I think this was why I originally subscribbed to this channel. David used to be really good at asking questions, and good faith push back. I love Peter Boghossian, and usually he's on the ball, but David's questions really made him explain himself, and probably why 5 years later he's so much better.
He right, what he's saying is that gender studies shouldn't be a department or discipline worthy of a degree discipline, it should be under Sociology and just a class.
@@chewyjello1 a planet home to critical thinkers called earth. Apparently out of the 59 people that liked the comment you are the only person that voiced disagreement. Ahhh democracy in action.
Not a big fan of his, but he seemed to hang in there pretty well. He asked fairly intelligent questions, and their disagreements were of `degree' not `kind'.
Please all fellow lefties lets return to the time when we believed in objective thinking and free speech before we destroy ourselves politically for ever. Guys like Pakman seem to ride the waves of a very biased media. Although I disagree with Packman mostly always respect for having Boghossian on.
21:43 David, that's the point. Gender studies is relevant, which is why it shouldn't be dominated by ideologues. Imagine that people who believe in lamarckian evolution set up their own departments, did sham studies proving the 'Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics' , peer reviewed those among themselves and gave each other tenure , and called the field 'biology' . That would do a lot of damage to the credibility of the field of biology. That's what's happening with gender studies. Sociology is too important to let it be discredited by ideologically dominated fields like gender studies. The best solution isn't to just defund gender studies though, it's to the ideologues out of their, and get principled scientists in. It's going to though to do that though, as it's already too far gone, so that you can't make it in that field if your conclusions aren't what the ideologues want to hear.
@daimon hellstrom "intersectionality" isn't anything other than man-bashing and then "hey, I'm going to get more friends that aren't the people I hate and convince my new friends that we need to fight the people I hate together."
Peter was more interesting in his answers, interrupted as they were, than David asking the questions. It felt like a great orchestra playing a great symphony being interrupted periodically by fingers scratching a blackboard.
@@coweatsman That's a good point. When Boghossian was making his point about the validity of some aspects of academe, and especially the logic and evidence free field of authoethnography, it seemed that Packman was struggling to keep up.
Well the problem with gender study departments is that they do not conduct research about gender. Sociologist, neurologist etc. do this. Gender Study departments simply try to pass on a moral world view to students. In fact, when gender study professors are confronted with results that come from scientifically analyzing gender etc., it often goes against their views, with the result that they go nuts and call the findings misogynistic and the result of male dominance. Gender studies as currently present in academia has nothing to do with science and all with indoctrination.
Actually there have been virtual mountains of research papers from gender studies department. I'm not going to comment on their quality (because I'm not that interested), but a quick search will reveal a shit-ton of papers on for example "gender expressions". Did you actually check before you made this claim about Gender studies departments?
I think you did not read properly what I wrote, I did not say gender study departments do not produce papers. I said what they produce does not pass as research. Boghossian explains it in the video, he talks about this extensively. Yes, they do produce tons papers, but it would not pass peer review. At least not until they started their own journals and now gender scientists peer review each other and surprisingly, the reports pass peer review. But it would not pass peer review in sociology journal for example as it would have to pass the review of a statistician. The whole point of these reports is not to find truth but to proof what the researcher already believes in. A gender researcher will never find contradicting evidence to what the researcher believes. And I am using here "they" to make this simple, I (unlike Boghossian) don't think everybody in the field is working like this , there must be academics in the field who actually are interested to find the true nature of things. But I encourage you to go to a couple college websites and look at the mission statements of the gender study departments and you will find many that make it crystal clear that finding about the true nature of things is not the goal but to teach students to believe in what they already think it the irrevocable truth. That is not science, that is preaching. It should not be taught on a university campus, this is something that should be in a similar setting as a church or something.
I haven't thought of that peer review can be interpreted in different ways, in my view peer review is well defined. Do you suggest that it is somewhat ambiguous? Probably the best way to get to the ground of this, why don't you give me your understanding how peer review is defined and we can go from there?
You talk about peer review as if it were magic. It seems like you want to impose certain standards on papers that you like without any proper rigorous definition of what makes them 'research'.
Watching interview after exposing gender studies jounals makes this so much better. He was literally 100% correct. They published a study about dog rape and how it was a symptom of rape culture hahaha. Everyone who didnt believe him about how big a problem it was can eat it.
Gender is important and we should be studying it. Therefore gender studies departments should be defunded because they teach that gender (and sometimes even biological sex) is a social construct. Both claims fly in the face of the evidence. That should disqualify gender studies as a legitimate field, full stop. Biologists have far more legitimate things to say about gender than any gender studies department. If we want to have specific gender based research and build a curriculum around that, it should be science led, rather than led by feminism.
@@HopperDragon "Gender" and "sex" were synonymous until the 60s when John Money toyed around with a child who'd been injured in a circumcision accident. Linked is a BBC documentary. His "experiment" was a horrific, painful failure which Money ignored and decided it was a success before David hit puberty. Money created the separation of the two words as a result of his theories being "successful". It's all word games. "Gender" at this point is just basically some description of your personality with infinite terms changing daily or minute-to-minute based on how you feel. At the same time, "gender" is conflated with biological sex whenever applicable and hatespeech legislation enforces this conflation with the violence of the state. th-cam.com/video/MUTcwqR4Q4Y/w-d-xo.html
@@za5820 The worst part of your ridiculous opinion is that it is not useful. There is an important distinction between sex and gender, and it is useful to know the difference. Gender refers to the social forces that say a man should wear a suit to a funeral instead of a dress. It's what society says should be associated with a given sex, and has changed drastically from culture to culture and decade to decade. People like you love to bring up the Money experiments because it saves you from having to respond to actual arguments and theory. If your extrapolation from the abhorrent Money event is that transgender procedures are therefore all awful mutilations, I challenge you to look into the writings of literally any significant research group in the world on the topic of transgender issues, and I think you'll find that everyone reputable in the field, such as the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the WHO, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the Human Rights Campaign, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians, the United Nations, United Kingdom’s National Health Service and many others agree that: trans people are valid, have existed throughout history, and experience significant discrimination, that transness is not a mental disorder, and that social and physical transition are the best ways to help. You'll claim there's some terrible agenda at play, but once again I CHALLENGE you to actually observe the methodology of these studies and try to point out anything unscientific about them. As an example, this (whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/) is an ENORMOUS meta-meta-analysis on transgender people and the effect gender transition has on their mental health. Of 56 studies, 52 indicated transitioning has a positive effect on the mental health of transgender people and 4 indicated it had mixed or no results. ZERO studies indicated gender transitioning has negative results. This pretty much ends the argument right here. I beg you to conduct your own research that disproves everything every educated person knows about gender and publish it, completely shaking the world and immediately collecting a Nobel prize. Just because you don't understand the words, doesn't make it "all word games". Just because you don't or won’t understand or look into the science, doesn't mean the scientific consensus on an issue is wrong. Lastly, I'd love if your snowflake ass tried to cite an actual example of the violence of the state enforcing the conflation of sex and gender. Any such law that has been passed, such as C-16 in Canada, simply add "gender identity" to the list of things employers cannot legally discriminate against. Show me in the law where your free speech is being stifled, you whiny victim. Did you know you can't call someone the n-word in the workplace either? How could the state limit your free speech like that!! Clown.
I don't understand why he focuses so much on comparing gender studies to engineering but doesn't compare it to philosophy and then talk about the methodology and the differences. Wouldn't that be a more relevant comparison?
Pakman, regarding the gravity uniformity example, if we get evidence that indicates that gravity is not uniform we might change our minds, based on the strength of the overall evidence for or against the idea. Religious faith tends to be impervious to evidence, so I don't think its fair to call such a belief faith. One is an assumption that we make based on partial-evidence and the degree to which we have confidence should correlate with the strength of the evidence. With faith evidence has no part to play. In my experience, when somebody tries to defend their faith with what they think is evidence or a good argument, its really just rationalization to try and convince themselves.
There's something like a "semantic fundamentalism" here. Too much importance given to words that have more flexible meanings. Both "faith" and "pretending". Not that long ago you'd have mainstream scientists phrasing things like "the doctrine of Darwinism", non-sarcastically, being "darwinists" themselves. You'd probably also have some phrasings with "faith" every now and them. It's still common to speak of the "central dogma" of biology, that phenotype derives from the genotype. And regarding actual religious faith/belief, you can in a figure of speech, say they "pretend" they know more than they really know, without necessarily implying they secretly don't think they know what they purport to know. They just a stronger rudimentary influence of "feeling" in what they suppose they know, or are more susceptible to a conflation between the "feel good"/gut-feeling thing, and truth. Perhaps a more complete and less polemic wording would be that religious faith involves "pretending to oneself", rather than pretending to others. Even though perhaps the social dynamics makes both things self-reinforce to some degree. People seek the approval of being one who really has faith, may pretend they do, and others do the same. But while that may even be fairly common, there must be at least an equal number of people who just honestly, naïvely believe things without evidence, "feeling the truth in their hearts" and so on.
