time...yeah...and you're including Dawkins?
I like his outfit.
@@mattm7798 He is able to clearly think about what is real versus what is fantasy. Something you seem to not to be able to do.
Edits are really grinding my gears. We need to hear this as it occurred.
Anyone else impressed by the sheer brass balls that Brett has to go up there and not only be completely calm, but disagree with and challenge one of his own intellectual idols? Not many people are capable of that.
Not only challenge him, but at times seeming to stump him.
@@willt3728 I like Brett but he babbled a lot of nonsense here.
He tried to attack with no facts. Just his personal doubt of maths. Silly.
@@emailacct3657agreed.
I knew Stewie would grow up to be a distinguished academic.
Hilarious 😂 👏
Yeah but probably killed his mom though
And is still planning world domination
I’m going to have to watch the whole thing again. I spent the whole time reading comments instead of listening
I do the same thing.
Dawkins is such a great communicator, not just in his ability to simplify complex ideas, but in his constant attention to making sure he is being clear. His natural instinct is to educate.
McCarron - Seriously, you don't look like a guy who enjoys a big bag of leaf now and then... apparently looks can be deceiving!
@@shadowdawg04 you figured me out :)
I'm glad he did in this one. Brett needed it.
@@GarryMcCarron 😀 just messin' with you... appreciate that your a good sport about it.
No, his natural instinct is to defend his leftism, even against his own theories, and so evolution conveniently ends at the neck when it suits him. If he were younger, instead of nationalism he'd be blaming the hetero normative patriarchy. The man has exposed his limits, happened quite a long while ago when it became clear he didn't understand the dangerous "mind virus" he kept mentioning was of his own making, the fertility rates are simply undeniable. That he pushed it into "orange man bad" shows that age does not always bring with it wisdom. The immune system of the west was deliberately and recklessly weakened by his ilks utopian notions, his ilk deliberately stagnated understanding of these ideas as they applied to humans so they could push their agenda, and now its beginning to collapse on them, and now they panic, still unable to see past their own blinders.
A Google Hangout would have been higher quality.
Danz McAbra i felt the quality was sufficient
I love how indulging in listening to and pondering over intellectual convos like this, help me understand how little I know, and its humbling, which I feel is a positive or a Win
I love the pacing of this debate - the moments they stop to quickly explain concepts
with the camera at that distance, with that quality, Dawkins looked like George Soros and Brett looked like Prince...
freaky
Ha
jesus, pangburn must do all their audio recordings through a beehive
I found this hilariously accurate save for the mention of Jesus.
I must disagree with the thumbnail advertising this as a duel. I very much appreciate that this is more of a discussion of differing ideas rather than various attacks to tear down and insult ideas.
Cutting cable TV has been a good thing since it lead me to watching stuff like this on Sunday mornings. I'm now finished with breakfast / coffee and headed out for a walk to ponder on the local beaver pond. Brett W is rapidly moving to the top of my most admired list.
Am i able to pach vdeo from my phone like Brett Weinstein, joe rogan,etc into my Sony big screen. I WAS TOLD WITH A T.V. CODE ITS POSSIBLE .PLEASE SOMEONE HELP.
Bob W.
@bobwilson9491 yes. But your TV and your phone must be both connected to the same WiFi network. Then click chrome cast in the top right.
Controversy or not, admit we're ALL happy these videos are still released. I am very grateful for that. So much pure gold here :) Rate the content, not the controversy: THUMBS UP!
There is a huge chunk missing....
@Luke Apparently Pangburn got into some bad business shizzle. Look it up :)
@@IAmJeroenKlomp looked it up found nothing specific or of note...what's the business shizzle? is it simply the fact that he's hosting events and people don't know where he came from?
@@collinsmugodo380 The controversy is, allegedly, that there are previous Pangburn events where speakers have not been paid causing a variety of responses from speakers. My understanding is Sam Harris has ceased involvement with Pangburn due to others not being paid for work done, whereas Bret Weinstein has continued in an effort to generate income for Pangburn to pay past debts. Both guys seem to be doing what they think is right.
Also I think there was a recent Pangburn event cancelled with ticketholders not getting refunds. Not 100% on the last bit, everyone please correct me if I'm wrong.
You hit the issue on the head. Controversy that challenges the Neo-Darwinist hypotheses must be avoided or shut down. That is why evolutionary biology has stagnated - it is stuck within a straight-jacket of what is becoming more like scientism than science as more recent findings do not fit within its boundaries.
Please hire new audio and video people.
Hire new audio and video.
Somehow the most interesting long debates have a way to find me just as I am about to sleep
20 mins to go, i think this is the best conversation i've ever heard. i watched it when it came out but haven't come back to it since
I’d pan the camera further out. Need more black background for sure....
I fail to see why the camera matters that much. They are sitting in chairs talking. But maybe it would be less frustrating not even having video and just doing audio... The cut out parts and crap audio are much bigger issues
@@Mark-ms4ze this is not the work of a professional cameraman. Get it? That's where the source of the criticism lies.
@CrossBorderFire
K I do get it but I still don't see why complaining about the video is worth it when there is so much more that's wrong with it. For all we know Brett set it up beforehand.
