@theunknownatheist3815 Both "toward" and "towards" are correct and acceptable, but "toward" is more commonly used in American English, while "towards" is more common in British English. You can use either based on your preference or the convention you're following.
@@theunknownatheist3815 It's correct with that "s" (in fact, both toward and towards are correct). You should read more, my friend, so you don't get caught by that Idiocracy trend that is trying to trap us all. ;]
Geez, ya think? The Left has, in case you didn't know, gone from hyper-progressive (postmodernist) to full-on WOKE. It's infected everything. And when it infects the best tool we have to discover our world and learn about ourselves, we're really in trouble.
@@uncoiledfish2561 Did you listen to this vid? Wright gave examples throughout this discussion. Michael Shermer, who contributed articles for many years to Scientific American, was given a pink slip a couple years ago by the editors. He gives several interviews about how science has gone WOKE. My dad was a biochemist who used to read Science Magazine and Scientific American. He would be utterly appalled by what has become of science in this WOKE world we now live in. th-cam.com/video/hYrD0nLj_sQ/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/72Ky-xukAyI/w-d-xo.html
It kind of reminds me of how Stalin came to power. He was just the general secretary, his job was to control who was allowed in the Communist party. So he only allowed in people who supported him and got rid of the ones who didn't.
..or a myth. I’m from an extended fundamentalist evangelical family and in the past 20 years there has been a big push by “Creation Scientists” to get their literature and videos into church Bible study groups and push the idea that Creation Science must be taught equally in schools alongside the ‘theory of Evolution’. Some states in the US (eg Texas) now mandate this in state schools. The reality is that one is a settled scientific theorem with lots of evidence for it, evidence that is growing every week. The other side is a religious myth, one of several hundred different creation myths. When I tell this to religious fanatics I know, they get upset. So I’m used to meeting the extremist mindset which, be it right wing, left wing or religious in nature, has the same characteristics which is to violently oppose it and try and shut criticism down and shut the person out. If I still attended a Baptist church and said that I thought Creation was a myth they would seek to have me disfellowshipped. As a now retired university academic (in a hard science) I witnessed in the past three decades the rise of a Neo-Maoism on the campuses of formerly great liberal universities. They have turned into these institutions into neo-madrassa’s similar to those universities of the religious right Catholic or Protestant in the West. These left wing fanatics don’t understand the that they are the greatest recruiters for the right wing political parties.
@@epincionhi. That’s really interesting. I was just pedantically pointing out that”theory” in science is the end result of the scientific method and doesn’t discount the veracity of the science. People seem to think that “theory” means contested which is not what it means. Quantum mechanics is a theory… one that yields incredibly accurate predictions about our universe. I hope the universities can become purged of ideologies that narrow people’s minds and block true discourse!
There's no science committee that determines what hypothesis fuses to a level of solid scientific theorem. I disagree that "evolution" is a theorem at this point, it is a hypothesis, depending on what definition of "evolution" you are using. So do tell, which definition of evolution do you propose is a theorem? The narrowest definition being "the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time" is a fact. The claimed phylogenetic tree of life is a myth.
28:28. No. When I grew up in the 1980's, the image of the decent and heroic scientist or journalist or Joe Public WAS this! The small guy who stood up for the truth against the weak-spined and soft powers and the powers of evil that wanted to hide the truth for whatever dark or corrupt purpose they had. This was universal. This was in every documentary, in every movie from every decade. In every storyline. This was regardless of who the forces of evil were. This was not just Creationists. This was a complete archetype, and we were all brought up with it, and everybody paid lip service to it. It was ingrained in the culture of the West as deeply as anything was. But I guess it's like with so many of the values of the West which people have thrown to the side in recent decades. Like we all knew that torture was something the good guys never do. And we always give people a fair trial. Secret trials are something only evil dictatorships do. Universal surveillance and surveillance of people not suspected of anything dangerous is just wrong. Etc. etc. But I guess only a few of us actually believed it enough to hang on to it when the counter-pressure came. That's why I don't fall for the idea of "consensus" and "all people agree that this is wrong so it must be wrong" etc. I realize it's all just psychological and sociological, and most people will turn on a dime. But I still believe in all these values because they are true. It IS a universally good and true path. You don't compromise with evil. You don't give a little.
Initial inate small differences get amplified with the practice of life. Think of hands left/right bias. Initially in babies it is very minor, but the repeated more practice of the favorable hand magnify the preference and performance ability vary quickly in children. Similarly for other human characteristics. Even if the average born brain differences between boys and girls are small, they get amplified in growth, in a very distinguished and on average consistent sex differences.
This is beginning to sound a bit Lamarckian - yes, if you are right-handed, you use the right hand more often, so it gets progressively stronger and more muscular. So long as you are not suggesting that this - acquired-by-practice - increased strength in the right hand - or the left hand, if you are left-handed - is itself passed on genetically to your offspring.
Fascinating, love your work... but also What a frickin waste of time for our society to debate this at all when there are SO many more real issues that we so need to debate and improve. It's like a wasted decade and also "ugh! science how could you?"