Around 26 minutes Peter makes such a weird logical leap. Just because a few people didnt want to talk to him, it doesn't mean their work is suspect. Also, he even admits there is plenty of people who study gender and use rigorous methods. They are in sociology and psychology and public health departments.
@Gina @ National Progress Alliance Shrieking about "woke" hysteria is tedious wingnuttery masquerading as academic discourse, particularly from the perspective of waste of effort and resources like philosophy.
@Gina @ National Progress Alliance So since you agree that the "woke" hysteria movement is tedious and that it is absolutely a wingnut grievance religion, then what are you sniveling about? When universities commit to critical thinking skills, wingnut batshittery is relegated to radical hysterical mode, and critical thinkers categorize it accordingly. Pseudo-philosophers like you and Boghossian don't represent philosophy and critical thinking, regardless of whatever philosophy is worth--an arguable proposition to begin with.
@Gina @ National Progress Alliance You are dishonestly conflating critical thinking with philosophy, demonstrating that you are lacking in the area of critical thinking. You use the term "barbaric" in what seems to be a bigoted and non-critical way. Do you have any actual training in critical thinking? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't so stupidly buy into "woke" hysteria. The masses adhere to dogma? Which dogma? Do you ever make a claim that isn't idiotic and vacuous?
I'm not sure if David Pakman intentionally ignored Peter Boghossian's point about a secular religion on the left or genuinely ran out of time. I'd have liked to hear a response.
15:00 he just moved his own goal post from "course description" to "department mission statement" because he couldn't answer David's query to give ONE example of his claim. Not saying he couldn't find such examples but he should have some on deck considering he makes a living off this angle
David have you looked into arranging the discussion/debate talked about here between law enforcement and minority rights activists and police reform activists? Maybe include lawyers to explain how we need to change legal statutes to support these desired improvements?
My money is on Boghossian being sick of lecturing and is leveraging his reactionary stage act about "cultural marxist feminist regressives controlling academia" for that budding crypto-fascist market, his aim fixated on starting a TH-cam channel complete with a fat Patreon. The line David starts around the 12:00 mark (or rather the Professor's cringey fumble-fest of an answer) exposes him as the true ideologue. "Gawrsh, you sure are asking so many questions!" Stick to Philosophy 1, doc.
Im watching a conversation between two, i assume from them saying it, atheists, and one of them is defending "faith" from a position of faithlessness. Yet i know why his doing it. Like watching a medic from the opposing army trying to save one of your own. Brings a tear
Just look at Peter's face during the first 10-15 seconds of this video. You can see that he knows he's about to spend the next 50 minutes of his life trying to have a productive conversation with a human water balloon made out of chicken wire.
Excellent questioning, Mr Pakman. I admire Peter Boghossian immensely but his use of the words "pretending" and "delusional" in regard to faith are unhelpful. There is no mention of the influence of cultural upbringing which is a massive factor in people's worldview(s). Maybe it is different in the US but in the UK theology studies are usually based on history, philosophy and a critical approach to Scripture (textual analysis etc). This not a pseudo subject, whereas philosophy often is. I have studied both and philosophy courses were just about learning what famous philosophers said. Philosophising for yourself is just not on the course. Academics should be encouraging critical thinking and self questioning. Really good and thought provoking interview. Thanks.
I feel like you cant have it both ways and David is rightly pointing it out. Faith isnt sureness, doubt is not its opposite rather a part of it. It is more like hope and hope is irrational many times. Having hope might seem insane sometimes but it is definitely different than a delusion. While the leap in religion is a leap, so are things in science be it a different leap. Both has to say there things we dont know anything about somethings we do know. As a relgious person, I dont care much about heaven or hell, things I cant know. What I do know, even science backs it up. Like rest is good, helping others does me good, love thy enemy is a wise, listen more than you speak, nonviolence, etc.
As a philosopher, I'm disappointed by Dr Boghossian's struggle to find his footing in articulating the gender studies issue, despite the fact that he's in the right. This is very simple: any course that isn't purely philosophical and thus deals in facts and evidence rather than abstract truths must be judged by its adherence to said facts and evidence. Consider the following propositions and whether courses based on them should be taught in public colleges: - ''The Earth is flat.'' - ''The Universe is 6000 years old.'' - ''Humans were created by God and expelled from Heaven.'' If your answer to all of these is a resounding ''No!'', then, assuming your intellectual honesty, I would expect your equally firm condemnation of the proposition that humans are not a sexually dimorphic species. And if your knee-jerk response to this is that ''Gender exists on a spectrum!'', I would merely point out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
My problem with gender (who's definition seems to depend on context eg. Used as confoundings/explanatory in biology vs used colloquially wrt to 'alpha' males) is how it seems to be defined as a subset of expressions that have biological roots (with binary classification). How these expressions have biological roots is unclear if not just assumed often by appeals to tradition. Given that both appeals to tradition and assuming are not very convincing, it's not that 'gender exists on a spectrum' is convincing but that 'gender is binary' is ill-defined and rarely evidenced. My null is on expressions are just expression, to state that they have biological roots must be evidenced. Secondly, gender is often used as a blunt hammer to make others conform to the perceived binary. Case in point, Shapiro has stated, paraphrasing, that your potential as a human being is maximized if you are a masculine male. This may very well have some religious undertones but if it does not, from a skeptical perspective, this is alot of unsupported baloney.
In regards to your first point, yes, I understand that such confusions tend to arise in regards to what gender actually is and how it relates to sex. To keep it as closely aligned with observable facts and scientific data as possible, I tend to consider it to be the mental counterpart of sex which has some socially constructed aspects to it, but is mostly reducible to biology. The position that gender is just an expression or even a single trait makes gender essentially meaningless and gives credence to people who claim there are literally millions of genders. This is a case of Russell's teapot, the burden on proof is on those who claim that gender is completely disconnected from sex. As to the second, I'll grant you that it can be used as a hammer to make others conform to the perceived binary, but, ironically, it is now being used as a hammer to make others conform to the concocted non-binary through the Canadian Bill C16, the State of New York's ''protected genders'' legislature, etc. I've listened to a lot of Ben's talks about gender, but don't remember that particular point. He is, of course, coming from a very conservative religious perspective, but that doesn't invalidate his point. Whether we like it or not, our biology is part of our identity. The transgender happiness level and suicide rates are data that can't be ignored here, nor can they be dismissed as irrelevant. I think that Ben articulately exposes most central issues of today's gender theory in his ''Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgenderism And Pro-Abortion Arguments'' video over on Daily Wire, despite the overblown, wacky self-praise in the title.
Hasn't this guy ever heard of Soren Kierkegaard? The "leap of faith ". Having a belief system does not necessarily mean that one is pretending to know more than we do.
I don't believe in a god or any other deities. I don't adhere to any religious beliefs. And i don't believe in an afterlife. I'm an atheist, and I'm happy that way. I don't need iron-age fairy tales to tell me to be compassionate. I feel compassion from my own heart. To love ones neighbor as himself, to treat other's kindly, to do the most possible good one can. These are things that we can accomplish without the belief in a deity. My purpose here isn't to live the greatest most moral life because Yahweh wants me too, it's because it makes me happy to make others happy. That is my purpose. As for the afterlife, when our time has come, are conscious Minds become absent from the reality that we've observed. Why not make the best of every possible conscious moment through Love, Laughter, Joy, and Harmony. Life is our greatest gift and we shouldn't take it for granted.
Boston College is letting David Pakman teach a course? BC grads take notice. Burn your degrees and say you did some credits online. Anything is better than being associated with a school that would have David Pakman as a professor.
Around 31:00 : where do you get that blacks who have problems with the police are immigrants who learned english after age 10? Oh my god, what a train wreck of a discussion around 34:00...
Seems like he never did get back to inductive reasoning. I don't see that he fully understands the questions that David asks. Not a lot of depth beyond the surface of his main argument. He has a few talking points using a very restricted vocabulary, and can't seem to shake them off. Interesting that each time he says "this is a huge point / huge conversation that would take a lot to unpack", what he really means is "I feel like answering cogently this question is very difficult and it would take me forever to formulate a position correctly" -- even though these are topics that he keeps taking positions on. And this is usually where he gets off on a tangent and never gets back to the original question.