@@Mark-ms4ze uhhh far more likely that the camera person was an idiot than Brett set it up
@Jayson Genicici Cockington Janitor Crew
"uhhhhh" you talk about the camera man like you know one even existed. The camera did not move once the entire time. "far more likely" - based on what? You sound ignorant. FYI
Potato cam and a huge part cut out at around 23:40. Doesnt make much sense how they arrived at this point in the discussion because of the cut. I was waiting for this discussion and almost wet my pants as I saw it online, but now I am somewhat dissapointed. Pangburn Pangburn, whats up with you guys, such high value discussions and the overal management is just aweful.
he's now bankrupt
Stephan Sockel not to mention the awful static noise in the background
@@fullblowngaming Really? Well, sad but hopefully someone will come forth and pick up where he left and turn such a great movement into something even greater.
I can't believe that a significant part of the recording is missing. They literally had one job!
think they are neglecting this on purpose so you have incentive to go to the live events
Robert Sapolsky's "Behave: The Biology of Humans at our Best and Worst" is brilliant and addresses many of these questions in a accessible, well researched way.
Agreed , and I love the way sapolsky dispences his knowledge with humour !
And he supports what Bret is saying more than what Dawkins is saying.. still waiting fir the David Sloan Wilson and Bret Weinstein discussion to happen..
th-cam.com/video/RsOIiW_Ec4c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=WFyy0hhHhCrPCc19
Speculation.
Richard Dawkins not having an answer- "were out of time!" Audience " here's more time". Dawkins- "well lets let that one go" lol
he was right not to talk about that.
he was wrong. Brett is absolutely right. civilisation can only advance by tackling precisely the difficult ,unpleasant questions. Dawkins is a coward in this case and part of the problem
strawbal e if you want to deal with problem of this sort, go to morality. Biology won’t help you to resolve any of this, or might even lead some people to faulty conclusions. The funniest thing, that Brett talks about it in general terms but can’t propose any ideas, as to why we had that issue and what can be done about it? He just says that we must confront that idea and fight it; okay..
I don't think Dawkins was ducking the subject, i think he saw a double edged sword in talking about it in Darwinian terms, and that it was more dangerous to talk about it in this forum without having research done first.
@@pauls6530 How many years has civilization lasted? 5000?? 10,000?? We're talking about biological evolution, why are we applying our understanding of biological evolution to modern phenomenons? ridiculous
This is how I enjoy Dawkins the most when he is talking about Biology.
@@kartikpepakayala8389 Yep, he's a real loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
They are both best known for being entangled in contemporary political / social controversies, but here they are having a conversation on very technical details on how to conceptualize ideas in evolutionary biology.
@@guyincognito8440 Yeah Weinstein is a joke. It's like he heard the stamp collecting quote, got embarrassed and now thinks doing actual biology is beneath him.
I can't watch this with all the chunks missing. It's unfair to the speakers and everyone clamoring for intelligent conversation.
OMG! We need Part deux of this conversation!
90% of teenage youtubers create much higher quality videos with their smartphones.
You don’t need to watch….. listen!
yeah shaking their buttocks to unfathomable beats...some people just want flaws in any high intellect discussions
My 9-month-old was working the camera. I was wondering where she was that night.
Are you kidding me? Why are there huge chunks missing from this?
Thank Atheismo that this talk was produced by competent people.
Stop your bitching.
I saw the original upload and Pangburn cut out Bret's best arguments to make Dawkins look better. And Bret still came out on top.
@@yourfairyGodgod
I' always jealous of people who can read other people's minds. How do you do it?
@michael polites
What was the topic? Did it trigger some snowflakes and youtube took it down?
odd how video is clipped right when Bret explains his theory that drug companies can't let get out. Around 24:30
Chris Ericksen The DISC at work. Also a cut at 53:40
jesus you're right
bump
its only a major fault in basically all drug testing being exposed... nothing to see here. #1 the mice they tested on were all extra resistant #2 cancer was inevitable #3 the link with the telemeters. Interesting stuff, but expensive consequences.
You guys just don't give up, do you?
Thanks so much for uploading this.
Saw this go up a day or two ago. Didn't finish it by the time it was taken down. Thanks for putting it up again.
it's why god invtended youtube downloading sites, I pretty much download 50% of all content that I see now on youtube because I know that it's either from someone who stole it or it will get blocked for any number of reasons.
Unfortunately 2 large chunks seem missing at very critical moments
@@TheJeremyKentBGross Yeah I did notice that...
@@TheJeremyKentBGross camera control was handed over to Travis
@Jayson Genicici Cockington Janitor Crew
Uhhh doubtful. Far more likely they talked and discussed something in a respectful manner something that someone found "dangerous" or "hate speech" and youtube took it down. And to be honest that's probably the answer to Brett's question on why there hasn't been more progress. People can't handle the truth.
Let us pray.
@Voice of Reason lol fuck off
@Voice of Reason That is the wrong Hitchens. Ha Ha
Bret, wanna talk Nazis?
Rich: no
Bret, wanna talk gays?
Rich: in his head, damn I wanted audience questions.
He wanted a scientist on stage to talk to instead of a snake oil salesman
@@hugh1297 nice ad hominem
@@hugh1297 Well he got a scientist, and for some reason didn't seem too happy about it. Guess it was unusual for him not to basked with glory.
@@hugh1297
If snakes have all the oil, what's the US doing in the Middle East?
@@orionsshoe2424 Fighting the tricksters war and being bred out in return how grateful the tricksters must be
I don’t know; we don’t know… beautiful words. Accepting ignorance and being open to challenges and ideas from peers is the base science is based upon. Magnificent discussion and clashing of ideas.
Don't let your memes, or genes, be dreams.
TheyLiveGlasses why is this amusing
@@aghadmtl tis but an applicable meme.
TheyLiveGlasses yesterday you said tomorrow
@@aghadmtl and maybe I was right, who can say?