Personally I’m not a supporter of the idea that biological gender can be chosen at will but I’m quite happy for others to think this and it’s not something I think about or speak of day to day. What I’m against is the idea of compelled thought and speech As a retired academic (5 yrs ago), at retirement I was a tenured Prof in a hard physical science so we in my speciality we had no debates of this issue. However I did sit on a number of university oversight committees and in my time in this role (8 years) I sadly saw the rise of what has been correctly described as Neo-Maoism - in the softer sciences and the arts. These people genuinely believe ‘they know the exclusive truth’ and everyone must follow their line. If possible they want disagreement with them to be a firing offence and the perpetrator to be treated as a criminal. On the campuses of liberal universities the new-Maoists are now the greatest recruiters for the politics of the right.
This starts badly. You claim to be not a supporter that biological gender can be chosen. Biological sex cannot be chosen. Gender can, as it is a social construct. So you mixed your concepts a bit there.
@@markhosking1882 I respectfully disagree that biological gender (by which I mean biological sex based on chromosomes) can be chosen. However I fully accept that some people feel in themselves they are of a different gender and choose to live as that other - sometimes having reassignment surgery. I have zero issue with that person and personally I would call them by their chosen gender specific. My point is that others may refuse to do this and I believe it’s their right to so as long as they don’t discriminate against that person in the public sphere, especially if they are in a position of responsibility eg an employer. I am totally against attempts to make refusal to comply with accepting that everything about gender can be chosen a criminal offence. Just recently in the UK we had an interview on TV with a person who had found that a number of people she had interacted with had not been accepting of her chosen gender and she went to the police to lay a charge these people and hD been shocked to find out that in no way had those people committed an offence. In the TV interview she and some of her supporters were demanding that refusal to accept chosen gender be made a criminal offence. IMO that’s nonsense.
@@epincion I believe what you are saying is biological gender means sex in biology, as in the way the word theory means something specific in science and not just an idea (hypothesis). I was always under the impression that sex was the correct biological term and gender was more of a sociological term. I stand corrected. I am conflicted on whether failing to acknowledge preferred gender should be a crime. It is certainly disrespectful and therefore could overlap into hate or abuse if used maliciously. In which case that should be crime.
Only someone who’s never had children; has never spent lots of time with children; or someone with poor observation skilks could ever say something as, frankly, ridiculous as ‘We are born blank slates”.
in my childhood in the early 60s, I was told 'girls don't need math' and most girls, myself included, were pretty bad at math. it doesn't seem to apply anymore. and what's w/ "bias" - isn't it more about research?
It should be on the thumbnail and possibly in the title. This is the only channel I see that randomly uploads old episodes. They can just dump their entire back catalogue in one go if they really want to. Joe Rogan did that when he came back from Spotify
regarding denying evolution from the right: that's in our founding documents: our unalienable rights come from our creator. "All Men are created equal" is a profoundly unscientific statement.
Maybe someone can provide an evolutionary mechanism by which I ended up with four fingers and a thumb on each hand? Which came first: the blood supply, the nerves, the bones or the skin? Which finger came first? Where did the fingernail come from?
Sex is absolutely binary for humans. If you have a Y sex chromosome you are male. If you don't you are female. No one with a Y sex chromosome can produce viable eggs. No one without a Y sex chromosome can produce viable sperm. A man is an adult human male. A woman is an adult human female. No matter how "female" an XY person is, that person will never produce viable eggs. (Same for XXY, XXXY, etc.) No matter how "female" an XX person is, that person will never produce viable sperm. (Same for X, XXX, XXXX, etc.) Note: Every living human has at least one X sex chromosome. No living human being can exist without an X sex chromosome (eg there are no YY people).
why did this bring up the Nazis? The sort of tribalism and racism, as well as racial hierarchies that they used were present long before the theory of evolution came along.
I know what he means regarding populations, and that trans shouldn't compete in women's sport since it gives them the advantage. Quite a leftist thing to say I might add, myself I see the trans on sports more like a thing right would do, when the means doesn't matter to get the end, but are you sure that with a plethora of genetic mix up you don't get a brain closer to that of women population and vice versa? Are you sure? Ffs you have XY genetics on a woman's body. Regarding whom people identify on their brain, what's this fixation with people who seems to be born on the gaussian distribution medium on how others should be or not be? He doesn't understand how different it regarding creationism/evolution debacle vs a case where people take advantage of minorities for the sake of being weaker? At a rime he said there's only two sexes as if he had discovered the wheel, the question here is that someone born inside a man's whose brain perceives himself as a woman is still only on one sex, right? But then we have how the feedback from society... Something that was never simple to start from you guys makes it appear like you're teaching flat earthers... Oh, the irony.
It doesn't mean you are far right, although most people who believe in God...at least the ones that take it seriously, self-identify as conservative. Regardless, there just isn't any good evidence for any gods.