I disagree on your interpretation of what he said. He doesn't say "it would take a lot to unpack", at 9:40 he says "it's a huge thing we HAVE to unpack". Which he then briefly does, they define the terms between themselves. And, well, he did write a book on it hehe. Sorry, but I really don't see why he should be reading out from it. He does have to sell it, that's how he'll be able to publish more books :P How do you infer from the fact he's using "restricted vocabulary" that his argument is shallow? I'm convinced he uses restricted vocabulary because he needs well defined terms so him and David aren't using the same words for slightly different versions of the same concepts, and without any attempt at condescension, to make his speech available to a wider public without good grasp of technical terminology. I should say, I am among the skepticals who read his book and now find themselves using a lot of what they learned in their daily lives, to facilitate communication in otherwise possibly conflictuous daily conversations. (The book is not the only thing he's being interviewed on here, so don't expect to find all the ideas he presents here in it. Don't forget interviews are a format of guided Q&A). I highly recommend it, it's a quick read, easily accessible, and can definitely introduce you to a tool I would describe as incredibly useful. This doesn't by all means imply I agree with his positions on diverse issues - but read the book, look up the street epistemology movement it's at the root of, and decide for yourself :)
Granted I've only read the Wikipedia entry on Intersectionality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality) but it makes sense to me. We make judgements of people based on their race, gender, age, etc. And the categories combine to change how we judge people. It seems obvious and unoffensive to me.
Faith is a hunch. That’s basically it. Pretending? Belief is not synonymous with fact. Can the metaphysical be proven? Nyet. It’s about be-ing. It falls outside the ambit of logic or reason. I don’t believe that Bahgosian has a shallow understanding of these terms.
Boghossian has reverse stopped-clock syndrome. He is on point when it comes to just about all things falling within his disciplinary territory, but when he says stuff like "the regressive left have taken over academia", it gives me serious pause.
Check out the hoaxes they did and objectivity is becoming political i.e. opinion. The left in the West seem for some bizarre reason to give their enemies free speech and objective thinking. All sane lefties, including myself, need to get behind guys like Boghossian and take the left back before we destroy ourselves for ever.
@@raharu000 well, i guess if the maniacal loon weren't a maniacal loon, he'd recognize that he's being a maniacal loon, wouldn't you? so i guess you get a free pass there. show me where in the government guidelines on teaching math in Portland public schools it says that objectivity is white supremacy.
You know what, when the discussion went to the subject of the police, racism, and creating communication -- I ran into a bunch of Ted Talks by policemen and police chiefs discussing these problems, very enlightening and in some ways surprising -- highly recommend doing a search for those Ted Talks if interested in this issue.
43-40/ish an eg! A black uk citezen&clComedian, was pulled over in America by the police_with a group of other black people, in; the USA. & She describes, being treated similarly too the other black people in the car, Until, She spoke';& The US Cop, recognized her Uk accent and then went on to APOLOGIZE to her, By way of saying he's sorry he'd thought she was BLACK!!. AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TREATED HER CIVILLY & POLITELY. While still being rude to the other black people (US citizens). This confused her'as she was still BLACK, LIKE HER FRIENDS IN THE SAME CAR!!. Myself being from the UK, could immediately, get where she was coming from.. and maybe understand this only it happens again from an opposite direction And I reckon one could go on to TRUMP This if there was a WHITE PERSON IN THE CAR. AND TO THEN TO double Trump, Trump it by it being a 'WHITE GUY'. That's White privilege, th3re, subtle but suddenly recognized probably how to all act accordingly. & With out being told who will get treated the most important & going down in order of priority. That's wasp(white, Anglo, Saxon, Protestant!) SENIORITY,,... COMBINED with Political Correctness right; there.
Yea, pakman gets it. There's no physics or progress in fields that requires ad hoc and logic (logic has falsely injected intelligence and intellectual thought and confidence to religious proportions not that long ago) to even qualify, evaluate as a possibility. Most physisists spend years on what is misleadingly referred to as metaphysics, Greek for "After/beyond nature" (See Aristotle library) That's partially why funding for a lot of important fields like unifying forces in field theory; Such viable string theory, like those shown to theoretically and successfully, . unifying gravity with electromagnetism, s/w nuclear force, more important now than ever if we're to understand dark matter, these tasks suffers from specialist while lacking and in
Agree with him or not, which I don't, this guy makes absolutely zero logical arguments while claiming to be all about logic and epistemology. Around 24:00 he makes so many fallacies in a single argument that I was genuinely impressed. Starts with an anecdote that he conveniently can't back up, then just states that there must therefore be something intrinsically toxic about gender studies, and then immediately asserts that the reason for that is that gender studies teachers are radical ideologues. Wow. You can't make this stuff up. Keep in mind, all of this was in response to asking how he knows gender studies teachers are activists at their core. "I know it because gender studies is bad and its bad because their activists." Wild
This interview was made before his experiment too expose the corroptin in the gender studis department was public know he has proff of what he was saing. Look him up on youtube with greavebce studis and you will see.
I know this is not a substantive criticism of David but I just find him so deeply unlikable… someone without a shred of authenticity or charm.. with a face and mannerisms that make you want to punch him. Just yuck. So confused that he has a following. How?
Pikaia Gracilens how about his support for gay marriage? His battle against climate change deniers? He votes democrat, supported Hillary, dislikes trump. Supports womans right to choose. He is anything but a troll. He described himself as a classical liberal. So if you are implying he is right wing you are off.
I simply couldn't understand the whole issue of trying to cite someone he thought did good work, and that being refused, and then somehow link it to the conclusion that the work is just predending, not based in reality.... the work he himself found good and wanted to cite?
He tried 2 other scholars who has the same conclusion. THREE gender scholars could NOT cite a single gender scholar who is doing presently good work. Isn't that surprising? In any other field, experts are well aware of those doing good work in their own fields.
My personal beliefs on an everlasting god are very complicated. Its a personal thing though and it should be for everyone. I dont care for religous fanatics condeming atheists to hell, but I also dont care for atheists who seem offended by others belief in god. Calling a person's personal belief in god pretending is such a flawed and ignorant view point.
When he says, "That's not how people define faith"... he does not understand that people feel God's love. And his wife is a real person, but he still could wake up one day and discover that she never loved him, even though he believed she did. There are other kinds of perception than the perceptions we have through our five senses. Some of us feel like we are "in" God, all day. We are still afraid to die, and feel a lack of faith when things are difficult, but for those of us who have faith (Pistis), it is frequently substantiated throughout life through experience and ......through "realization". Believing in God has a lot to do with understanding. People should also try to understand the "psychological types" as explained by Jung. Thinking, rational types don't get it. But you thinking rational types have a lot of nerve insisting that you know everything.
How do I know? Carl Jung was asked if he believed in God. He said, "I don't believe - I know." If you have spiritual experiences, you know. How dare he impose his lack of experience on those of us who have experiential knowledge. Faith is not "pretending to know things we don't know". YOU do not know, but you have no right to insist that others are pretending. Thanks David, for getting at the crux of the matter. Does this guy know anything about intuition? So many atheists suffer at the end from their lack of faith, because faith is something that develops over a lifetime, and the crises are the times that people challenge themselves to get a better grasp of what it means to "love God".
What is his beef about intersectionality? Intersectionality is like Venn diagram. Where identities intersect. And how those identifies at their nexus impact one’s location in society. This guy is responding to the displacement of white maleness as yardstick.
If you listen to Boghossian talk (without being interrupted all the time) you'll actually hear him speak approvingly of the insights that Crenshaw brought to the analysis of inequalities. The locus of his concern is the way in which intersectionality interacts with standpoint epistemology and moral worth. The way intersectional analysis is applied in public discourse and in some parts of academia is a sort of Manichean test. Those on the top of the intersectional hierarchy are Evil; those on the bottom are Good. Membership in an oppressor class entails epistemic and ethical inferiority, and those memberships intersect to increase that inferiority, such that a white male is less Evil and less ignorant than a white heterosexual male. Conversely, a black female is less Good and less knowledgeable tan a black lesbian. This sort of "oppression Olympics" promotes a never-ending factionalization that is ultimately self-defeating.
And that makes you a red flag for being an SJW, satanist, anti life, anti free speech, bigoted, misandrist, self entitled feminist who have done nothing good or created nothing worthwhile in their life.