You can't fight your genes, it's fate
Bret is correct that memes are extended phenotypes of genes and shouldn't be thought of as replicators in an independent 'memesphere'. Richard shot himself in the foot when he said "the reason [memes] spread is because they appeal to people's psychology". 'Psychology' is controlled by genes.
Arguably psychology is environmentally devoloped
He comprehensively covers psychological predisposition for religious beliefs, and how it fits in with meme theory and natural selection, in The God Delusion. I recommend you read it.
I've read all his books - he and Daniel Dennett subscribe to the 'mind virus' explanation for the prevalence of religion. Bret's explanation is more realistic - memes that don't act in the service of genes we shouldn't expect to survive for such a long period.
Well, their theory made perfect sense to me. Memes themselves are but the top layer of the superstructure of genes, psychological disposition, etc., and are largely arbitrary and incidental. I don't think you could say any gene works to the advantage of any particular meme--no one gene or series of genes codes specifically for "believe a man lived inside a fish," or "Muhammed flew a horse to heaven". @@paulbrown7872
It’s intuitive to think of ideas propagating like genes, but I think the analogy’s wrong. There isn’t an independent replicator representing “The Ice-Bucket Challenge” (for example) which propagates from brain to brain and alters behaviour making us want to pour ice on our head. Beliefs are more analogous to fluid ‘games’ which become habits through positive reinforcement. Our emotions involving fair play, approval and disapproval etc. occur relative to those games. Many people viewing the “Ice-Bucket Challenge” will each form their own meaningful subjective ‘game’ based on the experience which may or may not become influential depending on some criteria of the games which already form their habits. The new game is itself constructed by complex interaction with the old games. There is no ‘survival of the fittest’ of independent memes happening, just brains reacting to new information.@@billscannell93
It’s like Dawkins is speaking with an undergraduate student who is excited about his own ideas but who really isn’t very smart and Dawkins has been caught in the embarrassing position of being on stage with the student when this should really be taking place in Dawkins office.
why was there a huge cut at 23:40 is? Seemed to cut out a very interesting part of the discussion.
This talk was Travis Pangburn's idea. Whatever your opinion of Travis, It was still an epic idea.
As a fan of Jordan Peterson and most members of the IDW, please stop making toxic clickbaity content. Thank you.
Give Dawkins eye lazers, plz
@SovereignSnake as a fan of Jordan Peterson, go f*ck youself. :)
Dawkins always gets lasers. 👍
@@ThinkClub LOL. I disagree with you on much of your content, but that reply to SovereignSnake was funny as fuck. Haha. Good on you, man.
im glad Bret took that poll from the audience..i wish that would happen more often...in addition, i wish there was an organization that would just let these people speak until one of them taps out..lol the future of combat sports
Bret, not Eric. But you're right. Polling was a good call.
@@DoctorMandible goes to show how often I listen to Eric..lol
@Bran Evans what are you talking about
And what's your definition or truth
Yeah, audience questions are usually stupid.
Totally agree. "30 million smokers can't be wrong!" And what the hell would speaking until one of them passed out prove? Physical endurance does not equate to correctness. This is a scientific discussion, not a filibuster. Haha. @Bran Evans
I'm completely with Dawkins on this one.
Agreed. This was early evidence of Bret’s insanity.
I mean, Brett seems to be confusing different scientific fields.
He wants to make some sort of „all encompasing” theory or science, and thus he links sociology, psychology and whatnot with evolution, which…doesn’t make much sense
@@guciowitomski3825 It's called being a galaxy brain.
Yeah I'm with Dawkins too, he explains clearly and concisely and I think Brett isn't all there tbh
This talk should have been 30 minutes longer. Really great conversation!
are you sure that it was great?
@@mykhailohohol8708 I am.
It was great cos it exposes the limitations of dogmatic thinking by the likes of Dawkins. They believe in some fixed model when it suits them, when it doesn't they say science updates. Also apes protect their resources, this all the evidence one needs to understand that it's not about truth. Same reason wealth keeps pooling back to the top.
What an amazing conversation! Thank you.
One can't believe in God/Jesus and not believe in his word (the bible). They are one. Jesus is the living word. That's how everything came into being, by his word. When one truly believes in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus (the living word) then they worship God/Jesus in spirit and truth. Jesus is the King of Glory. No one will see the truth, know the truth or know life (spiritual life) except through faith in Christ Jesus and the work he did on the cross. Jesus died to pardon us of our guilty sinful condition. One must see that, believe that in order to be saved (given eternal life). The only other option is unbelief. Jesus the Christ (our creator) says those who do not believe are condemned already "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
I didn't notice until just now that Dawkins sounds exactly like Stewie from Family Guy
Hahahaha
Orville9999 lol, he does. Love them both.
Close your eyes & just imagine, rofl.
Dawkins was probably the inspiration
Lol
I feel like Dawkins did not expect to be so challenged by Weinstein and that's why he's the first to call time and suggest questions from the audience as an alternative to continuing the conversation.
It took me an extremely long time to understand Bret Weinstein's point, but finally I understand now.
Pangburn Philosophy never fails to disappoint. 😢
Travis Pangburn is the Billy Mcfarland (Fyre Festival) of those kinds of events.
What’s up with the jump at 23:45?. Missing some of the footage?
"Marbles on the dancing floor break bitter furies of complexity..." - Yeats, from "Byzantium"
Is there a book on the history of the Byzantium for the common reader??
peep show reference anyone?
DerpBane there is a library of knowledge on Byzantium for all of us common readers, but none can match, I believe, the intensity of Yeats’ own poetry on it.