Colin writes that religion and well meaning social activists try to make humans special compared other primate and mammalian relatives. I don’t think of humans as special really. But to fail to acknowledge that some features of humanity are nearly exclusive to us seems weird. Do other animals invent religions? Maybe elephants. Language, poetry and art? Maybe cetaceans and barely maybe other great apes. Big brained mammals can recognize themselves but that’s a still a relatively small number of taxa. We have complex economies, tribalism, religion, language and gender identity. I know im a female and have a specific biological role to play. But that is the smallest thing that describes me, it’s not an identity I wear. And a woman who can’t bear children still feels woman. If a guy lost his penis or other primary sex traits- he’d still feel and be a man. I don’t think social justice advocates should punish old school academics. But old school academics have done some damage. Eugenics for instance. Using only a scholarly lens to understand ourselves is limiting. We have sex and we have gender identity. And there’s going to be great and complex variation in how those two things overlap each other for each individual. I don’t believe in god I do love people blind spots and all. I love other animals more. I love corals most. Cancel culture isn’t good but there are 1000 more concerning things staring us down right now. This is just low priority more than it’s wrong.
“I love corals most” lol, this is a great comment; thanks, Gabrielle ❤🎉 People with an interest in biological anthropology and/or corals must stick to our guns. 💪
"Here's why our boss's story was suuuuuuper sad and tough on him. They're so mean, right guys, isn't it sooooo sad to see what the culture has become? Our boss's feelings got hurt so bad guys you gotta see they're the problem guys. 😢😢😢😢"
People rewriting evolution theory to suit their ideology is not about people’s feelings getting hurt. I know it’s bit beyond you but do try to keep up.
OK, 2 minutes in & your science expert says that evolution is not a theory, and there a no other theories out there? How is that factually correct, I thought you were a scientist - albeit an evolutionary one, but why would you exclude all other possibilities out of hand? That sounds like a religious view to me, or maybe your profession just demands it - but 'science' it aint !! Let's see how long I can listen to this for .... Mitch, Australia.
Creationism and intelligent design are great education opportunities for universities, aren't they? Offer elective courses where arguments are examined. Money maker!... and the university can hold up its banner saying it deals honestly with all opinions. Free and open inquiry! What a concept! I believe the reason this doesn't happen very often (it did happen for me... UW-LaCrosse biology department offered creationism study as a 400 level seminar) is, it's not as easy as it sounds to show creationism absurd, or especially ID absurd. Biologists aren't typically equipped to teach such a course because they specialize, which leaves vast knowledge gaps. Of course, it's a thousand times worse with climate change, where almost no one employed as a science instructor or professor has grounds for claiming to know what they're talking about when they endorse it as 'settled science' (which is a sociological question anyway).
Demarcating science from pseudoscience (such as the creationism debate, Freudianism, Marxism) is an intro to Philosophy of Science topic. Sadly, not all universities teach it, although all high schools should teach it as it’s fundamental and basic to understand science, why it matters, and how to avoid falling into traps for pseudoscience.
Alternate theory on why creationism and ID classes aren't taught in universities, not enough students would sign up for the class to make it worth having. It's not a necessary subject of study for any popular major I can think of and it's not a topic that is likely to have enough student interest for them to take it as an elective. Might make sense at a Christian University, but I don't think the topic has enough usefulness or general interest to necessitate it being widely available.
@@Andytenholder true, a class on creationism vs evolution wouldn’t get enough students. But all students should know basic critical reasoning skills, and to know how to distinguish good science from bad, and to know what a ‘theory’ is and how to assess disputes involving competing theories. The demarcation problem is to distinguish a scientific from unscientific theory. Much of this (like basic logic) should be required in high school, let alone mastered in college. It’s fundamental to being a member of society, where we are bombarded with news reports and popular media that make basic mistakes in logic, science and scientific interpretation.
@@RC-qf3mp I agree that logic, debate, and critical thinking need to be fundamental objectives in education. Unfortunately, even implemented well I doubt it would fix the problem. There are going to be people that just aren't intelligent enough to do it on their own, which is likely a frighteningly large percentage of people. Though, hopefully with better education it would be a smaller percentage than what we have now. There also seems to be a biological mechanism that causes people to put less attention towards information that fits their world model. So even being proficient in critical thinking won't completely protect people. They'd also have to be trained to be reflective and apply their critical thinking inwards. Which likely takes an even higher level of intelligence, not to mention being generally unpleasant and time consuming. So, while I think society could be putting up a much better fight, I don't think it's a battle we're going to win.
Open question: If a person says that anything other than "evolution is true" is anti-science and not true, isn't that in itself a statement based on faith? Is there a NULL hypothesis for evolution?
