The venue only allowed an "archival level" video to be produced. Sorry for the low quality. JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?" Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets
Is this the Brat Whine-stain who refuses to PUBLISH PEER REVIEWED PAPERS in IMMUNOLOGY and VACCINES and REFUSES to address any of the THOUSANDS of crushing points that Dr Dan Wilson of Debunk the Funk makes? So instead Brat Whine-stain hangs out on the internet where there is zero peer review.
Its sad when people like Brett lean into pseudo science and religiosity. It's more mainstream/popular to shy away from the hard scientific truths... It is EASY to say "You don't know exactly how evolution works".... Yeah, because the Earth is a complex system from the cosmic, to the climate, to vast variety of environments that have changed over 3 billion years on earth... The mathematical equation to account for ALL of this is immeasurable.. The best we can do is to try to isolate some variables and test some aspects to limit our room for error. But no honest scientist claims we have every variable worked out... This is the new god of the gaps, "Impress American audiences" approach to science and it is pathetic. It is how the American political system works also. Its laughable that we have to impress the ignorance of Americans... And their "feelings"... No Brett. You will die and nothing of your ego will remain. Get over it.
Mathematical models. "I have two problems" he says. And they cam be summed up as 'not enough information' and 'too much information'. Dawkins is absolutely correct to say that the solution is 'better models' and not to abandon math.
U missed Weinstein's point. He pointed out that the mathematical model is likely to conclude reasonable answers to your Hypothesis but those answers can very much have nothing to do with REALITY. hence the example with the sphere balancing on a razor or the hot coffee coming to room temp. And he never suggested throwing away math. That comment by Dawkins was redundant, but understandable.
@@Rakim-x1g 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.
@@skybox4080 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.
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.
@@jacklondon999 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...
Weinstein is a nutcase, and I'm sorry but sometimes people need to be called out as such. His embarrassing take on blindly distrusting models because some make idealizing assumptions we never see in reality, is so deranged it is hard to believe. He is literally asking us to throw out every single model used, in every area of science, because they ALL make idealizing assumptions. When you are continually "nice" and "respectful" to people who peddle pseudo science, do you know what happens? People start to respect the peddler of pseudoscience, and start to think that maybe they have legitimate arguments. And then, the millions of followers continue to spread that diseased way of thinking in to the world, which results in REAL harm for real people, especially when it comes to Weinstein's "theories" about whether to trust vaccines or pharmaceuticals, and whether his personally blend of "natural alternatives" works as a cure for a recent disease we've all had to endure. I'm not saying Dawkins has to insult him or call him a monkey, but should be firmly say "that's nonsense" when it is nonsense? Absolutely. Something Dawkins has done MANY times before to many religious apologists.
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...
@@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.
They didn't overlook this - but we know about the evolutionary history of birds. We're not just looking at a snapshot, we're looking at a that history.
Look at the stillness and the zoom he's obviously cropped down a high quality cellphone bootleg. Thankfully. Very good stabilization and the audio sounds like it's straight plugged into the mic. So maybe they just had to zoom easy to much being in the nose bleeds of The Chicago
I’ve listened to this multiple times and at first thought it was so obvious that Bret was more progressive but now understand that this is not Darwinism
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.
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.
The difference between these two biologists is that one is stuck for payment while the other isn't. Dawkins is a media milking center, and he dares not to say anything beyond the Overton window. Get a drill and cave your face in.
@@elingrome5853 If that's the first thing your mind jumps to when you hear "cultural anthropology," then clearly one's presence was even more sorely needed than OP could have thought!
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.
if you havent watched the love letters to richard dawkins videos, dont go another day without them. he reads emails that he gets from religious fanatics. its the best
Am I the only one who thought that the resolution to the peacock problem is simple? Weinstein said that there is a huge cost that needs to be accounted for, but that cost doesn’t need to be accounted for at all. Evolution, natural selection, and sexual selection are not without error and species go extinct all the time. The idea that female peacocks have to take into account the effects of their mating decision 5 generations down the road is ludicrous. They see a pretty tail, they think it makes the male look strong or beautiful or whatever, and they mate with them. What was once a useful indicator to the females as to males that were strong or fit and had good genes, becomes exaggerated to the point of impracticality regarding survival. However, as long as it doesn’t have an immediate negative impact on their survivability, why would you expect any individual female peacock to take that into account? Individual biological organisms are bad at taking externalities and downstream effects of their actions into account. We see this all the time with corporations that seek short term profits that not only harm the planet, but even harm the company’s ability to make long term profits. Short term incentives are overvalued compared to long term ones, especially by animals and humans at earlier stages of developments, because the distant future is uncertain, but rewards in the near future are much more real and comprehensible. If humans are bad at this, why would we expect animals to be any better at it? What begins as a useful indicator for health/survival morphs into something maladaptive. We see this nowadays with humans and sugary or fatty foods. What was once a great impulse to eat food that could help store calories and nutrition, is now maladaptive and causing an obesity epidemic due to our easy access to food in the modern era. Likewise with the peacocks, what was once an indicator of genetic fitness has now become maladaptive.
