RICHARD DAWKINS vs BRET WEINSTEIN for the FIRST TIME EVER! EVOLUTION, BIOLOGY, SCIENCE!
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 04. 2024
- The venue only allowed an "archival level" video to be produced. Sorry for the low quality.
Welcome to the Pangburn Universe, governed by the laws of good faith & helpfulness.
#richarddawkins #bretweinstein #evolution #darwin #darwinism #biology #zoology #science #evolutionarypsychology #evolutionism #religion #atheism #atheist #atheistviews #darkhorselivestreams #naturalselectiontheories #darwinaustralia
An Evening with Richard Dawkins & Bret Weinstein in Chicago on Oct 23rd, 2018.
The awe-inspiring Dawkins sits down with evolutionary theorist Weinstein to talk all things evolution. - Věda a technologie
The venue only allowed an "archival level" video to be produced. Sorry for the low quality.
JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?"
Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets
Is this the Brat Whine-stain who refuses to PUBLISH PEER REVIEWED PAPERS in IMMUNOLOGY and VACCINES
and REFUSES to address any of the THOUSANDS of crushing points that Dr Dan Wilson of Debunk the Funk makes?
So instead Brat Whine-stain hangs out on the internet where there is zero peer review.
Its sad when people like Brett lean into pseudo science and religiosity. It's more mainstream/popular to shy away from the hard scientific truths... It is EASY to say "You don't know exactly how evolution works".... Yeah, because the Earth is a complex system from the cosmic, to the climate, to vast variety of environments that have changed over 3 billion years on earth... The mathematical equation to account for ALL of this is immeasurable..
The best we can do is to try to isolate some variables and test some aspects to limit our room for error. But no honest scientist claims we have every variable worked out...
This is the new god of the gaps, "Impress American audiences" approach to science and it is pathetic. It is how the American political system works also. Its laughable that we have to impress the ignorance of Americans... And their "feelings"...
No Brett. You will die and nothing of your ego will remain. Get over it.
Aye it's a joke ! All you can do is repost ancient vids . Get a job
Clearly my comment goes over a lot of people's head. My comment is about The Weinstein brothers, not this particular debate. I'm talking about INTENT. They engage in intellectual masturbation to compensate for their lack of original ideas. Their primary goal is not to make a point. It's to make the opponent and the crowd see them as intelligent. This makes them hostile debaters in the sense of being uncooperative to the very idea of discussion itself. Their participation in a conversation is not about ideas it's about them coming across as smart. They are knowledgeable but they're not thinkers. They don't bring any new ideas or new ways to view already established concepts. They appear to me as insecure people who get lost in semantics to make their points appear deeper than they are. Whenever I'm listening to them I always get the sense of "Hey look we're big boys too!". I've watched plenty of debaters and lecturers with way more complex subject matter than this and none of them gave me that "little boy trying to impress" vibe.
This is my favorite discussion with Richard Dawkins yet! even though he is uncomfortable talking about some of the topics
Bravo on organizing this discussion!! Looking forward to more!
Mathematical models. "I have two problems" he says. And they cam be summed up as 'not enough information' and 'too much information'. Dawkins is absolutely correct to say that the solution is 'better models' and not to abandon math.
U missed Weinstein's point. He pointed out that the mathematical model is likely to conclude reasonable answers to your Hypothesis but those answers can very much have nothing to do with REALITY. hence the example with the sphere balancing on a razor or the hot coffee coming to room temp. And he never suggested throwing away math. That comment by Dawkins was redundant, but understandable.
@@user-wr7bj9yn7i I may have to go back and relisten to that part again then. In the example of the sphere on the razor, the subtle imbalances would fall under the 'not enough information' header. Air pressure, motion, viscocity (bet I spelled that wrong) and so on would also all be variables to account for in an attempt to make that model more accurate. It sounded like he was saying that once you start adding more information, the addition of that extra information could alter the result to let you claim almost anything. Which, now that I listened to the rest of the discussion, seems quite an odd thing to say. I'll have another listen. Thanks for the comment.
Yes, and some models only work in certain scenarios, that's why Newtonian physics is still used even though it doesn't work with relativity nor quantum domains.
@@skylarsobczak8040 That whole "All models are wrong. Some models are useful." thing? I have to admit it took me a few seconds of thinking to work out what was being said before I saw the sense in it.
@tehspamgozehere it comes down to the fact that the models are made by mortal humans using finite precision instruments in an incredibly complex system. We will likely never know exactly how systems behave, but we can develop relationships for the 5 or so most relevant factors to reach ~95% accuracy.
This is a lesson in logic and wisdom brought to us by Dawkins.
I´m a big fan of Richard but why would nationalism not be (at least partially) explainable through biology? Nationalist is extended tribalism and later one is a biologically evolved feature. It´s a pity to see Richard getting so impatient about ideas he disagree on. Bret seems to have a point about the extended phenotype/Memmes, too.
Nationalism is not about extended tribalism, its about splitting the tribe and declaring one side less worthy. Its purely symbolic.
@@stoneneils tribalism is a mechanism by which one group is bound together against the "others". Bevor villages and cities emerged this applied to the "tribes" (in the original meaning), small groups of people who knew each other, had the same culture, were (at least partially) related and made their cooperation possible. The theory goes that this unity-feeling is still in our genes. So when the groups extended other features bound people together, like religion, same language, culture, common goals. In nationalism the same mechanism is in place, people cooperate and see each other as one "tribe". Same holds true for sports teams. People can be very tribalistic regarding their teams/schools ect and still have a bigger "tribe" like their nation and go to war against others.