Either we go back to classical liberalism which is the only way to coexist in a multiracial country where we take responsibilities for our own choices and accept the consequences for our own faults, or you can expect economic collapse and a civil war, it will eventually happen. True egalitarianism also means women should be paying way more in taxes because they suck up over 70% of of social security and healthcare cost. Normally it's okay for good men to cede things to women, but these are not normal times. You have intersectionality to thank for that.
Why do people that know they are ideologues and don’t make sense even want people on their show that has logic? All it does is show the lunacy of their points and brings into question anything they have ever said. Not bright at all.
Yeah, a tough claim to justify. It’s disturbing that Breitbart is second most popular political site on the internet, Trump is president, Brexit threatens to tear the UK apart and endangers the Good Friday Agreement, Marine Le Pen almost became president of France ... and yet people still think that the “regressive left” is the biggest threat facing humanity. (Of course, some argue that the latter caused the former, but if you look at polling, that’s simply not true.)
Marius De Cordier If you were used to write in several languages with a keyboard working in the default language - which It happens not to be English - or you have a broader imagination, you would not need to ask ..... Mind your own business, darling.
28:40 Boghossian seen an interview with Larry Elder on the Rubin Report and it "really made him think". That's a good meme. Someone should tell him a little bit about Dave Rubin and his particular ideology. 43:30 What's interesting is that I never feel like I have to be careful when I speak because someone might brand me a racist, homophobe or sexist. This is a common right wing talking point that stems from right wing discussions often having a discriminatory nature. I do however agree that the people on a small portion of the left who are making us look bad need to refrain from calling people racist because it tends to shut down the conversation and makes everyone defensive. However, the overton window has been shifted so far right that many Americans can't even identify when something is racist, so there's that too..
Pengalen Do you have an example of non-race related comments being regarded as racist? I never have a problem with this at all. But I've also put a good amount of effort in educating myself on those subjects which helps to identify racial and other biases in normal everyday conversation that are forms of internal biases. The important part is identifying unconcious biases that are a product of history and culture that we wouldn't consider biased or racist or whatever because that's the tea we're steeped in.
Boghossian is a man who has "grown-up" conversations with Stefan Molyneux. The guy is a joke and only his fellow brainwashed IDW cultists take him seriously.
@John Wiesmer Affirmative action policies are an imperfect way to account for disadvantage and adversity faced by POC. It gets turned into a cartoon as if it's not intended to right a historical wrong. Also it's not every single black person gets the job over white people it's much more nuanced. In principle it's bad but what can be done? A lot of people, mostly conservatives, don't believe in systemic racism, implicit bias, historical oppression no less go out and seek the info that describes the consequences of these phenomena. It's not perfect but it's one idea.
Building bridges isn’t the end goal of any academic school except architecture and engineering. That’s not a good measure for the success of a field. Philosophy is important because it teaches people different ways of viewing the world and thinking critically. Gender studies teaches people to uncritically parrot a narrow ideological view. I took a fender studies class in college and it was a total joke.
@@squatch545 I'm the opposite of 'in a bubble!' Kind of proved by the fact i watch guys like Packman, Kyle K, Jimmy Dore etc.. And read likes of the Guardian, NYT and Washington Post. Non of these people /institutions reflect my personal political outlook - likewise most of MSM. BBC, CNN etc - yet i check it out so as NOT to be 'in a bubble.' Disagree with my point all you want, but do just that! Disagree with my point. On ITS merits. Trying to attribute motive - 'oh, you only think that' cause you're in a bubble ' only serves to highlight aspects of who you are. Do you consume news from left and right wing mediums? Do you watch Crowder or Gavin McInnes or Ben Shapiro on regular basis? And their own shoes. Not clips lifted and put on line to show how' racist, sexist, homphobic etc' they are! Attributed motive or attacking the individual rather than engaging them in debate about what is up for question is getting all too common in all forms of discussion in current era. It is undoubtedly to do with the Marxism that is dominating education and the media that is to blame. 'Attack your opponent, label them a racist, attribute false motive' - is Marxism 101. Its right out of `rules for radicals. ' Very sad. Learn to think for yourself and don't just regurgitate stuff to try and sound clever!!j
@@edwardmcmanus Lol..."Marxism" Gotcha. You are attributing the motive of Marxism to the media because you don't like it? "Oh you only think that because you're a Marxist" Fucking hilarious! You are doing EXACTLY what you just accused me of doing. Your complete lack of self awareness is simply astonishing to behold. You're not fooling anyone, let alone me. I had you pegged right from the get go. You're just a grifter pretending to be oh so 'independent' and 'above it all'. Yeah sure.
Anybody else feel like he was reading from a script. To me it seemed he was constantly going back and reading additional things of of his script. And if you watch his eyes he is looking up and to the left a lot. The Rubin interview at least felt genuine. This felt like propaganda from Boghossian.
Ruby Midnyte his book "A manual for creating atheist" is a great read and very educational. Peter B is 100000x smarter than Sargon. He has contributed more to education specifically interventions and drug addiction. He is a classical liberal. You know nothing of him of you compare Peter to Sargon
I think this was why I originally subscribbed to this channel.
David used to be really good at asking questions, and good faith push back.
I love Peter Boghossian, and usually he's on the ball, but David's questions really made him explain himself, and probably why 5 years later he's so much better.
He right, what he's saying is that gender studies shouldn't be a department or discipline worthy of a degree discipline, it should be under Sociology and just a class.
Just here to see Pakman completely out of his league.
Me too!!
What planet are you living on??
@@chewyjello1 a planet home to critical thinkers called earth. Apparently out of the 59 people that liked the comment you are the only person that voiced disagreement. Ahhh democracy in action.
Not a big fan of his, but he seemed to hang in there pretty well. He asked fairly intelligent questions, and their disagreements were of `degree' not `kind'.
Just watch any of his videos
Please all fellow lefties lets return to the time when we believed in objective thinking and free speech before we destroy ourselves politically for ever. Guys like Pakman seem to ride the waves of a very biased media. Although I disagree with Packman mostly always respect for having Boghossian on.
21:43 David, that's the point. Gender studies is relevant, which is why it shouldn't be dominated by ideologues.
Imagine that people who believe in lamarckian evolution set up their own departments, did sham studies proving the 'Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics' , peer reviewed those among themselves and gave each other tenure , and called the field 'biology' .
That would do a lot of damage to the credibility of the field of biology.
That's what's happening with gender studies. Sociology is too important to let it be discredited by ideologically dominated fields like gender studies.
The best solution isn't to just defund gender studies though, it's to the ideologues out of their, and get principled scientists in.
It's going to though to do that though, as it's already too far gone, so that you can't make it in that field if your conclusions aren't what the ideologues want to hear.
@daimon hellstrom "intersectionality" isn't anything other than man-bashing and then "hey, I'm going to get more friends that aren't the people I hate and convince my new friends that we need to fight the people I hate together."
23:29 "Just to keep laser focused" .
David , he was laser focused. You keep interrupting him. Is he not fitting in the narrative you were hoping for ?
No, I think he was just dodging the obvious objection to his incoherent ramblings.
Peter was more interesting in his answers, interrupted as they were, than David asking the questions. It felt like a great orchestra playing a great symphony being interrupted periodically by fingers scratching a blackboard.
@@coweatsman That's a good point. When Boghossian was making his point about the validity of some aspects of academe, and especially the logic and evidence free field of authoethnography, it seemed that Packman was struggling to keep up.
@@rstevens7711 Pakman always struggles embarrassingly whenever his guest is more honest and perceptive than he is.
Well the problem with gender study departments is that they do not conduct research about gender. Sociologist, neurologist etc. do this. Gender Study departments simply try to pass on a moral world view to students. In fact, when gender study professors are confronted with results that come from scientifically analyzing gender etc., it often goes against their views, with the result that they go nuts and call the findings misogynistic and the result of male dominance. Gender studies as currently present in academia has nothing to do with science and all with indoctrination.
Actually there have been virtual mountains of research papers from gender studies department. I'm not going to comment on their quality (because I'm not that interested), but a quick search will reveal a shit-ton of papers on for example "gender expressions". Did you actually check before you made this claim about Gender studies departments?
I think you did not read properly what I wrote, I did not say gender study departments do not produce papers. I said what they produce does not pass as research. Boghossian explains it in the video, he talks about this extensively. Yes, they do produce tons papers, but it would not pass peer review. At least not until they started their own journals and now gender scientists peer review each other and surprisingly, the reports pass peer review. But it would not pass peer review in sociology journal for example as it would have to pass the review of a statistician.