Faith vs. Science: A Complex Relationship Is "Evolution is True" a Faith-Based Statement? The assertion that anything other than "evolution is true" is anti-science and not true is indeed a strong and definitive statement. However, to categorize it as purely "faith-based" oversimplifies the complex interplay between scientific consensus and individual belief. * Scientific Consensus: Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by evidence from various fields, including paleontology, genetics, and biology. The scientific community generally accepts it as a foundational principle. * Faith and Belief: While science is based on evidence and testability, personal beliefs, including religious or philosophical ones, can influence how individuals interpret that evidence. It's crucial to distinguish between the scientific consensus on evolution and individual beliefs about it. While the former is based on empirical evidence, the latter can be influenced by various factors, including personal worldviews. The Null Hypothesis in Evolution A null hypothesis in scientific research is a default position that there is no effect or relationship between two measured phenomena. It's a starting point for testing whether there is enough evidence to support an alternative hypothesis. In the context of evolution, a null hypothesis could be: * No change in allele frequencies in a population over time. This would imply no evolution occurring. * No common ancestry among different species. This would challenge the core concept of evolutionary biology. However, it's important to note that these null hypotheses are generally rejected by the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution. Key points to remember: * Science is a process of inquiry, and the understanding of evolution is constantly evolving. * The scientific consensus on evolution is based on substantial evidence. * Individual beliefs about evolution can vary widely and are influenced by various factors. * While there can be null hypotheses in evolutionary studies, the weight of evidence supports the theory of evolution.
Science uses models to interpret those aspects of the physical (and biological) world that we cannot see directly. We base those models on experiments that confirm or deny hypotheses. There is no such thing as true and false in science. The measure of a model's utility is it's ability to predict the outcome of phenomena. In Chemistry, for example, there are numerous models, all with catchy names, such as Lewis Electron Dot theory, Molecular Orbital theory, Molecular Modeling or HOMO/LUMO theory, all of which are used for the exact same thing, predicting chemical reactivity. Different models work better in particular situations, so it is best to have many models. More to the point. Evolution was a theory posited by Herbert Spencer in his "First Principals", which, put very simply says that any system will become more ordered as it loses energy. When he tried to apply it to biology, it did not go well. However, Charles Darwin with the assistance of Alfred Russel Wallace managed to forge a plausible model and called it the Theory of Evolution. But, at the time there was no such thing as even an hypothesis of what an Ecosystem was. That didn't happen until 1979, the premise that species "evolved" to suit their environment was not based on a scientific footing, but it is a model that has had great success predicting the suitability of species to particular environmental stresses. In a more spiritual vein, should we really be attempting to comprehend the Design of the natural world in a way that we are not designed to understand?
It is based on a scientific footing. Mountains of reinforcing archeological data and genetic analysis has effectively proven the theory of evolution. There is no "design", and of course we can figure it all out. Intelligent design was debunked two decades ago in a court and in scientific circles. It's a dead end.
@@rabidcentrist The scientific MODEL of Evolution has a solid footing in evidence now, but when it was first introduced, it's thesis that species adapt to best fit their environment was pure conjecture. Darwin's original postulate was grounded in the idea that mates were selected based on their "fitness", like their mates knew chaos theory or something. From the Kantian thesis that God is the Author of the laws and principals that govern the universe, the Design" thesis can not be ruled out. How does a court of human subjective law have any authority over physical law or the "Author of the Universe" anyway?
Someone who took a temporary lab tech job in an evolutionary science lab at a US university claims the staff were constantly depressed due to the fact that there had still been no transitionary fossils or living animals found to prove the theory of evolution and they genuinely felt that at this stage something should have been found and the fact that it hadn’t was really difficult for them. He said it was all pretty morose around the water cooler.
Glad to hear Colin has job in better environment.
Good on him for being honest
Towards idiocracy, step by step.
Toward? (No “S” in that word). We are already there. 😂
@@theunknownatheist3815Just wanted to write the same. We are ruled by mentally unhealthy people.
@theunknownatheist3815
Both "toward" and "towards" are correct and acceptable, but "toward" is more commonly used in American English, while "towards" is more common in British English. You can use either based on your preference or the convention you're following.
@@theunknownatheist3815 It's correct with that "s" (in fact, both toward and towards are correct). You should read more, my friend, so you don't get caught by that Idiocracy trend that is trying to trap us all. ;]
Great chat lads. Thanks.
Wow. Bias is not a strong enough word for some of these stances. Maybe ideology or dogma?!
Yeah! It's called WOKE ideology.
Explain, give examples.
Religion.
Wokeness is a religion.
Geez, ya think? The Left has, in case you didn't know, gone from hyper-progressive (postmodernist) to full-on WOKE. It's infected everything. And when it infects the best tool we have to discover our world and learn about ourselves, we're really in trouble.
@@uncoiledfish2561 Did you listen to this vid? Wright gave examples throughout this discussion. Michael Shermer, who contributed articles for many years to Scientific American, was given a pink slip a couple years ago by the editors. He gives several interviews about how science has gone WOKE.
My dad was a biochemist who used to read Science Magazine and Scientific American. He would be utterly appalled by what has become of science in this WOKE world we now live in.
th-cam.com/video/hYrD0nLj_sQ/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/72Ky-xukAyI/w-d-xo.html
If that’s how HR is working, it’s no longer HR, but the Dicastery of Doctrinal Compliance.
It kind of reminds me of how Stalin came to power. He was just the general secretary, his job was to control who was allowed in the Communist party. So he only allowed in people who supported him and got rid of the ones who didn't.