I thought the same. The fact that the female 'inflicts' this on their progeny is just dumb. A muscle bound father is great in a time of plenty (or war etc), but 5 generations away when food is scarce, you want a fat guy that stores food for later but tough luck for all the muscle bound fellas that can't get enough to eat
@@mattjohnpowell The discussion overlooks the difference between genotype and phenotype. The only variations nature can produce are given by changes in genotype and therefor it can not produce "the ideal survivor" for any given environmental pressure to begin with. At most it can produce nearest candidates. This is compounded by problems like finite (and often small) population size and random chance (a predator will often eat the "best adapted" individual).
@@schmetterling4477 Yeah, i agree, I probably should have said something along the lines of 'the ability to be a muscle-bound father' or the ability to pack on lots of fat or muscle. But my point still stands. The phenotype is an expression of genotype and thus the underlying gene selected for by the female, with different genotypes maybe being ignored and thus not selected for. But the idea that anyone 'inflicts' it on their offspring is just stupid. You like what you like because of genes, environment, social status etc etc but you are not thinking 5 generations away
@@mattjohnpowell I understood the argument and it's kind of easy to see evolution as this idealized biological "optimization problem". In reality that's just not how it works, for a variety of reasons. Some take the shape of an asteroid, others that of the flint spear tip of a hunter. I think plenty of dinosaurs and the giant sloth would like to have a word... if they weren't extinct. They were certainly not poorly adapted to their environment... they just ran out of luck. It's a casino out there and not even the house wins.
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.
@@ancientnpc Absolutely. Although there is a man who can argue with him extremely well. The man who is possibly the true successor of Darwin. Dennis Noble. They two are friends so that looming reputation is equalised. Cheers.
@@shimmy1984 Oh I see. You read that as ' Dawkins successor ' No, Noble has argued that neo-Darwinism is dead. Worse, it was a non starter to begin with. You're familiar I'm sure. *Cheers.
Fuck me, this is like idiocracy int the making. I only envy Mr Dawkins is old enough that he’ll not have to live through the bullshit future Brett is serving us.
@@michaelcarrig627 Wowwy zowwy! You used interlocutor in a sentence! You must be super duper smart. Maybe they will read your comment and invite you instead of Weinstein next time lol. I'm sure you can debate math with Weinstein, after all, you used a big word in a sentence. It is profoundly implausible that the physics professor, whose ideological proclivities you find execrable, could conceivably deploy such an abstruse term in a perspicacious and contextually germane manner. Like, you like totally rekt this dude on gang.
@yanwain9454 that's brets brother, eirc. Bret is a great thinker, but he's an evolutionary biologist. People are hostile to what they don't understand.
The mathematical models are correct enough if you understand mathematics. A sphere balancing on a razor is sitting on an unstable fixed point in the space.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Classic bad faith criticism. You say the person is bad without mentioning anything specific about what they said that you disagree with. You're a sheep.
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.
Right? If I get what you are saying, it's that memes/mythology/ideas are essential to ensuring the continuation of the species deep into the future.... which means that they are an extended phenotype like Bret believes. On the contrary, Dawkins believes that they are replicators which suggests a drive to propagate themselves thats separate from their hosts and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
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:)
Ummm… yes… that’s an understatement. Dawkins has published an absurd amount of scientific papers and books but probably more importantly is the obscene amount of times his work is cited in other scientific works. The Selfish Gene alone has been cited several dozens of thousands of time. Weinstein, by comparison, has published less than a handful of items and cited by others an order of magnitude less than Dawkins. Their contributions to their field of study is just not even remotely comparable. Dawkins eventually pivoted to a certain anti-theism type of work which has almost overtaken his scientific works and made him a controversial figure especially to religious folks. Weinstein on the other hand intentionally misrepresented what was occurring at Evergreen and used his misrepresentations as a pivot toward monetization and later went on to start a podcast and grift toward an anti-scientific base of far right nut jobs. I’m shocked this discussion ever took place.