The whole point of these reports is not to find truth but to proof what the researcher already believes in. A gender researcher will never find contradicting evidence to what the researcher believes. And I am using here "they" to make this simple, I (unlike Boghossian) don't think everybody in the field is working like this , there must be academics in the field who actually are interested to find the true nature of things.
But I encourage you to go to a couple college websites and look at the mission statements of the gender study departments and you will find many that make it crystal clear that finding about the true nature of things is not the goal but to teach students to believe in what they already think it the irrevocable truth. That is not science, that is preaching. It should not be taught on a university campus, this is something that should be in a similar setting as a church or something.
Max Power what do you define as peer review?
I haven't thought of that peer review can be interpreted in different ways, in my view peer review is well defined. Do you suggest that it is somewhat ambiguous? Probably the best way to get to the ground of this, why don't you give me your understanding how peer review is defined and we can go from there?
You talk about peer review as if it were magic. It seems like you want to impose certain standards on papers that you like without any proper rigorous definition of what makes them 'research'.
Watching interview after exposing gender studies jounals makes this so much better. He was literally 100% correct. They published a study about dog rape and how it was a symptom of rape culture hahaha. Everyone who didnt believe him about how big a problem it was can eat it.
Oh you missed the Mein Kampf turned Feminism and published with laurels...
The best part of the whole affair was the attempt to go after them for fraud.
Gender is important and we should be studying it. Therefore gender studies departments should be defunded because they teach that gender (and sometimes even biological sex) is a social construct. Both claims fly in the face of the evidence. That should disqualify gender studies as a legitimate field, full stop.
Biologists have far more legitimate things to say about gender than any gender studies department.
If we want to have specific gender based research and build a curriculum around that, it should be science led, rather than led by feminism.
You're confusing sex with gender. There's actually some interesting stuff in the field, if you're interested in understanding what you denounce.
@@HopperDragon "if you're interested in understanding"
DING DING DING!
And that's why they'll never understand...
@@HopperDragon "Gender" and "sex" were synonymous until the 60s when John Money toyed around with a child who'd been injured in a circumcision accident. Linked is a BBC documentary. His "experiment" was a horrific, painful failure which Money ignored and decided it was a success before David hit puberty. Money created the separation of the two words as a result of his theories being "successful". It's all word games. "Gender" at this point is just basically some description of your personality with infinite terms changing daily or minute-to-minute based on how you feel. At the same time, "gender" is conflated with biological sex whenever applicable and hatespeech legislation enforces this conflation with the violence of the state.
th-cam.com/video/MUTcwqR4Q4Y/w-d-xo.html
@@za5820 The worst part of your ridiculous opinion is that it is not useful. There is an important distinction between sex and gender, and it is useful to know the difference. Gender refers to the social forces that say a man should wear a suit to a funeral instead of a dress. It's what society says should be associated with a given sex, and has changed drastically from culture to culture and decade to decade. People like you love to bring up the Money experiments because it saves you from having to respond to actual arguments and theory. If your extrapolation from the abhorrent Money event is that transgender procedures are therefore all awful mutilations, I challenge you to look into the writings of literally any significant research group in the world on the topic of transgender issues, and I think you'll find that everyone reputable in the field, such as the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the WHO, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the Human Rights Campaign, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians, the United Nations, United Kingdom’s National Health Service and many others agree that: trans people are valid, have existed throughout history, and experience significant discrimination, that transness is not a mental disorder, and that social and physical transition are the best ways to help.
You'll claim there's some terrible agenda at play, but once again I CHALLENGE you to actually observe the methodology of these studies and try to point out anything unscientific about them. As an example, this (whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/) is an ENORMOUS meta-meta-analysis on transgender people and the effect gender transition has on their mental health. Of 56 studies, 52 indicated transitioning has a positive effect on the mental health of transgender people and 4 indicated it had mixed or no results. ZERO studies indicated gender transitioning has negative results. This pretty much ends the argument right here. I beg you to conduct your own research that disproves everything every educated person knows about gender and publish it, completely shaking the world and immediately collecting a Nobel prize.
Just because you don't understand the words, doesn't make it "all word games". Just because you don't or won’t understand or look into the science, doesn't mean the scientific consensus on an issue is wrong.
Lastly, I'd love if your snowflake ass tried to cite an actual example of the violence of the state enforcing the conflation of sex and gender. Any such law that has been passed, such as C-16 in Canada, simply add "gender identity" to the list of things employers cannot legally discriminate against. Show me in the law where your free speech is being stifled, you whiny victim. Did you know you can't call someone the n-word in the workplace either? How could the state limit your free speech like that!! Clown.
@@za5820 Oh shit I'm sorry I didn't mean to hurt your feelings
Wow, Peter is amazing
Great video!
I think this is the first time that I am seeing a video by David Packman, where the comment section seems to be on “ his opponents” side.
I don't understand why he focuses so much on comparing gender studies to engineering but doesn't compare it to philosophy and then talk about the methodology and the differences. Wouldn't that be a more relevant comparison?
I think what he should have said is that "It's difficult to compare logic with illogic because they actually have nothing in common"
Gender Studies in many ways reminds more of 'Neo Conservatism' which came off as more of a strict doctrine than as a set of policies.
Pakman, regarding the gravity uniformity example, if we get evidence that indicates that gravity is not uniform we might change our minds, based on the strength of the overall evidence for or against the idea. Religious faith tends to be impervious to evidence, so I don't think its fair to call such a belief faith. One is an assumption that we make based on partial-evidence and the degree to which we have confidence should correlate with the strength of the evidence. With faith evidence has no part to play. In my experience, when somebody tries to defend their faith with what they think is evidence or a good argument, its really just rationalization to try and convince themselves.
You might be surprise to hear this, but force of gravity on objects on Earth is non-uniform and depends on your location and altitude.
There's something like a "semantic fundamentalism" here. Too much importance given to words that have more flexible meanings. Both "faith" and "pretending". Not that long ago you'd have mainstream scientists phrasing things like "the doctrine of Darwinism", non-sarcastically, being "darwinists" themselves. You'd probably also have some phrasings with "faith" every now and them. It's still common to speak of the "central dogma" of biology, that phenotype derives from the genotype.
And regarding actual religious faith/belief, you can in a figure of speech, say they "pretend" they know more than they really know, without necessarily implying they secretly don't think they know what they purport to know. They just a stronger rudimentary influence of "feeling" in what they suppose they know, or are more susceptible to a conflation between the "feel good"/gut-feeling thing, and truth. Perhaps a more complete and less polemic wording would be that religious faith involves "pretending to oneself", rather than pretending to others.
Even though perhaps the social dynamics makes both things self-reinforce to some degree. People seek the approval of being one who really has faith, may pretend they do, and others do the same. But while that may even be fairly common, there must be at least an equal number of people who just honestly, naïvely believe things without evidence, "feeling the truth in their hearts" and so on.
Peter Boghossian boss mode!
Go to a gender studies department. Take a class. Ask a question. Tell me that's not religious belief in ideology. 😊
45:00 I'm super curious if David still thinks those issues are relatively isolated?
Around 26 minutes Peter makes such a weird logical leap. Just because a few people didnt want to talk to him, it doesn't mean their work is suspect. Also, he even admits there is plenty of people who study gender and use rigorous methods. They are in sociology and psychology and public health departments.
"he even admits there is plenty of people who study gender and use rigorous methods." = "Obviously not all people who study gender are bad." And?
Lmao. This makes a lot more sense after the brilliant hoax they did.
+Marina Proger Being a fraud is "brilliant"?
@Gina @ National Progress Alliance Shrieking about "woke" hysteria is tedious wingnuttery masquerading as academic discourse, particularly from the perspective of waste of effort and resources like philosophy.
@Gina @ National Progress Alliance And ironically, this raving demagogue is now ideologically aligned with religious fundamentalism.
@Gina @ National Progress Alliance So since you agree that the "woke" hysteria movement is tedious and that it is absolutely a wingnut grievance religion, then what are you sniveling about? When universities commit to critical thinking skills, wingnut batshittery is relegated to radical hysterical mode, and critical thinkers categorize it accordingly. Pseudo-philosophers like you and Boghossian don't represent philosophy and critical thinking, regardless of whatever philosophy is worth--an arguable proposition to begin with.