I saw a documentary on furries .. brrrr 🐶🐈the things people get up to in the bedroom 🤠
Thank you for this debate!
I've been waiting for this to be uploaded! Thank you so much.
16:53 Bret is running afoul of Feynman on magnets. (I used to post links, but then I learned more about TH-cam, so you'll have to search it yourself. The middle bit talks about why ice melts.)
Magnets are described mathematically (as part of electromagnetism and QED) because there _is_ no other explanation available. _(Freud on Photons_ was not a best seller.) As an evolutionary biologist, Bret is further up the scientific food chain, and rarely runs into the Dirac desert himself, where words simple fail to move the comprehension rock.
(Dirac was notoriously taciturn, and had some other quirks. _Which leads us to the anecdote about Heisenberg and Dirac. The two were on a trip to Japan for a conference. The social Heisenberg used to dance with the young girls on the ship before dinners while Dirac used to sit watching. Once Dirac asked him, "Heisenberg, why do you dance?" Heisenberg replied that when there were nice girls he felt like dancing with them. Dirac fell into deep thought and after about fifteen minutes, asked Heisenberg again, "Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?")_
Math can be prematurely descriptive, managing to encode observation, but without managing to illuminate much. But Galileo was quite right when he insisted that much of the beauty of math is escaping from teleological recursion.
For decades, people used to think that chess ought to somehow be amenable to a program of logical inference, over some kind of more sophisticated logical primitives than standard logic. The intuition was the chess encodes reason, and this is how great chess players reason (though neither of these suppositions bears out). Surely we could do better than the 100 million move brute force of the Deep Blue computer system. Eventually, we did. Now we have a matrix of tens of million of numbers (completely outside verbal articulation) which guides a very narrow and powerful search, in the range of just a few thousand nodes explored per move. Leela already plays well above any human standard, on a narrow search guided by a powerful pattern recognizer. In some ways, Leela's chess wisdom is even less comprehensible than Deep Blue. It just bugs us less, because it seems less alien at a primitive level. Turns out, commonality of inarticulateness breeds familiarity. Whereas the unsatisfying Deep Blue was alien inarticulate.
Bret is circling around a very deep hole here. I sure hope he pulls himself back out.
WHY DONT U POST LINKS ANYMORE
Weinstein seems to want to find purpose in evolution rather than accepting the blind natural selection theory.
Yeah, I was thinking along those lines too. He was confused as to why female birds would want nice tails as though he expects animals to act logically and intelligently. When the only thing they follow are the traits and instincts that happen to lead to more offspring.
@@starwarfan8342 who put the potential for the instinct in the first place and where the cosmic dist came from?
@@starwarfan8342 I would say that in those specific instances maybe the drive to avoid danger is much lower than the drive to select the most fit mate. Maybe the predators of those bird species are so low of a threat to the actual population that the selection for suitable/fit mate has just continued on without consequence and that would be enough to explain it. It may be that the cost of having the elaborate feathers is so low that it hasn't reached the ESS yet.
I don't think so.
@@rv706 elaborate please.
what Brett describes at roughly 15:30 is also a description of a fundamental problem with String Theory in Physics, you can get String theories (there are more than one) to satisfy almost any outcome because the parameters can be adjusted to fit almost , if not any out come. Random tangent but an important one (if you can't work out why that would be a problem, its because theories should give definite predictions, otherwise they cannot be veryfied)
intresting so you can explain any outcome in a more logical and reasonable way instead of saying god made it happen .but still cant verify it.
what do you mean definite predictions are there infinite predictions to a single outcome in string theory
@@nuthakantirohan4685 All mental models of reality are incomplete. One would have thought that all these peoples commenting on this stuff are aware of the incompleteness theorum.
@@Quiintus7 well I think both quantum mechanics and general relativity are complete and predict almost everything after big bang and they fail at big bang and at beyond the horizon of black fail so it's intuitive to assume that both the macro and micro interact with each other therefore we need a new theory that combines both of these. For rest of the universe either macro or micro explanation satisfy the outcome
That's exactly what I thought of! Take a theory that you can make fame or money off of, then apply pattern matching and retrofit it to meet any observations. This talk was rubbish and I have far less respect for both of them then I had when I started.
I love where my brain goes around 51:00 when they start talking about catholic memes.
Paraphrasing: "The priests are holy devoted to spreading catholic memes."
Attending church. Can see meme hypothesis. Wow.
Abysmal video and sound quality is, among other things, what killed Pangburn Philosophy, me thinks.
I'm more concerned about the 50min to an hour, roughly that seems to be missing from the most interesting parts of the conversation.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross wow, how do you know we're missing so much?
@@TheJeremyKentBGross ok, found your other comments
More of the lack of self awareness and accountability or responsibility to your audience, who justifiably expect transparency and communication.
@@arsenymakarov6961 Besides the fact that most of these videos are over 2h long, and this one is barely over an hour? Besides the very obvious cuts right as they get into the most important topics? How about the fact that they were apparently at time to jump to Q&A at only like 20 something minutes in? Usually questions are at most half the time, not more than 2/3rds of it. How about the fact that Bretts issues are numbered, and there are huge jumps in the sequence, indicating many entire topics are outright missing from the video. The cuts also don't look very short. In at least one cut they suddenly have entirely different sitting positions and postures that indicate large changes in emotional tone or state, especially on Dawkins side.
Richard Dawkins was the master Bret Weinstein was the prig apprentice who tried to take control of the debate.
It must have been a struggle for Richard Dawkins to keep his composure.
Kudos to Richard Dawkins.
And you're serious?