Bret isn't a researcher or an expert on the field. What Dawkins is saying is that trying to frame very delicate topics into simplistic Darwinian terms (especially on social media) can be a dangerous thing. That's why he said that you have to be very careful about it
@@Fractoide Bret might not be a the biggest researcher on the planet but he was professor and probability had his share of input on this topics. Btw Dawkins used others research to come up with his conclusions, too. Here he seems just to be uncomfortable and annoyed to even talk about it. Bret’s approach is that biology plays a bigger role on our behavior and has an impact as well on our political problems, like nationalism, war ect. I think he had good points there. Btw many biologists think that.
@@tomaszdziecielski2634 usually experts on particular topics are hesitant to step out of their respective fields and attempt to provide explanations to very complex and delicate subjects in front of a very big audience. Imagine a physics professor from a small university, who studies classical mechanics, claiming on live TV that the discovery of a new particle at CERN was incorrect. Obviously I'm using an exaggerated example to illustrate it. But I think that's what Dawkins was implying, which is why even himself was hesitant to venture into that topic.
Good talk. I watched for Dawkins and admit I was expecting to disagree strongly with Weinstein, but I have to admit that was a thought provoking exchange and he makes some very good points on some very interesting topics. I'd like to see more respectful exchanges like this in future. Another point for Pangburn as a good channel to get good content through.
I would like to see more disrespectful exchanges in future. And the answer to the question; where children come from.
@@user-ze8zo5uv2s That's why we have various flavours or kinds or tiers of counter-apologetics. If you want someone more disrespectful, try Professor Dave. "Science isn't wrong. You're just stupid." If you want more energy and emphasis, Aron Ra's "YOU! ARE! A! MONKEY!!" is pretty good. More sass and silly mocking? Logicked. More calm detail and subtle snark? Viced Rhino. Excruciating detail and subtle snark? Gutsick Gibbon (though she's more science than apologetic). Deep research and interviews? Paulogia. Ridiculous animations? darkmatter2525. Mostly polite then SNAP? Matt Dillahunty. (The camel and the straw.) I'm sure I've forgotten a few. More than a few. Matching apologist to counter-apologist, or science communicator to science denier. That's a whole thing. And a whole issue. Poor matchings do no one any favours on either side of a debate.
Oh, and children come from the cabbage patch. Cabbage Patch Kids. Those faces...
Thoroughly enjoyed this and lots covered. I think we were getting to some very key things from which id love to hear more from both of them.
I really respected Richard Dawkins saying how answers in certain realms were likely best discussed in other domains.
We were getting into how religion fits with all of this. Im curious how Richard Dawkins uses the word 'delusion' for example (a psychiatric term) in his book The God delusion but yet Psychiatrists dont agree with this nor have changed anything from his book.
Im not sure about his approach to religion and just seeing it as pathology is at all helpful and i think thats what we were getting into.
So great we get to watch stuff like this. I learned stuff from both of them. More please:)
Amazing! I'd love to see a another if yalls can make it happen
I think Dawkins is actually right here about trying to find a Darwinian explanation of these social/political issues. It’s like trying to describe the ingredients of a cake in terms of the chemistry of the paper & ink on which the ingredients were written.
Except the cake doesn't make itself. It doesn't just spring into existence. It's made by a person who has some base code running that influenced how that recipe came to be.
More like the chemistry of the cake. Biology certainly has something to do with the individual at a fundamental level, so at least reflects society also (not a biologist).
All of the evidence suggests biological chemistry emerged from chemistry. No deities required. @@kutark
Humans: kill eachother for hundreds of thousands of years. Biologists: there's no way this has anything to do with biology 🤡
Evolutionary biology could certainly be used to describe how society acts, but I think Dawkins was emphasizing that it is the domain of psychology and sociology, and they are the professionals that can recognize when human behavior is driven by biology, or not, or how much.
Richard and Bret, regarding the topic of plumage of male vs female birds, I'm quite surprised that you overlooked a significant component of the theory of evolution. Evolution never stops. So I posit that peafowl are still evolving and their current genes may be merely a step with flamboyance is an interim trait that is probably not sufficiently a threat to contued robustness of their species to warrant focused change. Of course genetic changes are random but I'm sure you understand my point.
Best regards, David
By the way: MİT class of 1961.
Bret has a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Not every change requires a benefit, only that it doesn't create such a negative as to lead to that animals extinction. Plumage may not help survival but if it doesn't hurt enough to prevent reproduction, it remains.
doesn't explain why women by (And are enticed) by consumerism for their own survival, wheras men just buy cars fancy cars like peacocks to attract their mate...
Not random, inherent in genetic potential. Arrogance is the prime roadblock to real observation... true science.
@@allencottell4241the mutations are random. The mistakes that happen during the copying and combining of DNA sequences. The selection process is not random. It is dictated by the environment at that time.
I would have really liked a cultural anthropologist joining this conversation, especially in the final stage
Hahahah yeah I think we heard enough from them about pretty much everything lol
Wife: You don't love me!
Me: I'm familiar with the fallacy.
The answer to Brett’s question about why big answers in Biology have not been answered is partly because the funding structures today have been politically motivated with professorship being given to people for representation purposes and giving platform to people who help industrialization of biology rather than those who pursue knowledge not position.
What is your experience in research in biology? I'm just curious if you have any basis for this claim. When I was in college I was close with people who were on the cutting edge of biology, one getting a Ph.D, and I didn't see any of that so what have you observed while being a part of biology research?
Really? I find the answer to that question to be that Darwinian evolution has been debunked.
But another answer that is equally true is that you don’t actually need to know Darwinian evolution to “do” science, but you do need to know it to “teach” science, and not everyone is lining up to be biology teachers.
"...why big answers in Biology have not been answered..." like where children come from.
What is things you made up and never happened on the Internet.
Crap
This is wonderful and I feel I understand all of what they are saying. Well done
A great discussion. I genuinely like Bret Weinstein and follow his Channel but I also greatly admire Richard Dawkins. This is an important discussion. I follow the arguments about cultural application of evolution theory but feel we must not get carried away with it. I think there might be a middle ground worth identifying.