@@Ayyy_its_Wallybullshit. "What happened at evergeen". You know what happened. Bret's there deservedly and has shown the rigour of his thought time and time again. You're beleiflving the grift.
@@Ayyy_its_WallyDo you think Robert malone and the countless other scientists bret has engaged with are far-right nutjobs? All you have done is signalled political allegiance. You have not advocated science. You should be ashamed. You couldn't hold a candle... your comments rely on the unfamialirity of people to bret, you hope your words will dissuade them from ever listening to him. You have less and less people being as willingly ignorant. Desperate fool.
@@rcmysm9123 Using someone's record of academic publication and citation as a measure of their contribution to science is not subjective. It's pretty much the most objective way you can make that judgement.
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.
@@stoneneils tribalism is a mechanism by which one group is bound together against the "others". Bevor villages and cities emerged this applied to the "tribes" (in the original meaning), small groups of people who knew each other, had the same culture, were (at least partially) related and made their cooperation possible. The theory goes that this unity-feeling is still in our genes. So when the groups extended other features bound people together, like religion, same language, culture, common goals. In nationalism the same mechanism is in place, people cooperate and see each other as one "tribe". Same holds true for sports teams. People can be very tribalistic regarding their teams/schools ect and still have a bigger "tribe" like their nation and go to war against others.
Bret isn't a researcher or an expert on the field. What Dawkins is saying is that trying to frame very delicate topics into simplistic Darwinian terms (especially on social media) can be a dangerous thing. That's why he said that you have to be very careful about it
@@Fractoide Bret might not be a the biggest researcher on the planet but he was professor and probability had his share of input on this topics. Btw Dawkins used others research to come up with his conclusions, too. Here he seems just to be uncomfortable and annoyed to even talk about it. Bret’s approach is that biology plays a bigger role on our behavior and has an impact as well on our political problems, like nationalism, war ect. I think he had good points there. Btw many biologists think that.
@@tomaszdziecielski2634 usually experts on particular topics are hesitant to step out of their respective fields and attempt to provide explanations to very complex and delicate subjects in front of a very big audience. Imagine a physics professor from a small university, who studies classical mechanics, claiming on live TV that the discovery of a new particle at CERN was incorrect. Obviously I'm using an exaggerated example to illustrate it. But I think that's what Dawkins was implying, which is why even himself was hesitant to venture into that topic.
I think Dawkins is actually right here about trying to find a Darwinian explanation of these social/political issues. It’s like trying to describe the ingredients of a cake in terms of the chemistry of the paper & ink on which the ingredients were written.
Except the cake doesn't make itself. It doesn't just spring into existence. It's made by a person who has some base code running that influenced how that recipe came to be.
More like the chemistry of the cake. Biology certainly has something to do with the individual at a fundamental level, so at least reflects society also (not a biologist).
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.
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.
Dawkins: an atheist who believes in objective morality, moral facts, morality is universal. a True morality. How? He believes “Evil” is a universal moral fact. Naturalism: it’s a fact that human society invents moral codes for itself. It’s a fact that morality, moral codes, are relative to the culture in question. It’s also a fact that what is evil in one culture can be a moral obligation in another - AKA Cultural Moral Relativism. It takes as much faith to believe in universal moral obligations, that Universal Human Rights is true, as it does to believe in a god.
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?
@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
He did not look intellectually challanged. Just bored. He doesn't waste any time thinking about his answer. Expecting natural selection to explain things that are not related to natural selection is the issue here.
Check the jordan perterson conversation with Dawkins recently. Same shortness and refusal to even hypothetically explore ideas he instinctually disagrees with.
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.
@@Eleutherios1 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.
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.
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?
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.
@@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.