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
If Dawkins wasn't so dismissive of religion I guess I would take him more seriously.
@@joekunis9986 "dismissive of religion ". Religion is a myth.
@@glennford7179 Was Jesus a myth?
@@joekunis9986 Yes. Prove otherwise, objectively. I doubt it.
Hi, what are the 4 elements of adaptive evolution again? Is it:
1) inheritability
2) variation
3) selection
4) differential outcome
Thanks!
Weinstein: "I don't know if X entails Y but if it does then we should understand the relationship."
Dawkins: "I don't want X to entail Y."
Its typical of Dawkin's generation of academics is to stay in your lane. Brett hopes to bring evolutionary biology into social issues. It's an interesting idea. The marxist ideologues have overtaken social thought in the academic setting, while the hard scientists have kept to themselves. Perhaps a more rational approach would be beneficial, but I see Dawkins not in a position of ignorance (like many people accusing him of in the comments) rather warning Brett not to stray to far in the quagmire of social and cultural academics.
No, X doesn't entail Y. Dawkins was trying to be diplomatic in dealing with a scientist who was cynically manipulating a lay audience with pseudoscience strategically combined with political activism. Pathetic attempt at self-promotion by Weinstein.
Strawman at its finest!
@@hugh1297 Weinstein seems to want to explore the possibility of x entailing y. Which isn't pseudoscience, it's science that hasn't been thoroughly investigated. There's a pretty important distinction there. Dawkins doesn't seem to want to explore that line of thinking, though I don't know if him not wanting to know the outcome is the reason. There's no reason to assume malintent whenever there's a conflict between scientific ideas.
@@danieldamico9350 Implying that your opinion is more likely to be correct, because if it is it serves the agenda of eliminating genocide, is pseudoscience. Everything else he said about it was also pseudoscience.
I don’t think remember the last time I’ve seen Richard look so engaged.
23:43 and 53:40. I noticed this the first time a watched, but didn't know why. Now I know. Pangburn, have you no shame?
Please, explain why he cut parts out? For the slow learners like me. I wish I could have heard the cut parts. Such things are frustrating to me.
Likely a battery switch or something.
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-portal/id1469999563?i=1000462975502 @monkey the timing of the cuts, especially the first one, are precisely at the time Weinstein begins talking about this particular topic and his expertise regarding it. Combine that with pangburn's known dishonesty and greed, and we have a probable explanation.
Gary Parker th-cam.com/video/JLb5hZLw44s/w-d-xo.html
You think the omissions were deliberate and not just a product of Pangburn's endless incompetence?
Made a drinking game. Everytime Dr. Dawkins says "I don't think it's helpful..."
Conclusion: Don't use tequila.
YEAH!
Its british for bs
I did it with a bong. It’s a bonging game.
Don't use tequila..? I think it's worth a shot
I never realized that memes are the subject of this type of intellectual discourse and debate. I always figured they were just a silly way to communicate on the internet. I will pay more attention to meme selection and be extra conscious of the memes I select to post from now on.
You are missing the fact that "meme" as a word is originally created by Dawkins and basically means "idea"... the current usage of this word has gone very far from the original meaning, which they are using here.
@@Fatlinek Interestingly, I am pondering whether or not "meme" exclusively includes ideas.
Don't you know what evolution psychology is? That is built entirely upon the concept of memes.
The hypothesis is essentially our morality, and in fact "morality" of any social species, is built upon behavior that is most likely to lead to reproduction and survival.
@@Fatlinek memes aren't really just ideas but behaviors that spread via none genetic means.
A simple one I think i remember Richard mentioning was, hearing a stranger whistling a song, that puts that song in your head and you may put it in someone else's by now listening to it or humming it and etc
I feel like im watching this from Google earth
It sounds like Brett is reading evolution into everything, that way Jordan Peterson reads Christianity into everything.
Brett's skepticism on mathematical modeling is showing to be right on the Corona virus models.
Coronavirus modelling is actually pretty good.
@@Cam-jx4drgh Yes, but the language is awful, It's like plural has evaporated from the face of the earth.
Can you elaborate?
@@sophosphilo7239 being off in the most important factor, death rates, by factors of 10 might be a good place to start
No, like Dawkins suggested, it just means we need to improve the modeling.
So what happens at 23:43? Where's the rest of this? The chunk, of whatever size, but clearly large, that is missing?
Yes bret reads from a list and goes to 6. What about 1 to 5? I hope the footage is not lost...
There was an earlier cut as well. Pangburn does it again. He just can't get it right...
Yes, tnis is frustrating. I find the problem of senescence quite interesting. My problem with it is that I cannot understand the mathematical workings of the idea. I get the concept that genes that give advantages in youth will be favoured, whereas genes that give advantages or disadvantages later in life will filter through without any selection pressure, although it is certainly possible that a person who knows they are likely to pass on genes for cancer or some other illness might choose not to mate. And I get the idea that these later life genes accumulate over timee. But why is it that the genes that give disadvantages later in life seem to outnumber those that give advantages? Surely this should be a totally random process, with both types of genes tagging along for the ride, as there is no selection pressure. Surely for every gene that gives us dementia or osteoarthritis there should be one that gives us fit healthy brains and bones late in life. I really don't get this explanation.