And when you separate memes/ mythology from humans, they fail to replicate the same way if the ponds dried up for the beavers.
And the beavers die
...only BEAVERS CREATE PONDS, ETC...
What exactly does Dawkins mean when he describes some of Weinstein's views as "not helpful". It sounds to me ike he is saying they may be true but are still not acceptable for moral reasons. Is Dawkins a closet priest?
He's saying that that type of thinking is more likely to make things worse than better, so if you want things to get better you should try another way
@@xmathmanx There's no worse or better, just true or untrue. He's mixing his emotion, that's why he uses the term worse.
@@hhhhippo you don't use the words worse or better? Sounds fucking insane tbh
@@xmathmanx In moral settings yes, but in terms of truth no.
@@xmathmanx What's the time Dawkins says it?
To disagree one does not have to be disagreeable, by diminishing others to secure a supposedly winning point only serves to prevent an open minded examination of a valid path to achieving a shared reality/truth. Kind regards Tim
Brett would not accept that he was formulating a non-Darwinian question and kinda demanding a Darwinian answer. Richard told him about three times and Brett would not move on. Overall, much better than the Peterson / Dawkins conversation.
It's a darwinian question.
The reason for that stagnation in science is Dawkin’s answer for its reason, “perhaps we got it right”. You dont even get science “right” (at least only once, and we aren’t nearly there), you simply get less wrong with each new discovery.
Ridiculous... There are absolutely many things that we got right ... Just because the whole puzzle isn't complete doesn't mean every piece is blurry.
@@TheNiteinjail Thats what I said, Newton wasn’t wrong, Einstein was more correct, someday someone will be more correct still. That is Dawkin’s flaw, he (like most Boomers) assumes he has to be at the end of history.
I would have to double check but I think Feynman said the best a Scientist can hope for is to not be proven wrong in his lifetime.
There are theories in sience which are more solid and clear and stable., while there are other areas of science which change more often because we are learning. So there does come a time when some theories withstand the storms of rigorous investigations. These are the ones we cansay we got 'right'. That is what Dawkins said. He did not say stop checking and questioning and sciencing on the more stable theories. He did not mean right as absolute right as there is no such thing as absolute right in Science because we must subject everything to investigation.
@@ml4173 l am not sure you watched the same video as the rest of us boomer end of history what a pile of crap
Thank you for continuing to think, Bret, & questioning doxa in order to learn. I so appreciate you not living by codes & believed commands, and instead by curiosity & inquiry. Clear demonstration of science (Bret) vs scientism/religion (Richard)
I wish Mr Dawkins had never tackled religion, I honestly think all those debates and wars of dialogue in his career exhausted him. He’s never really been the same, it’s fairly obvious he just doesn’t want to do these anymore.
I respect Richard Dawkins at the point when he says the answers belong in a different domain.
The science is based on facts. Religious beliefs are based on superstition and fiction.
Funny, I thought that was a cowardly manoeuvre.
Indeed, religion belongs in the category fiction!
@@rudysimoens570but the conjuring of such fiction in one's mind is a feature of human psychology and evolution just like the rest of the discussion, so why write that one off but not the others?
@@alexanderhamilton6370 because believing in irrational supernatural nonsense is not harmless at all! The harm religious people have done and still do on the basis of those bronze age myths, doctrines and rules both to the individuals and the societies is unimaginable! The list is very long!
So, it's better to leave all that supernatural nonsense of ANY religion and all those bronze age myths behind and to deal with REALITY!
Felt like I was watching the Golden Globe awards when the audience applauded following Bret’s mention of eradicating genocide.
50:17 plus this practice prevents parricide. It's match with the idea of inverting material legacy if you look at it through long term pattern recognition.
The really interesting debate would be with David Sloan Wilson.
Let's all take a moment to remember where Dawkins stood on things when the madness swept over the world in 2020. He's never apologized. Even now, he stands with the Authoritarians over the people.
That’s what atheists do. They have no higher power to answer too.
Is it possibly time to use a new camera for Pangburn, as in, at least 1080p?
Read the note about the video quality up top.
Even the most esoteric debates can become quite contentious.
Wow. I’m a huge fan and follower of Dawkins and I’ve never seen him appear to be so intellectually challenged. Fascinating.
Public intellectuals have as primary role to say things people will understand. Bret, as well as his brother Eric, is trying to loose people in rethoric to appear smarter than he is.
Your comment shows you are not very bright.
@@anomietoponymie2140 You obviously didn't get the point of my comment. I'm not saying I don't understand, I mean the Weinstein put effort in making what they're saying sound more complicated than it is by using endless rhetorical detours.
I didn’t catch if he did it here, but Bret also frequently phrases really common idioms like he invented them. The biggest example is when he’s talking about political parties, he acts like he invented calling them the red team and the blue team.
You sound similarly insecure and arrogant as the Weinstein's.
I don't think ur right
This was very down to earth with explanations to keep the audience with the meaning of the terms
With Eric u might have a point, but I don't think it is done with malice. I think it is just the fatigue from having to always dumb down complex ideas
I have the utmost respect for Dawkins, and I have nothing of the sort for Weinstein. Dawkins concentrates on genes, Weinstein talks about memes (also defined by Dawkins) and doesn't know the difference. Weinstein's phenotype will not survive into the future.
The nerd burns are cutting deep on this thread lol
Yea there's some hilarious butthurt going in the comments section.
Hilarious to hear Dawkins reverence for Darwin in light of his dressing down of Fred Hoyle in Chapter 4
of "The God Delusion". Dawkins' remonstrance of Hoyle's "life beginning naturally on earth is as likely as
a hurricane assembling a fully functioning Boeing 747 going through a junkyard", is that Hoyle fails
to fully appreciate "natural selection". Hoyle appreciated that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics NEVER
allows "numerous, successive, slight modification" (6th Chapter, "On the Origin,,,") in the inanimate.