@Gina @ National Progress Alliance You are dishonestly conflating critical thinking with philosophy, demonstrating that you are lacking in the area of critical thinking. You use the term "barbaric" in what seems to be a bigoted and non-critical way. Do you have any actual training in critical thinking? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't so stupidly buy into "woke" hysteria. The masses adhere to dogma? Which dogma? Do you ever make a claim that isn't idiotic and vacuous?
I'm not sure if David Pakman intentionally ignored Peter Boghossian's point about a secular religion on the left or genuinely ran out of time. I'd have liked to hear a response.
15:00 he just moved his own goal post from "course description" to "department mission statement" because he couldn't answer David's query to give ONE example of his claim. Not saying he couldn't find such examples but he should have some on deck considering he makes a living off this angle
David have you looked into arranging the discussion/debate talked about here between law enforcement and minority rights activists and police reform activists? Maybe include lawyers to explain how we need to change legal statutes to support these desired improvements?
My money is on Boghossian being sick of lecturing and is leveraging his reactionary stage act about "cultural marxist feminist regressives controlling academia" for that budding crypto-fascist market, his aim fixated on starting a TH-cam channel complete with a fat Patreon. The line David starts around the 12:00 mark (or rather the Professor's cringey fumble-fest of an answer) exposes him as the true ideologue. "Gawrsh, you sure are asking so many questions!" Stick to Philosophy 1, doc.
Im watching a conversation between two, i assume from them saying it, atheists, and one of them is defending "faith" from a position of faithlessness. Yet i know why his doing it. Like watching a medic from the opposing army trying to save one of your own. Brings a tear
Why do academics always have to list out their creditials like they impress us. I am concerned with what you have to say, not your defrees.
You spelled degreeh wrong
Just look at Peter's face during the first 10-15 seconds of this video. You can see that he knows he's about to spend the next 50 minutes of his life trying to have a productive conversation with a human water balloon made out of chicken wire.
Excellent questioning, Mr Pakman. I admire Peter Boghossian immensely but his use of the words "pretending" and "delusional" in regard to faith are unhelpful. There is no mention of the influence of cultural upbringing which is a massive factor in people's worldview(s). Maybe it is different in the US but in the UK theology studies are usually based on history, philosophy and a critical approach to Scripture (textual analysis etc). This not a pseudo subject, whereas philosophy often is. I have studied both and philosophy courses were just about learning what famous philosophers said. Philosophising for yourself is just not on the course. Academics should be encouraging critical thinking and self questioning. Really good and thought provoking interview. Thanks.
I feel like you cant have it both ways and David is rightly pointing it out. Faith isnt sureness, doubt is not its opposite rather a part of it. It is more like hope and hope is irrational many times. Having hope might seem insane sometimes but it is definitely different than a delusion. While the leap in religion is a leap, so are things in science be it a different leap. Both has to say there things we dont know anything about somethings we do know. As a relgious person, I dont care much about heaven or hell, things I cant know. What I do know, even science backs it up. Like rest is good, helping others does me good, love thy enemy is a wise, listen more than you speak, nonviolence, etc.
David, did you ever get around to trying to hold such a conference? Have you reached out to someone like Michael A. Wood?
Oh God. "Dr." Micheal A. Wood is a royal asshole.
I don't think you want someone who calls himself a "race realist" taking part in a discussion between police and black activists.
Are we talking about the same person? I'm talking about that ex cop that blew the whistle on his fellow cops who were racial profiling
As a philosopher, I'm disappointed by Dr Boghossian's struggle to find his footing in articulating the gender studies issue, despite the fact that he's in the right. This is very simple: any course that isn't purely philosophical and thus deals in facts and evidence rather than abstract truths must be judged by its adherence to said facts and evidence. Consider the following propositions and whether courses based on them should be taught in public colleges:
- ''The Earth is flat.''
- ''The Universe is 6000 years old.''
- ''Humans were created by God and expelled from Heaven.''
If your answer to all of these is a resounding ''No!'', then, assuming your intellectual honesty, I would expect your equally firm condemnation of the proposition that humans are not a sexually dimorphic species. And if your knee-jerk response to this is that ''Gender exists on a spectrum!'', I would merely point out that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
My problem with gender (who's definition seems to depend on context eg. Used as confoundings/explanatory in biology vs used colloquially wrt to 'alpha' males) is how it seems to be defined as a subset of expressions that have biological roots (with binary classification). How these expressions have biological roots is unclear if not just assumed often by appeals to tradition. Given that both appeals to tradition and assuming are not very convincing, it's not that 'gender exists on a spectrum' is convincing but that 'gender is binary' is ill-defined and rarely evidenced. My null is on expressions are just expression, to state that they have biological roots must be evidenced.
Secondly, gender is often used as a blunt hammer to make others conform to the perceived binary. Case in point, Shapiro has stated, paraphrasing, that your potential as a human being is maximized if you are a masculine male. This may very well have some religious undertones but if it does not, from a skeptical perspective, this is alot of unsupported baloney.
In regards to your first point, yes, I understand that such confusions tend to arise in regards to what gender actually is and how it relates to sex. To keep it as closely aligned with observable facts and scientific data as possible, I tend to consider it to be the mental counterpart of sex which has some socially constructed aspects to it, but is mostly reducible to biology. The position that gender is just an expression or even a single trait makes gender essentially meaningless and gives credence to people who claim there are literally millions of genders. This is a case of Russell's teapot, the burden on proof is on those who claim that gender is completely disconnected from sex.
As to the second, I'll grant you that it can be used as a hammer to make others conform to the perceived binary, but, ironically, it is now being used as a hammer to make others conform to the concocted non-binary through the Canadian Bill C16, the State of New York's ''protected genders'' legislature, etc.
I've listened to a lot of Ben's talks about gender, but don't remember that particular point. He is, of course, coming from a very conservative religious perspective, but that doesn't invalidate his point. Whether we like it or not, our biology is part of our identity. The transgender happiness level and suicide rates are data that can't be ignored here, nor can they be dismissed as irrelevant. I think that Ben articulately exposes most central issues of today's gender theory in his ''Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgenderism And Pro-Abortion Arguments'' video over on Daily Wire, despite the overblown, wacky self-praise in the title.
@Long duk dong race is also a gender construct but yet people still attack some for claiming to be transracial
I look forward to watching David try to gaslight Peter Boghossian.
Hasn't this guy ever heard of Soren Kierkegaard? The "leap of faith ". Having a belief system does not necessarily mean that one is pretending to know more than we do.
Faith is the tension of resistance to doubt.
Love Peter- not David.
I don't believe in a god or any other deities. I don't adhere to any religious beliefs. And i don't believe in an afterlife. I'm an atheist, and I'm happy that way. I don't need iron-age fairy tales to tell me to be compassionate. I feel compassion from my own heart. To love ones neighbor as himself, to treat other's kindly, to do the most possible good one can. These are things that we can accomplish without the belief in a deity. My purpose here isn't to live the greatest most moral life because Yahweh wants me too, it's because it makes me happy to make others happy. That is my purpose. As for the afterlife, when our time has come, are conscious Minds become absent from the reality that we've observed. Why not make the best of every possible conscious moment through Love, Laughter, Joy, and Harmony. Life is our greatest gift and we shouldn't take it for granted.
What is reality? Do we have faith in our physical existence?
I have faith in my big ol' pecker!
if i hear "unpack" one more time in 2017..
Why? Could you maybe unpack your concern?
Unpack -2019 👍💪
David, let the man answer.
Boston College is letting David Pakman teach a course? BC grads take notice. Burn your degrees and say you did some credits online. Anything is better than being associated with a school that would have David Pakman as a professor.
Around 31:00 : where do you get that blacks who have problems with the police are immigrants who learned english after age 10?
Oh my god, what a train wreck of a discussion around 34:00...
You mean when one party starts citing statistics on faith? As in "not something he knows because he didn't actually look"?
I think I hurt my forehead at that one.
Seems like he never did get back to inductive reasoning. I don't see that he fully understands the questions that David asks. Not a lot of depth beyond the surface of his main argument. He has a few talking points using a very restricted vocabulary, and can't seem to shake them off.
Interesting that each time he says "this is a huge point / huge conversation that would take a lot to unpack", what he really means is "I feel like answering cogently this question is very difficult and it would take me forever to formulate a position correctly" -- even though these are topics that he keeps taking positions on. And this is usually where he gets off on a tangent and never gets back to the original question.