Technically evolution is a theory. A theory borne out by scientific observation and experiment. As opposed to a hypothesis.
..or a myth. I’m from an extended fundamentalist evangelical family and in the past 20 years there has been a big push by “Creation Scientists” to get their literature and videos into church Bible study groups and push the idea that Creation Science must be taught equally in schools alongside the ‘theory of Evolution’.
Some states in the US (eg Texas) now mandate this in state schools.
The reality is that one is a settled scientific theorem with lots of evidence for it, evidence that is growing every week. The other side is a religious myth, one of several hundred different creation myths.
When I tell this to religious fanatics I know, they get upset. So I’m used to meeting the extremist mindset which, be it right wing, left wing or religious in nature, has the same characteristics which is to violently oppose it and try and shut criticism down and shut the person out. If I still attended a Baptist church and said that I thought Creation was a myth they would seek to have me disfellowshipped.
As a now retired university academic (in a hard science) I witnessed in the past three decades the rise of a Neo-Maoism on the campuses of formerly great liberal universities. They have turned into these institutions into neo-madrassa’s similar to those universities of the religious right Catholic or Protestant in the West.
These left wing fanatics don’t understand the that they are the greatest recruiters for the right wing political parties.
@@epincionhi. That’s really interesting.
I was just pedantically pointing out that”theory” in science is the end result of the scientific method and doesn’t discount the veracity of the science. People seem to think that “theory” means contested which is not what it means. Quantum mechanics is a theory… one that yields incredibly accurate predictions about our universe.
I hope the universities can become purged of ideologies that narrow people’s minds and block true discourse!
There's no science committee that determines what hypothesis fuses to a level of solid scientific theorem. I disagree that "evolution" is a theorem at this point, it is a hypothesis, depending on what definition of "evolution" you are using. So do tell, which definition of evolution do you propose is a theorem? The narrowest definition being "the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time" is a fact. The claimed phylogenetic tree of life is a myth.
No, a hypothesis is the testing stage and the facts of the research when presented is the theory.
You might be confusing hypothesis with hypothetical.
28:28. No. When I grew up in the 1980's, the image of the decent and heroic scientist or journalist or Joe Public WAS this! The small guy who stood up for the truth against the weak-spined and soft powers and the powers of evil that wanted to hide the truth for whatever dark or corrupt purpose they had. This was universal. This was in every documentary, in every movie from every decade. In every storyline. This was regardless of who the forces of evil were. This was not just Creationists. This was a complete archetype, and we were all brought up with it, and everybody paid lip service to it. It was ingrained in the culture of the West as deeply as anything was.
But I guess it's like with so many of the values of the West which people have thrown to the side in recent decades. Like we all knew that torture was something the good guys never do. And we always give people a fair trial. Secret trials are something only evil dictatorships do. Universal surveillance and surveillance of people not suspected of anything dangerous is just wrong. Etc. etc.
But I guess only a few of us actually believed it enough to hang on to it when the counter-pressure came. That's why I don't fall for the idea of "consensus" and "all people agree that this is wrong so it must be wrong" etc. I realize it's all just psychological and sociological, and most people will turn on a dime.
But I still believe in all these values because they are true. It IS a universally good and true path. You don't compromise with evil. You don't give a little.
Initial inate small differences get amplified with the practice of life. Think of hands left/right bias. Initially in babies it is very minor, but the repeated more practice of the favorable hand magnify the preference and performance ability vary quickly in children. Similarly for other human characteristics. Even if the average born brain differences between boys and girls are small, they get amplified in growth, in a very distinguished and on average consistent sex differences.
This is beginning to sound a bit Lamarckian - yes, if you are right-handed, you use the right hand more often, so it gets progressively stronger and more muscular. So long as you are not suggesting that this - acquired-by-practice - increased strength in the right hand - or the left hand, if you are left-handed - is itself passed on genetically to your offspring.
Fascinating, love your work... but also What a frickin waste of time for our society to debate this at all when there are SO many more real issues that we so need to debate and improve. It's like a wasted decade and also "ugh! science how could you?"
This
Personally I’m not a supporter of the idea that biological gender can be chosen at will but I’m quite happy for others to think this and it’s not something I think about or speak of day to day.
What I’m against is the idea of compelled thought and speech
As a retired academic (5 yrs ago), at retirement I was a tenured Prof in a hard physical science so we in my speciality we had no debates of this issue.
However I did sit on a number of university oversight committees and in my time in this role (8 years) I sadly saw the rise of what has been correctly described as Neo-Maoism - in the softer sciences and the arts.
These people genuinely believe ‘they know the exclusive truth’ and everyone must follow their line. If possible they want disagreement with them to be a firing offence and the perpetrator to be treated as a criminal.
On the campuses of liberal universities the new-Maoists are now the greatest recruiters for the politics of the right.
This starts badly. You claim to be not a supporter that biological gender can be chosen. Biological sex cannot be chosen. Gender can, as it is a social construct. So you mixed your concepts a bit there.