Dawkins says many pregnantly, provably ignorant things....but THAT'S unforgivable.
Same. The reason this guy was able to teach at Evergreen is because he is such a low quality scientific minds. For example his talk about bringing Darwinian evolution into political arenas. That is more the realm of behavioral sciences, political science, and/or sociology….not evolution. He isn’t a sharp knife, he is a Rogan mystic…
@@MrGregorypaulscott what have you done? I’ve heard of him before but not you
anyone who is against using math clearly cannot do math. math is simply a language so to say that math is not speaking is simply stunning coming from an educated person.
Here, we are giving opinions grounded in our belief systems whilst science exists and continues to reveal the wonders of creation.
😂😂creation😂😂
We do share a common ancestor with fish. In fact, we share common ancestors with ALL life! Mushrooms, alfalfa sprouts, flies, birds, and yes, apes (we are also apes). Educate yourself.
What about Subsurface Lithoautotrophic Ecosystems? [SLIMES]
It is an entire viable ecosystem that does not require sunlight as an energy source.
Educate yourself.
@@bimmjim Ok, I did read a little, but I'm no expert. They are bacteria, viruses, and fungi. They get energy from minerals. How does this disprove common ancestry?
@@bimmjim Also, how does this disprove we are related to apes? There are multiple lines of convergent evidence gathered from many disparate fields of scientific study which all confirm common descent. The DNA evidence alone is a slam dunk. Educate me.
We zijn allen apen (we are all monkeys)
yes, women even give off an evolutionary aphrodisiac scent of fish, to lure her next victim, to steal the soul of a man...
It doesn't seem obvious why there's more species around the equator? Is sunlight not crucial to biology?
More plants therefore more insects ,more invertebrates, more water from rainfall, possibly. The poles are just too damn cold .
Good point...
Yeah. No need for a PhD to figure that out.
Also the climate is far more stable which requires less adaptation
there is plenty of life around hydrothermal vents. no need for sunlight at all, not even byproducts of it.
Oooo... got very chilly there at 30mins...
"people who help industrialization of biology" What does THAT mean?
Could be a good thing. Could be a bad thing. e.g. we SHOULD MASSIVELY scale up BIOCULTURED MEAT and CELLULAR AGRICULTURE production to feed carnivores and replace the Holocaust of breeding animals and factory farming.
Classic: I believe this was one of my first introductions to Bret Weinstein. During this debate Bret included religion itself as what Dawkins called "the extended phenotype." So many divisions since the covid debacle, but I wound up sticking with Bret. Thanks.
Make sure to check out the dark Horse podcast.
His wife, Heather is also an evolutionary biologist and they have some banger episodes
@@faceplants2 Bret and Heather helped me through Covid. 👍
Same.
I recall my best friend being pretty concerned with Ebola and other past publicized things like SARS and Swine Flu etc, he was surprised i was pretty 'meh' about it. I said it seemed like they just used them to scare people, it was about one new one few years or so.
So when Covid took off i was already skeptical, and cautiously seeing that the response wasn't science based it was whimsical.
Luckily for me, Bret and Heather had already earned my respect, and although they didn't get everything right, I could trust that they were genuinely trying to present us the facts of the matter.
Even though Dawkins clearly exposes Weinstein as an utter fool pretending to be a biologist here?
I’d suggest to not use a venue that doesn’t allow professional video being taken anymore.. especially not for such a great debate
Yeah that's either an excuse or some real BS.
Absolutely, although it was kind of amusing on my screen they both had florescent yellow skin and I initially thought they had both used make up for a laugh.
When you have two gentlemen like this, the venue makes no difference as long as you can hear and understand them
I wish you all could have used a decent video camera. Did you use an iPhone on a tripod?
I think this is often a blurred issue, some of the human traits such as suicide are less prevalent in the wider animal kingdom, more often than not suicidal thoughts are present in persons who feel for one reason or another that they don't belong within society. I don't think there is a genetic marker for Suicide, this is the complex psychology of the human condition and it is why we ponder and philosiphise on why we are here. Evolution is essentially a force that we don't consciously participate in, but we have it done to us.
It’s more about the evolved mechanisms to prevent suicide failing. There is a theory about how once a certain threshold of depression (which is an adaptive behavior) is passed and the individual is so depressed they may kill themself, all the actions required to do the act become too cumbersome to carry out. This fails when the individual kills themself before that threshold is reached. Just one example, but the literature on the evolution of suicide is fascinating. There is some evidence to suggest that in the EEA, suicide aided in kin selection where the act either increases resources available to their kin or the greater community offers support and resources to the grieving kin. I don’t think there would be a suicide gene or anything like that rather it’s a signaling behavior linked to the benefits of depression as a whole. It’s just that the mechanisms to prevent it break down and I think it’s easier in modern society for them to break down precisely because we don’t live closely with our “tribe” anymore. We are isolated in our little huts hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles away from those who love us.
@@BlackPhi1ip I think you make a good point there. Depression in and of itself I view as a signal to the person who is affected by it and, if you look at it that way, is not totally an illness, but an inherent need in the person to resolve what has triggered the depression. However, if the depressive person sees no solution, if he experiences no hope of improvement in his condition, for example because he is treated like a victim by those around him (privately and professionally), the depression can intensify to such an extent that he believes he can only take his own life in order to escape the depressive state.
A depressive person should be challenged by the world around them, not permanently treated as a sick person, but as a healthy person who is trying to understand their condition, as I understand it. Biological explanations alone are not enough, especially as medication with anti-depressants only treats symptoms, but not the cause.
If man is a tribal being, and in my opinion he undoubtedly is, then he needs the prospect of this and the courage to be, if not close to his blood relatives, then at least to those who come second best. In other words: the formation of a stable community with a man/woman/children and extended family, whose values he shares.