@@ptolemyauletesxii8642 well in theory a gene that kills me when im 60 in most of human history is unlikely to even be Relervent
as in most cases I will be dead by then
for instance kangaroos lose there frount teeth they fall out as they wear down then the rest of the teeth move forward to take up the place
once they reach about I think 40ish years old they will have lost all there teeth and starve but this is not an issue as most w ill have been killed by something else by then and they will long since have finished spreading there genes
@@munch15a no, I understand that. My issue is with why genes with negative long term consequences should accumulate more than genes with positive long term consequences. With short term consequences it is obvious that natural selection takes care of this but there is no selection process on genes that have long term consequences, positive or negative. Perhaps it is as simple as genes with long term negative consequences are much more common mutations, as there are probably far more ways for a gene to be negative than positive.
Why are you recording that on a potato?
Nazrhael because he’s an atheist
My Galaxy S8 can record better video in the dark.
53:50 Much to people's misunderstanding, when Richard Dawkins says "virus," he is not making a value statement. He's not saying viruses are a good or bad thing. A virus is a technical term that describes a specific kind of replication.
The fundamental difference between the two replicators in which we call genes and the one in which we call viruses is that the method of transmission to the future for genes is via sperm/eggs (and therefore have the common interest to preserve the body in which they share; they need to come together e.g. male & female), and the method of transmission to the future for viruses is in the absence of a mutual other. Some memes function as the latter. And that is why some of them can be called "mind viruses."
Remember, a meme (and a mind virus) are neither valued in science as good nor bad. It is merely a description. We non-scientists are too conditioned to think of terminology with good and bad value judgements. But in science, you do not bring that into the equation. Any time you do, it is no longer science, but applied science. The two are different things.
Fair point. But as a rather vocal militant atheist, we know he is actually making a value statement. Bret knew this, so to add to the entertainment value of the conversation he gave Dawkins the 'assist' so to say.
In a public conversation, in front of an audience, you very much bring things like that into the equation.
@@dandansen4261 But he was wrong th-cam.com/video/RsOIiW_Ec4c/w-d-xo.html
The “why don’t we see oscillations” question from Bret was brilliant, but the mathematical model being a way to explain things we don’t otherwise understand was pretty weak. Dawkins nailed it by saying the onus on you to find a better model. I’m sure Eric would have grilled him as well, Eric being extremely well versed in physics, including the prominent Maxwell equations that contradict Bret’s simplistic view of math following the physics, when in physics it is now routinely the other way around.
One can't believe in God/Jesus and not believe in his word (the bible). They are one. Jesus is the living word. That's how everything came into being, by his word. When one truly believes in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus (the living word) then they worship God/Jesus in spirit and truth. Jesus is the King of Glory. No one will see the truth, know the truth or know life (spiritual life) except through faith in Christ Jesus and the work he did on the cross. Jesus died to pardon us of our guilty sinful condition. One must see that, believe that in order to be saved (given eternal life). The only other option is unbelief. Jesus the Christ (our creator) says those who do not believe are condemned already "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Dawkins didn't say the onus was on Bret to find a better model, he said the onus was on Bret to find a better _mathematical_ model. It sounded like Bret has been thinking about better models, he just finds the mathematical ones unsatisfactory for this purpose.
@@jacksyoutubechannel4045 What kind of predictive power does a non mathematical model have? I don't understand what that even means. At any rate, if the model has more value or more predictive power, that's the bottom line.
@@MaxwellMcKinnon Surely you can create useful models of the world without writing them down in equations? Didn't Faraday figure a bunch of stuff out without equations (I'm not a physicist)? I think maybe Bret is arguing for a more big picture qualitative modeling of the world viewed through evolutionary logic.
I'm guessing his point is that being more quantitatively rigorous with a mathematical model would be ideal, but sometimes our models either mislead us (due to too much uncertainty) or we don't have them yet for that specific area of inquiry.
@@western5881 Being more quantitatively rigorous with a mathematical model is literally the definition of a better mathematical model, which is what Dawkins said is the remedy to bad mathematical models, so what even is your point?
The comments are saying there's cuts... so is it worth listening to the whole thing?
The first 15 mins are absolutely fascinating. I don't want to get frustrated now
Lol, why is the thumbnail just bret?
zachery zachery cause he ran intellectual circles around Dawkins
I mean, did you listen to it??
Survival of the beardiest.
zachery zachery despite Dawkins' popularity being about 10% of its 2006 peak, he's still about twice as popular as Bret; so it makes sense to wager that people will seek out Dawkins' videos at a much higher rate than Weinstein's - and that the latter needs more promotional help than the former. that's just an educated guess, though.
@@RochesFan As evidenced in this video, Dawkins is old news, and I say this as a huge admirer of the man. In TH-cam land, Bret has surpassed him when its comes to provoking thought. Obviously whoever put this video up agrees.
I'm really interested in Bret's Evolutionary Suicide bit. It prompted me to wonder if me never wanting children may somehow be a less extreme version of this. Maybe instead of feeling worthless because I won't reproduce and then killing myself, I instead decided to still be a productive person and simply stamp out my lineage all the same. Even weirder is that the reasons I have for doing so are suspiciously in line with Bret's argument.
No. I'd say memes are responsible for that, not genes
Yeah as much as I love humanity you sound like a spiteful mutant so it would probably be best.
It's nonsense, Brett unfortunately is completely out of his debt
I believe Robert Sapolski also covers this in the standford lecture. Not having kin is supposed to be to help raise the offspring of your siblings ..
Though one can see the selfish memes going completely bonkers with the way the system divides everyone into cubicles and feeds a constant stream of narrow focus of selfish, indulgent, materialistic memes that end in extinction. It's easy to see if you read 48 laws of power how certain types would use this knowledge to control people easier for their own gains. Some do this instinctually like Nietchze observstion re blonde beast of prey. Others use the knowledge to collect more wealth and weild power.