@@erictf9638 You're not getting why Dawkins is reluctant to use those terms. Why invoke "evolution" when the same exact questions are already studied in great depth in something like.... I don't know, sociology? What is improved by invoking evolution into an already FAR AND BEYOND deeper subject than evolution even is to begin with? Why does a child mimmic their parents and friends so much? If I answer in a "non-evolutionary way", invoking social studies, I am still gonna have to invoke evolution to answer it thoroughly. It's not like those studies are VOID of biological perspective. Humans are studied in a thousand ways every day, and saying "what about evolution" to any and all questions really isn't helpful. It's shoe-horning a word into sentences where there are better words to convey what's actually going on. In the end, if you keep invoking evolution into everything, all you're really saying is that one thing (or being, event, etc) led to another, that led to another, that led to another. We tend to call that cause and effect, not evolution. What caused the dam? The beaver. What caused the beaver? It's parents. What caused that species of beavers? EVOLUTION. That's an example where invoking evolution is more than fitting. That's the entire reason why Dawkins was reluctant. Because it's silly. Maybe next we can discuss why WW2 happened using terms of quantum physics? Since we're all physical? I mean, why not? We're all physical so it should come out great!
The idea of having an intellectual debate with people who believe in magic! Religion is the main reason we lost 1000 years of human progress after the fall of th Roman Empire!
I do not care about religions but I believe in Christianity and its worldview that made it possible to invent science. Christians (like, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Mendel, Copernicus) were able to invent science and follow math and logic because they believed that the universe was designed and man, being made in the image of God was able to understand the laws of nature.
@willmercury we got those because they were forced by the church to paint what the church wanted or ELSE! The church was the only one paying, but it was run like the mob back then!
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.
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…
Richard just wants solid answers to pressing questions through science and Bret just wants to be an internet sensation through smug verbosity and cringe.
The genes which help function in the past will be appropriated into whatever world we end up in. I imagine genes allow for some expressions to happen before others, and how this relates to adult moral development would be a wonderful meld of different scientific fields
As soon as that guy said sailing over the horizon to find new land was one step away from sucide his credibility was destroyed for me so I stopped watching! Moronic would be an understatement....
I hope everyone goes away from this and reads at least one Dawkins book: they are all brilliant, life-enhancing, beautifully written, and they will stand the test of time. (Unlike anything said by any of these waffling pretenders.)
I'm fascinated by the orangutan's unique head shape! The evolutionary explanation for its development is intriguing, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how it might have provided a survival advantage. I have some ideas, but I'd love to hear other perspectives first!
@@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!
Bret’s opening was laudable. If only he stood by a single letter of that statement himself though. In this discussion yes there was respect and patience but I happen to find his views utterly abhorrent and verging on dangerous. We should not allow anti-vaxxers such a platform. You can be against vaccines - but encouraging others to follow with his speculation and misinformation is wrong in my view.
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.
This was an awesome conversation. I think the whole section in which they were talking about a hipothetical genetic influence on a supposed genocide proclivity is worth re-watching as good example of proper argumentation I may lay a few timestamps of what seems the most remarkable takes on that for me, at some point in the future
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.
@@shanemac7185 if you go back and listen it was more than just skepticism. It is an appeal from ignorance. The models are literally designed to be questioned, that is science, so your argument seems disingenuous at best, harmful at most. I would rethink your stance and come to a better conclusion.
Mathematical proofs and formulae based models are simple and act as profound tools even with the inclusion of irrational numbers and “placeholder” quantities. They are robust, yes. But Bret is right about how maths is employed in building statistical models. They have a higher burden put upon them to correctly predict outcomes in complex systems and subject to higher degrees of error as he outlined.
Have you studied mathematical models? I understad where bret is coming from, they are frought with assumptions and instability. However i do agree with dawkins that the answer is better models. But yeah, models should be approached in a sceptical manner.
“Let us pray”. This is a perfect opening to a metaphor and introduction to a meeting of brilliant minds we can learn from. “Let ua prey”. Is the same message from the brilliant minds that refuse to learn. It seems “we” are on divergent paths. Maybe wanna decide to pray or prey sooner than later. Or dont. After all, Who could possibly be listening or looking and studying you and alll that you have interacted with digitally? Pray or prey. Thats up to you (Recommend the former) Either way…. don’t twitch. Cause you will regret which pray/prey you thought you were doing at the time. Jeremy
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.
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.