Yes, isolation is a huge depression trigger, I agree.
At this point I don't see why we're even having debates about this. If the theory of evolution isn't true then the entire scientific process would be so fundamentally flawed that basically every other theory and scientific fact would be too. To the extent that we couldn't have modern medicine, communications, Internet, the oil industry, chemistry etc etc.
Some people just have a fundamental "feeling" that they want their life to mean more than just the material. They cannot accept that's all there is. They want to feel special.
This wasn't a debate about whether evolution is true.
Personally i find this entire genre the reason gen-z are a bunch of depressed geeks. We had led-zeppelin, they have the Weinsteins.
@@stoneneils
So in other words you give a shit about evolution and take the staircase right to haven. 😅
There is a large difference is the science of Building a bridge, skyscraper or hot rod all with easily seen and tested science and evolutionary, Psychological, and Social sciences. Your supposition is badly flawed. There is hard science and soft science. Concensus is not sciece. It is only made to seem so. The medical profession has been living off the science of water and sanitation for over a century.
I feel like Bret is just on a mission to argue with Richard or to catch him in an “aha!“ Moment or something. Just doesn’t seem very genuinely interested in the conversation. When you watch Richard, he stares intently at Bret, listening to his every word. Sorry Bret, you’re not smarter than Big Dick Dawkins.
Well , a big problem regarding stagnation is that a large part of current research doesn't support the main tenets of the theory without an enormous amount of ommissions and some bias speculations.
If we live within a fractal, that has some force on us, call it whatever you want, whatever is expanding this whole thing or whatever. Maybe that is where science and what is called spiritually can combine
This is not a "meeting of great minds", as Bret is nowhere near the level of Dawkins, and I'm not sure why he even deserves to be given such a debate. There are much more deserving biologists from the US that should be debating Dawkins instead. AFAIK Weinstein's rise in popularity is mostly due to having controversial culture war political opinions, and not due to any work in biology.
He wasn't even a good biologist when he was active.
Bret Weinstein was the guy that postulated and initiated the discovery that lab mice telomeres were unintentionally altered in length by the breeding practices of the company(s) that supply lab mice for testing, which had caused grossly inaccurate results of drug testing. Nobel Prize level discovery, except that as a fairly young evolutionary biologist at the time, his discovery was essentially stolen by unscrupulous academics above him.
Weinstein doesn’t really understand models, which is worrying. A model is tested against reality which gives us the boundaries of its validity. Attempting to apply the model outside of these boundaries is a mistake on the part of the user, not a fault of the model. Models improve as we learn more.
I think it's more likely that you don't really understand Weinstein.
@@jrd33 I'm pretty sure I understand him well enough to see he doesn't understand how mathematical models work.
"We've got to be careful" to not go beyond my observations into any other further, useful study of evolution's effects on modern humanity. It's fine if it's done outside of my field, but we've got to be tremendously careful to not contribute any more to the biological field beyond what I've outlined. Very, very careful. Leave that to the sociologists and psychologists that will site my work.' - Dawkins.
Evolutionary logic at work.
Question how about the work of David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer. Which proofed with computer science coding that life from a single cell organism into complex structures is impossible with the amount time given. Further evidence shows using computer models using dna genes mutation models that as well. They agree on small scale evolution but the evidence shows not all life came from a single cell organism through genetic mutations.
If you can't answer a question year after year, it's very likely you're asking the wrong question.
Richard just wants solid answers to pressing questions through science and Bret just wants to be an internet sensation through smug verbosity and cringe.
Troll
Ooof, accurate 😂
Would love to see Weinstein have a chat with Sheldrake.
and talk in circles for ever? No thanks.
@@s.muller8688I prefer circles over squares
@@stefspijk yeah, that's what lemmings love, walk in circles and follow.
@@s.muller8688 shows you don’t know much about Sheldrake, if following is your concern. Happy chilling at the square Sir, Dawkins is eagerly waiting for people like you ✌️
@@stefspijk get lost with your incoherent babble, no one cares about your opinion.
In considering the Peacock issue, could it be plausible that the female observes the male peacock's feathers and contemplates,
"Perhaps these feathers serve as a deterrent to predators"? Consequently, longevity genes could be transmitted to male offspring.
The notion of a "little advantage" presupposes a broad array of Male Peacock genes available for selection, whereas in reality, only the most robust genes persist.
Thus, the dismissal of female vigilance as having no value does not apply.
I don't like the unwillingness of Dawkins to engage in the social discussion with evolutionary terms. I know that it feel wrong because it has been used in the past to falsely reason about human existenz and stuff like that. But I think it's important to acknowledge that everything we do is tied to our biology.
I think that Dawkins is a proponent of the moral landscape. If that is true than he should have no problem acknowledging the importants of our biology in everything we do while also arguing that that changes nothing about how we interact and see each other.
It could also be that I just fundamentally disagree with Dawkins in what way Darwinsm is linked to social behavior and human interaction but I don't believe that because I would think that he would acknowledge that humans were and still are influenced by evolution and therefore Darwinsm.
Edit: I hate this attitute of Dawkins that we are above Evolution. We aren't... Yes we ourselves can increase our lifespans because we have technology that allows us to do it dispite our genes not changing that much. But I'd argue that that is just Evolution in another way. It's not our environment adapting us but us themselfes that adapts us. It's still nature adapting us because we are not seperate from it. Nature is reality. Not something abstract outside of human existenz.
Biologists consider selective breeding and other human interventions as not evolution as such.
@@RaveyDavey I'm not talking about selective breeding. Medication, better food, better clothes, better therapy, Gene therapy and gene editing of a fetus (as an extreme example) and those are only a few of the things we do or could do in adapting ourselfes and all of that is not selective breeding.