This is amazing...
Live from outer space.
I understand the quality of the video is meager but let's not forget the content of the video is vital. Let's focus on that please. Additionally anyone know where an unedited version is? A edit was made in around 23:40, was this travis doing?
Looking for a response to Hal MK-9001’s question about the seeming jump around minute 23?
Yes it seems like a lot of time was lost around 23:40. Did a full video/podcast ever turn up?
Another jump @53:40
It's the DISC at work
Let's not tell people to not comment about the video quality. Negative feedback is a path to improvement in future repetitions.
When we look at peacocks, I believe we make the assumption that they've always been flightless birds, which makes them vulnerable, but we don't consider that they may not have always been flightless, which would render this vulnerability relatively moot. What an absolute honor to witness two dedicated scientists debating the biology at the heart of current issues. This is true science, absent of ego, in the pursuit of finding a tangible consensus on our existence.
Peacocks are not flightless birds.
the tail would still produce drag/ weigh the bird down when flying
Richard Dawkins has one of the largest egos (and smallest brains Americans think he’s brilliant because of the accent for some reason) I’ve ever come across.
You must be either very naive or not understand what ego or intellect is.
@@fioredeutchmark oh of course he does, many evolution communicators think this way. It sucks, because that's not how scientists are supposed to behave.
It seems like Bret already knows what Richard is going to say. The way he starts his answers (“well...”) shows that he has already entertained what has already been said.
I agree with Dawkins on this one. Mathematics are such a small part of Evolution that this really is an ridiculous argument...
@@Raydensheraj huh
3 years ago no one heard of Bret; toiling Away productively at Evergreen doing good work and teaching now he’s ably sharing the stage with some intellectual heavyweights and holding his own! Thanks again Evergreen!!
On the sphere sitting on a razor... mathematics tells us that a sphere can sit on a razor without falling, yes. BUT, such a systems is also mathematically shown to be unstable. Any deviation in the forces present or the position of the sphere will cause it to fall. Such precision is not realistically possible for a host of reasons, and the mathematical models account for that. Stability analysis of systems is only about a century old, so I'm not surprised if he is unaware of it.
Yes. I was yelling at the screen too. Dawkins responded saying that all we need is better models, not to throw out models. What he should have said is closer to what you said. Bret should be knowledgeable of stability analysis, it's a undergraduate-level concept.
Accounting for stability isn't helpful when all you care about is in which way the sphere will fall. The number of variables at play in an evolutionary model is virtually infinite, and the number of variables that can significantly impact the way the model behaves is incalculable, or in proportion to the complexity of the model, futile.
TLDR: Stability analysis can only show you *how wrong you can be* if you didn't account for something, but it doesn't tell *if* you didn't account for something.
The other thing that can come to mind is the fact that a good model would use brownian motion of air around the sphere and that's something he should know, since stochastic dynamics is used A LOT in mathematical biology.
I was also taken aback by his remarks on mathematics. Point out the limitations, by all means, but to dismiss mathematical models in such a general sense shows a lack of understanding. And if a mathematical model cannot capture the complexity of a system, how on earth is a narrative representation supposed to be better? All you end up doing is making a nice story that fits the data. Poor science.
49:34 -- What's the editor up to there, exactly?
“Education: the path from delight and adoration to contempt conceit despite the reason.” - Richard Dawkins
To all the people "disappointed in Dawkins" for being sceptical about the utility of evolutionary explnations for every thing people do. First of all, he didn't disagree that you should "stare the monster in the face", try to solve problems and make the world better.. He just said that trying to analyse a complex multi factor outcome in terms of speculative evolutionary explanations isn't too helpful. It's quite easy to find many plausible sounding evolutionary explanations for different events when you start backtesting different models. I think the issue is, how much predictive capability do they have and if any, how much of the variance in outcome explained by that factor? It doesn't seem that ridiculous to be cautious here. To illustrate this, if you wanted to predict how a group of people would respond to some random event, would you rather know about evolutionary psychology, or would you rather know about the unique cultural norms, values and practices of that group (if you think these things are genetically transmitted then you must think that if a baby from a hunter gatherer society is adopted in to a urban western home, they are more likely to start making spears and catching squirrels than going to the supermarket)? My money would go on the "memetic" based prediction.
Are there many people "disappointed in Dawkins" for this? I lauded him for the same observation a few comments below, and I would think that many would appreciate that he directs us away from being reductive here, I find that quite stimulating.
Additionally, I notice that you put quotes around that phrase, even if you have just invented it it looks like a great meme. I can't think of as good a counter, but "re-evaluating Richard" might serve for now.
@@jakell99 Some one said "this was incredibly disappointing to see from Dawkins" and I noticed a few similar statements like "old dog Dawkins cant be taught new tricks". I was surprised about those reactions, but maybe they weren't as prevalent as they seemed to me (negativity bias)?
The disappointment is not for the skepticism-- anyone reasonable applauds it. The disappointment results from Dawkins' failure to apply that same skepticism to his own rather unscientific, condemnatory views about religion, which he has been very outspoken about for years, and which form the subtext of this debate. Take on one hand Dawkins' stance that religion is a "mind-virus" that we should all try to get rid of us quickly as possible-- compare to Bret's view that religious instincts might have perfectly sensible evolutionary explanations and advantages, and may be crucial to making sense of the human condition. Which seems more ridiculous? Bret cannot currently prove his assertion any more than Dawkins can prove his-- but which seems more plausible to you, and which do you think more deserves further study?