@@markhosking1882 I respectfully disagree that biological gender (by which I mean biological sex based on chromosomes) can be chosen.
However I fully accept that some people feel in themselves they are of a different gender and choose to live as that other - sometimes having reassignment surgery. I have zero issue with that person and personally I would call them by their chosen gender specific.
My point is that others may refuse to do this and I believe it’s their right to so as long as they don’t discriminate against that person in the public sphere, especially if they are in a position of responsibility eg an employer.
I am totally against attempts to make refusal to comply with accepting that everything about gender can be chosen a criminal offence.
Just recently in the UK we had an interview on TV with a person who had found that a number of people she had interacted with had not been accepting of her chosen gender and she went to the police to lay a charge these people and hD been shocked to find out that in no way had those people committed an offence.
In the TV interview she and some of her supporters were demanding that refusal to accept chosen gender be made a criminal offence.
IMO that’s nonsense.
@@epincion I believe what you are saying is biological gender means sex in biology, as in the way the word theory means something specific in science and not just an idea (hypothesis).
I was always under the impression that sex was the correct biological term and gender was more of a sociological term. I stand corrected.
I am conflicted on whether failing to acknowledge preferred gender should be a crime. It is certainly disrespectful and therefore could overlap into hate or abuse if used maliciously. In which case that should be crime.
Quillette censored anyone asking questions about c19 and vaccine safety.
Really? Ok thumbs down for that .
Not just scientist but also cute
Why not just have trans categories? Oh because there isn't as much advantage in it
I love Colin and Christina. Power couple!
Only someone who’s never had children; has never spent lots of time with children; or someone with poor observation skilks could ever say something as, frankly, ridiculous as ‘We are born blank slates”.
in my childhood in the early 60s, I was told 'girls don't need math' and most girls, myself included, were pretty bad at math. it doesn't seem to apply anymore.
and what's w/ "bias" - isn't it more about research?
A good book on the blank slate is The Blank Slate. Another good book is Human Diversity. Read and enjoy.
It seems like epistemological distortion of this magnitude requires state support.
It’s extremely annoying that you guys upload old episodes and don’t provide the date. The Quillette podcast is currently on episode 247
in the description it says:
This episode was originally published: 8 August 2020
It should be on the thumbnail and possibly in the title. This is the only channel I see that randomly uploads old episodes. They can just dump their entire back catalogue in one go if they really want to. Joe Rogan did that when he came back from Spotify
regarding denying evolution from the right: that's in our founding documents: our unalienable rights come from our creator. "All Men are created equal" is a profoundly unscientific statement.
We promote stupidity!
Careful Colin that's how Larry Summers got into trouble. /s
Maybe someone can provide an evolutionary mechanism by which I ended up with four fingers and a thumb on each hand?
Which came first: the blood supply, the nerves, the bones or the skin? Which finger came first? Where did the fingernail come from?
‘Evolutionary means’ nice way to show you don’t understand evolution.
The science behind climate change? Oh yeah, the hockey stick, I forgot about that. Good stuff.
Sex is absolutely binary for humans.
If you have a Y sex chromosome you are male. If you don't you are female.
No one with a Y sex chromosome can produce viable eggs.
No one without a Y sex chromosome can produce viable sperm.
A man is an adult human male.
A woman is an adult human female.
No matter how "female" an XY person is, that person will never produce viable eggs. (Same for XXY, XXXY, etc.)
No matter how "female" an XX person is, that person will never produce viable sperm. (Same for X, XXX, XXXX, etc.)
Note: Every living human has at least one X sex chromosome. No living human being can exist without an X sex chromosome (eg there are no YY people).
So many ads!! My God.
Yes, it has become unwatchable.
Recycling from 2020?
His daughters might like fortnight, but a video game is not hunting or war.
why did this bring up the Nazis? The sort of tribalism and racism, as well as racial hierarchies that they used were present long before the theory of evolution came along.
...yes, Darwinian evolutionary thought supercharged racism.
I know what he means regarding populations, and that trans shouldn't compete in women's sport since it gives them the advantage. Quite a leftist thing to say I might add, myself I see the trans on sports more like a thing right would do, when the means doesn't matter to get the end, but are you sure that with a plethora of genetic mix up you don't get a brain closer to that of women population and vice versa? Are you sure? Ffs you have XY genetics on a woman's body. Regarding whom people identify on their brain, what's this fixation with people who seems to be born on the gaussian distribution medium on how others should be or not be? He doesn't understand how different it regarding creationism/evolution debacle vs a case where people take advantage of minorities for the sake of being weaker? At a rime he said there's only two sexes as if he had discovered the wheel, the question here is that someone born inside a man's whose brain perceives himself as a woman is still only on one sex, right? But then we have how the feedback from society... Something that was never simple to start from you guys makes it appear like you're teaching flat earthers... Oh, the irony.
So, believing we were ''created by God'' makes one ''far right'' now?
What do you mean being created by God? I was created by my parents. Your experience was different?
It doesn't mean you are far right, although most people who believe in God...at least the ones that take it seriously, self-identify as conservative. Regardless, there just isn't any good evidence for any gods.