Also, yes it wouldn't be considered evolution right now. That's why I say: "... I'd argue that that is just Evolution in another way." Because I know that that is not how Biologist or people in general think about evolution.
Anxiety inducing layout with how close the top image is to their heads lol.
4:26 Things like (Manganese & Boron) which dramatically increase mutation rates, are far more water soluble in warmer temperatures. Fewer lifeform species survive near the poles.
At risk of wading in controversial waters we might propose a couple of researchable questions to generate a “new” theories related to the biology of homosexuality: specifically to provide a framework for why right handed males with more older brothers have higher rates of homosexuality. One question might be “What is the relationship between a father’s declining testosterone rate and/or the mother’s reduced sexual attractive phenotypical traits as they age and the development of more feminine traits in younger boys with large families of brothers?” And “What is the relationship between homosexual play in male youths (which often occurs in males who often go onto develop heterosexuality) and the comparative rate of homosexual play in a male youths with more older brothers?
Dawkins' suggestion that social/political issues are outside the scope of Darwinism, started to sound suspiciously like he subconsciously believes in the divinity of humans 😁 Great conversation.
He’s not hinting at that, nor is this an expression of subconscious belief. He states, pretty clearly, not that they fall “outside” of Darwinianism, but that national/international sociopolitical issues are too complex (I.e. there are significantly more inputs and interactions between inputs) to be described accurately merely through the lens of genes and biology.
He’s the last person to label as having any belief in the divine.
Indeed they are complex, but given Dawkin's apparent resolute beliefs regarding the nature of reality, one would think that a discussion of sociopolitical issues in the context of Darwinism would be trivial in comparison. Is it so difficult to discuss the renaissance, sport, music, addiction, or even religion in evolutionary terms? Perhaps it is for Dawkins, as these things point to a human urge toward meaning, rather than a mechanistic explanation.
@@cybernonce Yes, it IS difficult to discuss these higher order phenomena in strictly evolutionary terms. That’s what he’s saying. He is being intellectually honest for the sake of accuracy, not because he believes there is more to the universe than the material world.
Man’s search for meaning is not inextricable from religion, spirituality, or divinity. There are many non-theological approaches to deriving meaning from one’s life; and the fact that we seek meaning in our lives does not necessarily imply deities or supernatural beings.
Weinstein thinks he is way smarter than he actually is...at times I think Dawkins wanted to say he was full of shit!
You're too woke to see Dawkins argues in bad faith
@@matt12.8 hehe, let me guess, Dawkins works for the deep state, the vaccine conspiracy? Oooooo
I've found Weinstein unfortunately sometimes has a way of wording things that makes him sound like a sophist - I don't think he is though. Whenever given the opportunity to rephrase or elaborate his points, it usually turns out there's real deep thought behind them.
@@matt12.8What evidence do you even have that's he's "woke"? There's no way you can even make that judgment coherently.
@@matt12.8 Another dumb use of the word woke.
I'll take this opposite to pay my respects to Dan Dennett whom we just lost. Richard and Him are among my heroes. He's gonna be missed.
Oh no!! I hadn't heard. It did have to come someday 😢 as it will for us all. He is one of those people to whom I never did send that letter.
Resources come here! Where ye came from? From thy Footstool! Well said!
Weinstein is not very well published on this kind of thing. I only saw a handful of journal articles with an extemely poor H index that would not get you a position at any university these days. I guess there is a role for just teaching, but you keep sharper with publication and research and it show I think
Have u lost your sense of independent thought?
I work in medicine and it is not hard to distinguish a great doctor from a knowledgeable doctor that publishes, from the ones who r both. And there r crappy ones also.
This fallacy of assigning prestige and intellectual weight by using impact factors is a good heuristic when u need to make a fast judgment, but what use is it when u hear the ideas with your own ears?! Think for yourself and decide whether they have merit.... Who cares who said it?!?
Not very well published is putting it rather mildly. Weinstein is a glorified high school biology teacher.... and in recent days has shown a tenuous grasp on even HS level understanding of evolution. He is an absolute NOBODY in the field of biology. The only reason anyone knows his name is because Joe Rogan platformed him (rogan has given us so many bright lights LOL) over culture war stuff at his college.. not his work or biology. Dawkins taking time to share the stage with him is baffling and unproductive.
@@michaelpearson7441
He published a PhD thesis in evolutionary biology at Michigan to go along with his Master’s thesis and his BA from Penn.
Since we’re in logically fallacious appeal to authority mode, I’m guessing that puts him ahead of you.
Dawkins is satisfied by his understanding of the universe. Brett is not satisfied. Brett is a more sophisticated scientific thinker and a more sophisticated religious thinker. At a deep enough level the scientific and religious become the same discussion and the dogmatic ones always reveal themselves by being dismissive of an idea without contending with it. Dawkins is the more dogmatic of the two.
You are conflating the religious with the scientific thinkers. You can’t say it’s dogmatic when the evidence and theory are correct. You can’t change something just to change it when it’s already right.
No respectfully Dr. Weinstein simply wants his beliefs to be justified even if reality is against them. It is clear he knows little to nothing about Darwinian evolutions
‘Sophisticated’?
Do you mean his take on Tucker Carlson as one of the most objective reporter around or the fact that he was woefully incorrect about the COVID vaccine?
Brett was the most accurate on Covid.
@@larsegenes6031 That's an understatement 😂 I saw Dawkins on Unherd in the wake of the Covid "crisis", and he looked beaten. As if he was embarrassed that finally religion was a thing of the past, but everything turned to shit instead of his scientism-based utopia.
Wasn't just Dawkins though. Sam Harris and Neil Degrasse Tyson also turned into dipshits on account of that virus and a little propaganda.
It's the scientism.