If Dawkins had better acknowledged his past rhetoric here, and conceded that his anti-religious views were at least no more supportable than Bret's evolutionary view of religion, that would have been the honorable thing to do. Instead Dawkins retreated by attempting to claim he always meant "mind-virus" in neutral terms. This does not address the fact that Dawkins has hardly been neutral in his descriptions of religion prior to this debate. That is what people wanted to see: the honor in admitting that one may have been wrong. People are disappointed in Dawkins not out of anger, but because he missed an opportunity to be a better person.
@@SQfighterpilot I think it's probably expecting too much of Dawkins at this stage of life and his career to properly review the past two decades of his 'crusade', if he hints that he might have been 'a bit hasty', then that is an improvement on many atheist+'s. It's probably down to younger thinkers to take up that mission. Peterson seems to be showing the way, especially if he could make a dent in Sam Harris' stubborn stance.
@@jakell99 I agree, and I wouldn't want to suggest that he owes us a reconciliation. I respect what he did in many ways. I think it's enough that I get to witness this strange & interesting transition point in science & culture.
Why is there footage missing? What was cut?
And why even publish this in 720p and 1080p if the quality is 480p at best? It's a waste :(
I estimate 50min to 1h missing and cut at the most critical points.
I suspect the reason is a financial one. Creating an incentive to either visit the events or watch the complete footage on their own website maybe. Well, Pangburn Philosophy sucks ass in many ways and it's good they went down after all.
Bret Weinstein: "Why is it that we don't know XY?"
Richard Dawkins: "We understand XY through AB."
Bret Weinstein: "But I don't like that."
Bret is being more of a Darwinian philosopher than a scientist.
For those who were there, what was the actual length of the discussion? And does anyone have a recording or filming of the discussion as opposed to these extracts?
My guess is it should be at least 2 hours, likely a bit more, meaning we are probably missing 50min to an hour of footage during the very obvious cuts that happen at the most critical parts of the discussion.
It was about an hour and a half - two hours long
the full discussion was 4 hours and 45 minutes, with a 15 minute intermission around the 3 hour mark. not sure if I was allowed, but I filmed the entire thing on my cell phone, the audio is surprisingly clear and very enjoyable to listen to: th-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/w-d-xo.html
Thx Echo! audio quality was great
@@retiredshitposter1062 Made my night! Wish I saw this earlier.
No explanation for the cuts around 23:00 and 53:00?
Pangburn sucks
battery probably died, or the memory card ran out of space. it happens.
Ernst Mayr's book gave me the impression of the combination in a pool of genes, (and memes of perceptions?), in the general matrix of environments, that results are averaged, not optimized necessarily, so all kinds of possible preferences can persist before and after some sort of appropriate use is applied. It seems to be the story of "mergers and acquisitions" in Cells of the Immune Systems?, directly related to the biochemistry of reaction dynamics.., all-at-once wave-packaging.
This is a great discussion.
Bret Weinstein goes HAM....love Dawkins, but nice to see someone challenge him a bit
Cathy: So you're saying the peacock's tail is responsible for global warming and that WoMeN should play with their Barbie dolls and stay in the kitchen?
I think that's silly, I really do.. I mean look at the conversation we are having, YOUR peacock tail isn't causing global warming.
so what you're saying is, JBP is "anti-establishment", yet the "establishment" keeps inviting him on TV to destroy the same pathetic feminist talking points over and over in front of an audience of millions of people?
Jeremy Gross Yeah why should your peacock tail have the right to cause global warming. It's been rather uncomfortable.
Clavers Odhiambo Yet you are not asking there was nothing wrong with women liking barbies or liking to cook. Yet feminist made feminist wrong. For me it's about choice. So a women who loves barbies shouldn't be denigrated by a woman who is a navy seal. Both choices are okay.
Jeremy Gross They are using metaphors to communicate.
If you enjoyed the discussion, please subscribe!
I would have enjoyed the discussion a great deal more had Pangburn not, in what I believe to be all likelihood, shamelessly censored Bret Weinstein by cutting his two most important contributions to the discussion from the video.
Since Pangburn has, in my view, failed in its duty to uphold freedom of speech, I have tried to summarise what I assume were Bret's contributions that were cut (I didn't attend the event so I can only offer my best guess) for anyone who is unfamiliar:
1. That the breeding protocol used by the central supplier of US laboratory mice, wherein only young mice are retained in the breeding pool to maximise reproduction efficiency, would create a selective pressure for highly elongated telomeres in those mice and thereby obligate them to radical tissue-repair capacity, and therefore toxin-resistance, at the cost of greatly increased cancer incidence later in life, and that therefore the vast body of science predicated on results from the testing of exogenous substances on such mice, most importantly *HUMAN DRUG TRIALS* , would be severely compromised in the way of *GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATING TOXICITY* and grossly overestimating carcinogenicity, thereby predisposing the release of "safe" drugs capable of causing tissue and organ damage to market, and possibly the cessation of development of otherwise useful drugs on the basis of apparent severe cancer-risk.
[See podcast "Bret Weinstein on "The Portal" (w/ host Eric Weinstein), Ep. #019 - The Prediction and the DISC"]
2. That religions are not collections of empty superstitions but are instead highly sophisticated, adaptive systems of accumulated ancient wisdom that are built by selection, meaning that those mythologies that are the most successful and therefore longstanding are those which have maximally contributed to the fitness of their practitioners by way of encouragement of advantageous behaviours and discouragement of disadvantageous behaviours mediated through belief, and that even a religious tenet that is literally false, but that provides an unquestioning believer a direct or indirect benefit by following it, will be favoured by this selection, and therefore be "metaphorically true".