I disagree on your interpretation of what he said. He doesn't say "it would take a lot to unpack", at 9:40 he says "it's a huge thing we HAVE to unpack". Which he then briefly does, they define the terms between themselves. And, well, he did write a book on it hehe. Sorry, but I really don't see why he should be reading out from it. He does have to sell it, that's how he'll be able to publish more books :P
How do you infer from the fact he's using "restricted vocabulary" that his argument is shallow? I'm convinced he uses restricted vocabulary because he needs well defined terms so him and David aren't using the same words for slightly different versions of the same concepts, and without any attempt at condescension, to make his speech available to a wider public without good grasp of technical terminology.
I should say, I am among the skepticals who read his book and now find themselves using a lot of what they learned in their daily lives, to facilitate communication in otherwise possibly conflictuous daily conversations.
(The book is not the only thing he's being interviewed on here, so don't expect to find all the ideas he presents here in it. Don't forget interviews are a format of guided Q&A).
I highly recommend it, it's a quick read, easily accessible, and can definitely introduce you to a tool I would describe as incredibly useful. This doesn't by all means imply I agree with his positions on diverse issues - but read the book, look up the street epistemology movement it's at the root of, and decide for yourself :)
i think there's a significant and important difference between white privilege and black disprivilege.
Granted I've only read the Wikipedia entry on Intersectionality (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality) but it makes sense to me. We make judgements of people based on their race, gender, age, etc. And the categories combine to change how we judge people. It seems obvious and unoffensive to me.
Faith is a hunch. That’s basically it. Pretending? Belief is not synonymous with fact. Can the metaphysical be proven? Nyet. It’s about be-ing. It falls outside the ambit of logic or reason. I don’t believe that Bahgosian has a shallow understanding of these terms.
Terribly conducted interview, annoyingly unprofessional
Boghossian has reverse stopped-clock syndrome. He is on point when it comes to just about all things falling within his disciplinary territory, but when he says stuff like "the regressive left have taken over academia", it gives me serious pause.
It has been demonstrated objectively to be the case, tho.
Check out the hoaxes they did and objectivity is becoming political i.e. opinion. The left in the West seem for some bizarre reason to give their enemies free speech and objective thinking. All sane lefties, including myself, need to get behind guys like Boghossian and take the left back before we destroy ourselves for ever.
@@raharu000 well, i guess if the maniacal loon weren't a maniacal loon, he'd recognize that he's being a maniacal loon, wouldn't you? so i guess you get a free pass there. show me where in the government guidelines on teaching math in Portland public schools it says that objectivity is white supremacy.
You cannot be serious and dream up own definitions of central words.
You know what, when the discussion went to the subject of the police, racism, and creating communication -- I ran into a bunch of Ted Talks by policemen and police chiefs discussing these problems, very enlightening and in some ways surprising -- highly recommend doing a search for those Ted Talks if interested in this issue.
43-40/ish an eg!
A black uk citezen&clComedian, was pulled over in America by the police_with a group of other black people, in; the USA.
& She describes, being treated similarly too the other black people in the car, Until, She spoke';& The US Cop, recognized her Uk accent and then went on to APOLOGIZE to her, By way of saying he's sorry he'd thought she was BLACK!!.
AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TREATED HER CIVILLY & POLITELY.
While still being rude to the other black people (US citizens).
This confused her'as she was still BLACK, LIKE HER FRIENDS IN THE SAME CAR!!.
Myself being from the UK, could immediately, get where she was coming from..
and maybe understand this only it happens again from an opposite direction
And I reckon one could go on to TRUMP This if there was a WHITE PERSON IN THE CAR. AND TO THEN TO double Trump, Trump it by it being a 'WHITE GUY'.
That's White privilege, th3re, subtle but suddenly recognized probably how to all act accordingly.
& With out being told who will get treated the most important & going down in order of priority.
That's wasp(white, Anglo, Saxon, Protestant!) SENIORITY,,... COMBINED with Political Correctness right; there.
Yea, pakman gets it. There's no physics or progress in fields that requires ad hoc and logic (logic has falsely injected intelligence and intellectual thought and confidence to religious proportions not that long ago) to even qualify, evaluate as a possibility. Most physisists spend years on what is misleadingly referred to as metaphysics, Greek for "After/beyond nature" (See Aristotle library) That's partially why funding for a lot of important fields like unifying forces in field theory; Such viable string theory, like those shown to theoretically and successfully, . unifying gravity with electromagnetism, s/w nuclear force, more important now than ever if we're to understand dark matter, these tasks suffers from specialist while lacking and in
Agree with him or not, which I don't, this guy makes absolutely zero logical arguments while claiming to be all about logic and epistemology. Around 24:00 he makes so many fallacies in a single argument that I was genuinely impressed. Starts with an anecdote that he conveniently can't back up, then just states that there must therefore be something intrinsically toxic about gender studies, and then immediately asserts that the reason for that is that gender studies teachers are radical ideologues. Wow. You can't make this stuff up. Keep in mind, all of this was in response to asking how he knows gender studies teachers are activists at their core. "I know it because gender studies is bad and its bad because their activists." Wild
HopperDragon I watch them on Twitter, they totally exist. They eat each other, but slowly.
This interview was made before his experiment too expose the corroptin in the gender studis department was public know he has proff of what he was saing.
Look him up on youtube with greavebce studis and you will see.
I know this is not a substantive criticism of David but I just find him so deeply unlikable… someone without a shred of authenticity or charm.. with a face and mannerisms that make you want to punch him. Just yuck. So confused that he has a following. How?
David is a smart guy. Our big disagreement comes on how he thinks everything is Anti-Semitic.
"Smart"..."Irrational"...
No, he isn't. He just parrots the cultural marxist talking points and has zero objectivity. He's a complete fraud.
billyum braskey Yeah. He’s an image of a person. Not whole. A pharisee, as the Bible would say. So many people are like that, including parents.
Sheldon Cooper was right: "psychology is not a science"
psychology or philosophy?
I agree with him about atheism. The rest just seems whiny.
Boghossian is a simpleton on every other issue than atheism, and he's been basically a troll for the last couple years
Pikaia Gracilens how about his support for gay marriage? His battle against climate change deniers? He votes democrat, supported Hillary, dislikes trump. Supports womans right to choose. He is anything but a troll. He described himself as a classical liberal. So if you are implying he is right wing you are off.
I simply couldn't understand the whole issue of trying to cite someone he thought did good work, and that being refused, and then somehow link it to the conclusion that the work is just predending, not based in reality.... the work he himself found good and wanted to cite?
He tried 2 other scholars who has the same conclusion. THREE gender scholars could NOT cite a single gender scholar who is doing presently good work. Isn't that surprising? In any other field, experts are well aware of those doing good work in their own fields.
How about the absence of free will or existence thereof? Faith, hypothesis, fact, suspicion?
My personal beliefs on an everlasting god are very complicated. Its a personal thing though and it should be for everyone. I dont care for religous fanatics condeming atheists to hell, but I also dont care for atheists who seem offended by others belief in god. Calling a person's personal belief in god pretending is such a flawed and ignorant view point.
When he says, "That's not how people define faith"... he does not understand that people feel God's love. And his wife is a real person, but he still could wake up one day and discover that she never loved him, even though he believed she did. There are other kinds of perception than the perceptions we have through our five senses. Some of us feel like we are "in" God, all day. We are still afraid to die, and feel a lack of faith when things are difficult, but for those of us who have faith (Pistis), it is frequently substantiated throughout life through experience and ......through "realization". Believing in God has a lot to do with understanding. People should also try to understand the "psychological types" as explained by Jung. Thinking, rational types don't get it. But you thinking rational types have a lot of nerve insisting that you know everything.
How do I know? Carl Jung was asked if he believed in God. He said, "I don't believe - I know." If you have spiritual experiences, you know. How dare he impose his lack of experience on those of us who have experiential knowledge. Faith is not "pretending to know things we don't know". YOU do not know, but you have no right to insist that others are pretending. Thanks David, for getting at the crux of the matter. Does this guy know anything about intuition?
So many atheists suffer at the end from their lack of faith, because faith is something that develops over a lifetime, and the crises are the times that people challenge themselves to get a better grasp of what it means to "love God".
I've never seen a guy babble on and say absolutely nothing for this length of time
What is his beef about intersectionality? Intersectionality is like Venn diagram. Where identities intersect. And how those identifies at their nexus impact one’s location in society. This guy is responding to the displacement of white maleness as yardstick.
If you listen to Boghossian talk (without being interrupted all the time) you'll actually hear him speak approvingly of the insights that Crenshaw brought to the analysis of inequalities. The locus of his concern is the way in which intersectionality interacts with standpoint epistemology and moral worth.