Me thinks, nature is conservative in the way it selects and promotes traits. The evolutionary changes enter and persist through the mathematical fringes, despite the basic preference for summery and virility. Environmental changes shape this dynamic by focusing on specific traits.
My opinion at the end of debate is that science and culture/politics can’t be divided. While Dawkins may wish his idea are not taken as distinct they are built on the world he was brought into; they on on the end of they are.
His attack on religion may on religion may be the result on his individual Darwinian effect has affected him. His ideas do not represent reality, but rather represent his genetic disposition.
This is weak in so far as they ignore Darwin as is theory focused on species rather than on genes.
Brett only wants a mathematical model that explains why Elon blocked him on Twitter 😂💀
Meanwhile you are unable to wipe your butt clean with your room temperature IQ 😂 🤡
Is it just me or was that the most uncomfortable conversation I’ve ever heard? I almost started sweating.
Uncomfortable? Not sure I'd use that word. It was certainly tense and charged though. Strong and deep topics on issues that can be used by firebrands to excite followers.
Richard is always a bit rigid. I don't think it's a good fit for Brett who always wants to start the conversation at genocide or other social extremes.
It's the wokster Dawkins trying and failing to look like a scientist
@@matt12.8 How exactly is Dawkins a "wokster" ??
@@matt12.8 What? He is anti-woke. And he is objectively a scientist. Which echo-chamber have you come from?
I would buy stock in this channel if I could. Excellent content. Thank you
ohhh I was trying to remember "Saltburn" but ended up here...kinda glad these guys kept their pants on tho
Richard knows his lane but Bret is unfortunately wrapped in hubris much like his brother. The bubble he lives in with Heather has cause myopia.
would a real scientist stay in a lane?
Can you give example?
@BradSayers yes that's kind of the point. Research is about specializing and developing your area of expertise. There are no mathematician physicists building biochemically driven robots in their garages.
@@aukuniBret's brothers absurd recent "math physics" paper is a good example of gibberish fueled by hubris
@@Pleasekillmysonsdad😂 The point is not specialization. The point is understanding. Generalists are able to understand a subject within a broader context. Overspecialization is one of the many reasons our so many fields are in jeopardy. Medicine is a great example, specialists staying in their lane don’t bother to look at effects across the rest of the body. The greatest minds in history were generalists, not specialists.
Bret Weinstein reminds me of when Chomsky talks about intellectual charlatans. I can only imagine Weinstein trying to explain tying your shoes to a 5 year old.
Yes he would be able to explain it in both pragmatic and complex terms that carry both functionality and meta narrative. The best thing you could do for a child, how is that a bad thing?
@@hypno5690 Bret, is this you?
@@smoovjazz8029 youre too old to act like such a child. Was this a cry for help? Nobody taught you to tie your shoes?
@@smoovjazz8029 get a hair transplant
You are quite correct but didn't I say essentially the same thing?
Dave
34:00 ish - Lineage selection over genetic or replicator selection. Oof, what an issue. I think I agree with Dawkins that this shouldn't be couched in Darwinian terms, especially considering the kind of backlash we already see from people who try and blame "social evolution" and WW2 on Darwin. However, there are components of this larger social level issue that are biological and evolutionary in nature. So Darwinian terms are a part of the issue, but only a part. To "couch" the issue in Darwinian terms would be to shift the focus slightly or possibly downplay other elements (eg sociopolitical and memetic) and also risk backlash from people who don't understand the difference, often provoked by those who don't WANT to understand the difference.
So biology plays a role in the issue Bret speaks on, but there are multiple reasons to avoid focusing on it. It IS something that ought to be explored however, but carefully and with equal focus on the other components.
A stage in front of a few hundred or thousand people out in public where quote miners and sensationalist journalists may grab and run with things is probably not sufficiently careful. My thought is that Dawkins understood that when he tried to avoid the topic. Consider how often he's faced people twisting his words and overreacting to things he only seems to have said.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
When I try to get them to admit that they believe in the garden with the magic tree, the tower of babble, the exodus, the man living inside the giant fish, and the 600 year old man and the great flood, they never want to admit to believing it 😅
Fundies are extremists. All things in moderation, including moderation. Extreme-anything is usually bad. The holey fables are much better viewed as a book of fables and stories with some historical context and commentary than as fact. And even then there's a lot of potential dispute.
Imagine if someone picked up my cherished copy of Aesop's Fables and tried to read it like it was, well, scripture.
You should ask them about the biblical assertion that we in the West are Bnei Esau. According to the story, the elder brother trope, the children of Esau are Edom and Edom must be destroyed. (Bnei Ishmael are another category.) This is what the Tanakh/Old Testament teaches and it is not cancelled in the New Testament. The outcome of Zechariah 8:23 and John 4:22 means that the only members of the 70 Nations who will remain after the destruction of Edom will be the Noachides who serve the tribe of priests. This is the concealed future their religion offers to them.
@@Simon.the.Likeable Why would anybody ask anybody else about that nonsense?
@@scottymeffz5025 Because the destruction of Edom is underway. I don't believe any of the crap but billions of people do. That is what makes it possible. It is why it is also necessary to know the reasons behind it.
@@scottymeffz5025 Because the "they" referred to in the original comment are the billions who believe it without realizing what it is.
Dawking attributes many human atrocities to religion but will not discuss Darwinisms negative effects on humanity.
thank god we have intellects like these
Bret is widely regarded as a grifter and contrarian, Dawkins is legit though
What about this "it is not helpful to think about this" argument? How can you simply ignore this? Why shouldnt we at least find out if the points are relevant to look at or maybe even true?
Especially as a Scientist
10:16 why there is less progress than before, because the many easier questions have been answered and the hardest questions are now left, that is always the case within all fields like physics, genetics, consciousness…..