Colin writes that religion and well meaning social activists try to make humans special compared other primate and mammalian relatives.
I don’t think of humans as special really. But to fail to acknowledge that some features of humanity are nearly exclusive to us seems weird.
Do other animals invent religions? Maybe elephants. Language, poetry and art? Maybe cetaceans and barely maybe other great apes. Big brained mammals can recognize themselves but that’s a still a relatively small number of taxa.
We have complex economies, tribalism, religion, language and gender identity.
I know im a female and have a specific biological role to play. But that is the smallest thing that describes me, it’s not an identity I wear. And a woman who can’t bear children still feels woman. If a guy lost his penis or other primary sex traits- he’d still feel and be a man.
I don’t think social justice advocates should punish old school academics. But old school academics have done some damage. Eugenics for instance. Using only a scholarly lens to understand ourselves is limiting.
We have sex and we have gender identity. And there’s going to be great and complex variation in how those two things overlap each other for each individual.
I don’t believe in god
I do love people blind spots and all. I love other animals more. I love corals most.
Cancel culture isn’t good but there are 1000 more concerning things staring us down right now. This is just low priority more than it’s wrong.
“I love corals most” lol, this is a great comment; thanks, Gabrielle ❤🎉 People with an interest in biological anthropology and/or corals must stick to our guns. 💪
There aren't 1000 things more concerning if you are a woman in prison, being raped by a "trans" woman you are forced to share a cell with.
Not at all low priority. Kids are being pushed into being transgender. This involves child abuse. Do your research!
"Here's why our boss's story was suuuuuuper sad and tough on him. They're so mean, right guys, isn't it sooooo sad to see what the culture has become? Our boss's feelings got hurt so bad guys you gotta see they're the problem guys. 😢😢😢😢"
People rewriting evolution theory to suit their ideology is not about people’s feelings getting hurt. I know it’s bit beyond you but do try to keep up.
Are you a small child?
you believe in the climate science religion?, really?
You need to study climate science, it is a political project like gender studies.
Heterodox?? I had to google this. Unorthodox basically😂😂
Orthodox means "straight" or "normal." "Heterodox" means different.
So, it’s not posting straight peoples info? 😂
Oh you poor victim! 🤭
OK, 2 minutes in & your science expert says that evolution is not a theory, and there a no other theories out there? How is that factually correct, I thought you were a scientist - albeit an evolutionary one, but why would you exclude all other possibilities out of hand? That sounds like a religious view to me, or maybe your profession just demands it - but 'science' it aint !! Let's see how long I can listen to this for .... Mitch, Australia.
It is a theory. A well supported theory.
Didn’t Quillette back the Covid jab and silence skeptics who turned out to be right?
Right about what?
Right about what?
Creationism and intelligent design are great education opportunities for universities, aren't they? Offer elective courses where arguments are examined. Money maker!... and the university can hold up its banner saying it deals honestly with all opinions. Free and open inquiry! What a concept! I believe the reason this doesn't happen very often (it did happen for me... UW-LaCrosse biology department offered creationism study as a 400 level seminar) is, it's not as easy as it sounds to show creationism absurd, or especially ID absurd. Biologists aren't typically equipped to teach such a course because they specialize, which leaves vast knowledge gaps. Of course, it's a thousand times worse with climate change, where almost no one employed as a science instructor or professor has grounds for claiming to know what they're talking about when they endorse it as 'settled science' (which is a sociological question anyway).
Demarcating science from pseudoscience (such as the creationism debate, Freudianism, Marxism) is an intro to Philosophy of Science topic. Sadly, not all universities teach it, although all high schools should teach it as it’s fundamental and basic to understand science, why it matters, and how to avoid falling into traps for pseudoscience.
Alternate theory on why creationism and ID classes aren't taught in universities, not enough students would sign up for the class to make it worth having. It's not a necessary subject of study for any popular major I can think of and it's not a topic that is likely to have enough student interest for them to take it as an elective. Might make sense at a Christian University, but I don't think the topic has enough usefulness or general interest to necessitate it being widely available.
@@Andytenholder true, a class on creationism vs evolution wouldn’t get enough students. But all students should know basic critical reasoning skills, and to know how to distinguish good science from bad, and to know what a ‘theory’ is and how to assess disputes involving competing theories. The demarcation problem is to distinguish a scientific from unscientific theory. Much of this (like basic logic) should be required in high school, let alone mastered in college. It’s fundamental to being a member of society, where we are bombarded with news reports and popular media that make basic mistakes in logic, science and scientific interpretation.
@@RC-qf3mp I agree that logic, debate, and critical thinking need to be fundamental objectives in education. Unfortunately, even implemented well I doubt it would fix the problem. There are going to be people that just aren't intelligent enough to do it on their own, which is likely a frighteningly large percentage of people. Though, hopefully with better education it would be a smaller percentage than what we have now.
There also seems to be a biological mechanism that causes people to put less attention towards information that fits their world model. So even being proficient in critical thinking won't completely protect people. They'd also have to be trained to be reflective and apply their critical thinking inwards. Which likely takes an even higher level of intelligence, not to mention being generally unpleasant and time consuming.