The way intersectional analysis is applied in public discourse and in some parts of academia is a sort of Manichean test. Those on the top of the intersectional hierarchy are Evil; those on the bottom are Good. Membership in an oppressor class entails epistemic and ethical inferiority, and those memberships intersect to increase that inferiority, such that a white male is less Evil and less ignorant than a white heterosexual male. Conversely, a black female is less Good and less knowledgeable tan a black lesbian. This sort of "oppression Olympics" promotes a never-ending factionalization that is ultimately self-defeating.
Anytime people call themselves classical liberals that is always a big red flag for me.
And that makes you a red flag for being an SJW, satanist, anti life, anti free speech, bigoted, misandrist, self entitled feminist who have done nothing good or created nothing worthwhile in their life.
See, here is a "classical liberal" to prove my point. lol Hey you forgot to say "anti-white" during your irrational rant. lol
Either we go back to classical liberalism which is the only way to coexist in a multiracial country where we take responsibilities for our own choices and accept the consequences for our own faults, or you can expect economic collapse and a civil war, it will eventually happen. True egalitarianism also means women should be paying way more in taxes because they suck up over 70% of of social security and healthcare cost. Normally it's okay for good men to cede things to women, but these are not normal times. You have intersectionality to thank for that.
Ruby Midnyte hi Ruby what is your definition of classical Liberal? Thankyou
Why?
Taking a shit is a very important aspect of humanity but we don’t need a department to moralize about un-colonized shit taking.
Good job Pakman. Get Ben Shapiro on here.
David will hopefully recognize that his belief in Trumps connection with Russia is based entirely on faith.
Why do people that know they are ideologues and don’t make sense even want people on their show that has logic? All it does is show the lunacy of their points and brings into question anything they have ever said. Not bright at all.
You are in philosophy ,yet you won't engage with philosophy, strange.
slow claps @$$#@! Packman...
"Intersectionality - the worst plague that we are dealing with right now" Really?
Not Cancer? Religious fundementalism? Hello?
Yeah, a tough claim to justify. It’s disturbing that Breitbart is second most popular political site on the internet, Trump is president, Brexit threatens to tear the UK apart and endangers the Good Friday Agreement, Marine Le Pen almost became president of France ... and yet people still think that the “regressive left” is the biggest threat facing humanity. (Of course, some argue that the latter caused the former, but if you look at polling, that’s simply not true.)
drake stenner could you give me a link to the polls you're talking about? I'd love to see them
Boghossian says multiple times he gets his information about these topics from Dave Rubin, so it's easy to see why he is so deluded.
Lucian cahil: Here's a link of a professor saying exactly that
th-cam.com/video/wMcvzmIO3Dg/w-d-xo.html
Hi.
Ok.
Marius De Cordier If you were used to write in several languages with a keyboard working in the default language - which It happens not to be English - or you have a broader imagination, you would not need to ask ..... Mind your own business, darling.
Marius De Cordier Just live and let live, boy....
Well said.
O. K
I got mad with the keyboard
Whenever i hear someone like pakman talk about science i cringe. The only science he’s studied is political science lol
A morally motivated philosopher criticizing other academics for being morally motivated.
28:40 Boghossian seen an interview with Larry Elder on the Rubin Report and it "really made him think". That's a good meme. Someone should tell him a little bit about Dave Rubin and his particular ideology.
43:30 What's interesting is that I never feel like I have to be careful when I speak because someone might brand me a racist, homophobe or sexist. This is a common right wing talking point that stems from right wing discussions often having a discriminatory nature. I do however agree that the people on a small portion of the left who are making us look bad need to refrain from calling people racist because it tends to shut down the conversation and makes everyone defensive. However, the overton window has been shifted so far right that many Americans can't even identify when something is racist, so there's that too..
This is just a ridiculous comment. the overton window is so far to the left that normal, non-race related statements, are regarded as racist.
Pengalen Do you have an example of non-race related comments being regarded as racist? I never have a problem with this at all. But I've also put a good amount of effort in educating myself on those subjects which helps to identify racial and other biases in normal everyday conversation that are forms of internal biases. The important part is identifying unconcious biases that are a product of history and culture that we wouldn't consider biased or racist or whatever because that's the tea we're steeped in.
Boghossian is a man who has "grown-up" conversations with Stefan Molyneux. The guy is a joke and only his fellow brainwashed IDW cultists take him seriously.
@John Wiesmer Affirmative action policies are an imperfect way to account for disadvantage and adversity faced by POC. It gets turned into a cartoon as if it's not intended to right a historical wrong. Also it's not every single black person gets the job over white people it's much more nuanced. In principle it's bad but what can be done? A lot of people, mostly conservatives, don't believe in systemic racism, implicit bias, historical oppression no less go out and seek the info that describes the consequences of these phenomena. It's not perfect but it's one idea.
Would love to know what bridges have been built with Philosophy.
Gabriel Nunez-Soria if you’re talking about gender studies then I cant see many.
Building bridges isn’t the end goal of any academic school except architecture and engineering. That’s not a good measure for the success of a field. Philosophy is important because it teaches people different ways of viewing the world and thinking critically. Gender studies teaches people to uncritically parrot a narrow ideological view. I took a fender studies class in college and it was a total joke.
David kinda shut him down. If you want to make a point . Be smart about it.
David destroys another ASJW
Lol it doesn't take much to destroy a snowflake :D
What?
Packman is utterly out his depth here.
@@edwardmcmanus Huh? Get out of your bubble.
@@squatch545 I'm the opposite of 'in a bubble!'
Kind of proved by the fact i watch guys like Packman, Kyle K, Jimmy Dore etc..
And read likes of the Guardian, NYT and Washington Post.
Non of these people /institutions reflect my personal political outlook - likewise most of MSM. BBC, CNN etc - yet i check it out so as NOT to be 'in a bubble.'
Disagree with my point all you want, but do just that! Disagree with my point. On ITS merits.
Trying to attribute motive - 'oh, you only think that' cause you're in a bubble ' only serves to highlight aspects of who you are.
Do you consume news from left and right wing mediums?
Do you watch Crowder or Gavin McInnes or Ben Shapiro on regular basis?
And their own shoes. Not clips lifted and put on line to show how' racist, sexist, homphobic etc' they are!
Attributed motive or attacking the individual rather than engaging them in debate about what is up for question is getting all too common in all forms of discussion in current era.
It is undoubtedly to do with the Marxism that is dominating education and the media that is to blame.
'Attack your opponent, label them a racist, attribute false motive' - is Marxism 101. Its right out of `rules for radicals. '
Very sad.
Learn to think for yourself and don't just regurgitate stuff to try and sound clever!!j
@@edwardmcmanus Lol..."Marxism" Gotcha. You are attributing the motive of Marxism to the media because you don't like it? "Oh you only think that because you're a Marxist" Fucking hilarious! You are doing EXACTLY what you just accused me of doing. Your complete lack of self awareness is simply astonishing to behold.
You're not fooling anyone, let alone me. I had you pegged right from the get go. You're just a grifter pretending to be oh so 'independent' and 'above it all'. Yeah sure.
I consider David to be a "Godly" man. He has Love and he loves Truth. People who do not study religion should not be criticizing religious believers.
Come to eastern europe and learn about real white privilige.
this guy is just another dinosaur afraid he's going to become extinct
David Packman is such a JOKE!
He got really unreasonable on the gender studies thing.
Belief evidence of things un- seen, a profound statement . You Peter are very ignorant. You don't even read what you criticise
look up race realism
Anybody else feel like he was reading from a script. To me it seemed he was constantly going back and reading additional things of of his script. And if you watch his eyes he is looking up and to the left a lot. The Rubin interview at least felt genuine. This felt like propaganda from Boghossian.
David Packman is a pure fanny.
Boghossian is a very subpar thinker. He can't even dodge an accusation right.
I'm sorry but this guy is just another Sargon.
He does strike me as an unwitting agent of the right, and DP was right to doubt his generalizations about the campus left
Yeah, I'm just not sure about him being an "unwitting" agent.
Ruby Midnyte his book "A manual for creating atheist" is a great read and very educational. Peter B is 100000x smarter than Sargon. He has contributed more to education specifically interventions and drug addiction. He is a classical liberal. You know nothing of him of you compare Peter to Sargon
Please don't use "classical liberal" to refer to people who haven't died in the early 20th century at most.
Ruby Midnyte you da only sargon I see here yo! Bingo momma think she a dragon but has no flight or fire?