It blows my mind when people say evolution is ridiculous, while they believe in talking snakes and man created from a golem spell. But Yeeaaah evolution is the crazy idea. Its like astrologist telling astronomers that they are dumb, and not seeing the irony
Maybe you were a monkey but I sure wasn’t
@@Roastanus you sure sound like one
@@patman142Sound like what??
@@roccotarli762 looks like he deleted his comment
It in the same way that accepting that we came from apes is so smart !!!!!!! Don't insult my faith and show how condescending you are.
Admittedly, the concept of evolution seems fantastical to lay persons like myself, but creationism seems even more so. Someone should ask creationists what they think the so-called acts of "creation" looked like? Did the first two of each species of animal just suddenly appear out of thin air?
What’s fantastical about evolution?
No, not out of thin air, but by the will, the word of God. The alternative is that it just happened we know not how. Magic.
You seriously need to read up on it if that is your question. Buy one of Dawkins’ books
@@johncollins8304the idea of a god IS magic. Evolution requires no magic and us or knowing every single thing is hardy evident for god
@@johncollins8304 What do you think happened when God "willed" creatures into existance on earth? Did the first two of each species suddenly appear like something from "I Dream Of Jeannie" or was there a process?
Both are educated highly but Dawkins is on another level.
Hmmm, Bret veers into linguistics first language acquisition territory, a well understood territory, and overlays an evolutionary "purpose" to why children can be native speakers in two languages.
Weinsteins love to put things in a sentence as a way of somehow "inventing" some new thing.
What is this Weinstein talking about?
Exactly dude! It’s worse now in 24, where he’s a grifter really.Sad.😎
Putting disparate things into sentences and then using word salad to "explain" it.
Whenever I see Bret on equal footing with celebrated scientists I have to remind myself that America is the only place where the milk rises to the top.
What does that mean?
I think he's complimenting your milk
I thought it was the cream that rises to the top in milk.
@@sassyrobin420😂
"milk rises to the top" 🥴
Dawkins lost this one for sure. Outclassed in every way.
About Genocide:
It seems to me that biology, psychology and sociology are closely linked here. I assume that the urge to behave as a national impulse-driven person and therefore to support something like genocide can be explained by self-insecurity. A person's psychological stability begins in childhood, and as long as a child was brought up in stable circumstances, both biological parents were able to manage many years of upbringing at their own sacrifice, did not develop drug and other addictions, ate, slept and worked sensibly, invested in their couple relationship and other visible adult relationships, they gave the child everything it needed for self-security.
This also requires several decades of economic security. Insofar as this is given, a person who has grown up under such circumstances is far less likely to allow himself to be induced to live out a national tribalism, because he has experienced enough familial tribalisation.
However, economic insecurity, coupled with family insecurity, adds to individual insecurity and makes people susceptible to seeking protection from those who hold the strongest weapons. Which could mean accepting genocide,, without being the ones to actively kill but let the killing happen.
Why does anyone take Brett Weinstein seriously, especially after he's revealed himself in recent years at how poorly he reasons.
Do you mean him questioning the safety of mRNA vaccines?
I'm beginning to think that Weinstein doesn't understand darwinian evolution.
Ngl Richard Rorty would put an end to the shenanigans of both participants
36:39 I think Dawkins is making the mistaken assumption that if something is explainable through evolutionary terms then it somehow justifies that behaviour which does not. Humans are a special kind of preacher in that we can self reflect and choose or at least attempt to choose what kind of behaviours we wish to, do and which we will take actions to avoid.
Damn! How have I not seen this??!! Prediction: Richard educated Bret. Bret rejects evidence...
Ooooh bret was defiantly winning the catholic /beaver pond discussion.
I just think that Discussion about beaver pond and extended phenotype is hilarious without context
@kaizershozei8720
really...?, so ponds do replicate then..?
Or as Bret conceded they do not.
@@Fluffysweep maybe i didnt listen correctly but it seemed bret was saying he agrees that ponds dont replicate but that was not the point he was trying to make....i will listen again.
@@Fluffysweep Didn't Bret say that you could say that but it isn't useful.
There’s nothing wrong with nationalism.
No if you are a selfish rasist nasjoalism or the hard-core version called nazism, is the way to isolate yourself from the rest of the world.
Tribalism, nationalism, or globalism there are no other options and I'm in the nationalism camp personally
Catholics are eusocial. Nuns are drones! I'm amused. And yes, it's memetic or meme-level rather than genetic. And it's so refreshing to hear memes being discussed in proper context and meaning. It's such a fascinating concept and area of study. So much more than funny cat pictures.
It's interesting how we understand the word "mutation". Biological mutations, mutations of genes are accidental, obviously, nobody plans these mutations for some aim. Whereas memes, understood as information in the form of ideas, are often changed deliberately, with some purpose planned for them.
Dawkins diminished himself by sharing a stage with that joker.
Man, what happened to Brett in the last few years. It's so sad. I just heard him making a point about an huge number of Chinese looking people crossing the border. Does he realize that by making such conspiratorial claims, he is triggering that same tribal mechanism in one group of people vs another group, that was responsible for genocide in WW2 and most other conflicts. He was saying something like "hordes of male Chinese citizens of military age are marching across US borders". What kind of effect will that have on the local population? How will they act against these immigrants? Could that be abused in a violent way?
Something happened to him during COVID and he completely lost it. The guy who speaks here would never say something like that. Or would he? I would be curious to know if by 2024 he now supports that "cynical" individual who won the election in 2016?
So true, I’m glad there’s people picking up on it.
Brett has gone Maga, but Heather beat him to the punch
Unfortunately, he is not the only one who’s documented the plethora of military age Chinese men crossing the border.
Are you not a little curious as why?
Now consider that it may be true. I'm sure you'll dismiss that with a hand wave. Your brain is not running proprietary script buddy
Z28.310 Dawkins missed on the 19. That is an understatement.
As soon as someone says mathematics is not helpful...