So, while I think society could be putting up a much better fight, I don't think it's a battle we're going to win.
Sounds like the “teach the controversy” BS.
Open question: If a person says that anything other than "evolution is true" is anti-science and not true, isn't that in itself a statement based on faith?
Is there a NULL hypothesis for evolution?
Faith vs. Science: A Complex Relationship
Is "Evolution is True" a Faith-Based Statement?
The assertion that anything other than "evolution is true" is anti-science and not true is indeed a strong and definitive statement. However, to categorize it as purely "faith-based" oversimplifies the complex interplay between scientific consensus and individual belief.
* Scientific Consensus: Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by evidence from various fields, including paleontology, genetics, and biology. The scientific community generally accepts it as a foundational principle.
* Faith and Belief: While science is based on evidence and testability, personal beliefs, including religious or philosophical ones, can influence how individuals interpret that evidence.
It's crucial to distinguish between the scientific consensus on evolution and individual beliefs about it. While the former is based on empirical evidence, the latter can be influenced by various factors, including personal worldviews.
The Null Hypothesis in Evolution
A null hypothesis in scientific research is a default position that there is no effect or relationship between two measured phenomena. It's a starting point for testing whether there is enough evidence to support an alternative hypothesis.
In the context of evolution, a null hypothesis could be:
* No change in allele frequencies in a population over time. This would imply no evolution occurring.
* No common ancestry among different species. This would challenge the core concept of evolutionary biology.
However, it's important to note that these null hypotheses are generally rejected by the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution.
Key points to remember:
* Science is a process of inquiry, and the understanding of evolution is constantly evolving.
* The scientific consensus on evolution is based on substantial evidence.
* Individual beliefs about evolution can vary widely and are influenced by various factors.
* While there can be null hypotheses in evolutionary studies, the weight of evidence supports the theory of evolution.
Science uses models to interpret those aspects of the physical (and biological) world that we cannot see directly. We base those models on experiments that confirm or deny hypotheses. There is no such thing as true and false in science. The measure of a model's utility is it's ability to predict the outcome of phenomena. In Chemistry, for example, there are numerous models, all with catchy names, such as Lewis Electron Dot theory, Molecular Orbital theory, Molecular Modeling or HOMO/LUMO theory, all of which are used for the exact same thing, predicting chemical reactivity. Different models work better in particular situations, so it is best to have many models. More to the point. Evolution was a theory posited by Herbert Spencer in his "First Principals", which, put very simply says that any system will become more ordered as it loses energy. When he tried to apply it to biology, it did not go well. However, Charles Darwin with the assistance of Alfred Russel Wallace managed to forge a plausible model and called it the Theory of Evolution. But, at the time there was no such thing as even an hypothesis of what an Ecosystem was. That didn't happen until 1979, the premise that species "evolved" to suit their environment was not based on a scientific footing, but it is a model that has had great success predicting the suitability of species to particular environmental stresses. In a more spiritual vein, should we really be attempting to comprehend the Design of the natural world in a way that we are not designed to understand?
It is based on a scientific footing. Mountains of reinforcing archeological data and genetic analysis has effectively proven the theory of evolution.
There is no "design", and of course we can figure it all out.
Intelligent design was debunked two decades ago in a court and in scientific circles. It's a dead end.
Noone says this in this absolutism. The point is that the theory of evolution is extremely convincing and a better theory isnt in the market of ideas.
@@rabidcentrist The scientific MODEL of Evolution has a solid footing in evidence now, but when it was first introduced, it's thesis that species adapt to best fit their environment was pure conjecture. Darwin's original postulate was grounded in the idea that mates were selected based on their "fitness", like their mates knew chaos theory or something. From the Kantian thesis that God is the Author of the laws and principals that govern the universe, the Design" thesis can not be ruled out. How does a court of human subjective law have any authority over physical law or the "Author of the Universe" anyway?
Someone who took a temporary lab tech job in an evolutionary science lab at a US university claims the staff were constantly depressed due to the fact that there had still been no transitionary fossils or living animals found to prove the theory of evolution and they genuinely felt that at this stage something should have been found and the fact that it hadn’t was really difficult for them. He said it was all pretty morose around the water cooler.
I have no idea what he's talking about. You can see several species that evolve over the years.
Every fossil is a transitionary fossil
Fossilization is a pretty involved process. It's not just something that died and was buried. It's expected to have several gaps.
Cool story bro. Did everyone clap? 🙄
Any more lies you want to tell us?
@@theunknownatheist3815 seriously?? Word for word as I was told by the lab tech. He was shocked by their attitude.
He's basically whining about people disagreeing with him. What a baby.
I know....disagreeing w/biology is so whiny. Lol
Maybe you're the whiner.
🙄 sure thing, comrade.
Disagreeing with his anti-trans interpretation of biology is not disagreeing with biology.
🤣🤣🤣 whining!?
Thanks for the laugh. I needed it 🙌