15 minutes in and I have lost patience with Bret already. Peacocks exist so clearly the 'balance' works. He cites a mathematical explanation as to why it should not work then says he he is skeptical of mathematical models. Besides which, biology is not a branch of bogus economics in which supply and demand are magically balanced by an invisible hand. Given the terrible state of the environment, it's probably true to say that the existence of peacocks, and everything else, hangs in the balance. Given a 'perfect' environment (unencumbered by human excess), species still go extinct so the utility of the tail can only be judged by the success of the peacock in an environment we don't actually have? Pointless conjecture.
Wow incredible intellectual discrepancy at display here! Smart and clear Dawkins, twisted and dishonest Weinstein. How quickly he ran away from beaver ponds to Catholics after Dawkins explained his error was so telling:) Bret is not interested in truth, only self promotion. Yet he made it so far with this attitude!
I don't listen to anyone who disrespect mathematical models. Mathematical models are the HIGHEST form of rationality and intelligence humans have created. They are NOT just BULLSHIT like oral debates. Or legal arguments, which are unfalsifiable and politically biased claims. They are not just BULLSHIT crap like chess or Go or any videogame. The only LOGICALLY CONSISTENT way of DEFINING causation is via MATHEMATICAL MODELS. I celebrate ANYONE wiping their ass on the koran or bible or US constitution or any other political document. Because those are meaningless unfalsifiable excrement. But mathematical models are sacred, because they can be improved upon, modified.
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.
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.
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.
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
I believe everyone would agree that Prof. Dawkins' talking is clearer and more succinct than Bret! I mean Bret talks a lot saying little, which is not the case with Richard.
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?
Because Social Darwinism is a (false) mimicry of biological functions. It's tempting to design Social based upon Darwin , but really it makes as much sense as designing a Society around blood clotting mechanisms or a political party designed around Black Hole formation mechanics. In other words, these naturalistic mechanisms have nothing to do with Society, and have existed long long before man has been around to judge it's Value. In other words, is a Sloth really Slow and Lazy?, or is the Sloth adapted successfully to its environment? And did Sloths exist before man was around to assign negative value judgements upon it? Same thing with Darwinism
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
Never use this venue again. They might aswell of said you can only record audio.
You do know Richard, you are trying to educated 'Savage Primates' ?
Wife: You don't love me!
Me: I'm familiar with the fallacy.
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.
@@Rakim-x1g 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.
@@skybox4080 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.
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.
@@jacklondon999 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...
Weinstein is a nutcase, and I'm sorry but sometimes people need to be called out as such. His embarrassing take on blindly distrusting models because some make idealizing assumptions we never see in reality, is so deranged it is hard to believe. He is literally asking us to throw out every single model used, in every area of science, because they ALL make idealizing assumptions. When you are continually "nice" and "respectful" to people who peddle pseudo science, do you know what happens? People start to respect the peddler of pseudoscience, and start to think that maybe they have legitimate arguments. And then, the millions of followers continue to spread that diseased way of thinking in to the world, which results in REAL harm for real people, especially when it comes to Weinstein's "theories" about whether to trust vaccines or pharmaceuticals, and whether his personally blend of "natural alternatives" works as a cure for a recent disease we've all had to endure.
I'm not saying Dawkins has to insult him or call him a monkey, but should be firmly say "that's nonsense" when it is nonsense? Absolutely. Something Dawkins has done MANY times before to many religious apologists.
Huge fan of both these guys, and from what I'm hearing, we all still have a lot to learn from Dawkins, including Weinstein.
Try the Hoover Institution regarding the theory of evolution.
This is my favorite discussion with Richard Dawkins yet! even though he is uncomfortable talking about some of the topics
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.
They didn't overlook this - but we know about the evolutionary history of birds. We're not just looking at a snapshot, we're looking at a that history.
Was this filmed with a tin can?
It was recorded Oct 23, 2018, when moving picture technology was still in its infancy.
Potato
Look at the stillness and the zoom he's obviously cropped down a high quality cellphone bootleg. Thankfully. Very good stabilization and the audio sounds like it's straight plugged into the mic. So maybe they just had to zoom easy to much being in the nose bleeds of The Chicago
Filmed with a Nintendo DS
Potatoes
I’ve listened to this multiple times and at first thought it was so obvious that Bret was more progressive but now understand that this is not Darwinism
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.
I'll take this occasion to pay my respects to Dan Dennett whom we just lost. Richard and Him are among my heroes. He's gonna be missed.
Oh no!! I hadn't heard. It did have to come someday 😢 as it will for us all. He is one of those people to whom I never did send that letter.
I didn’t find Bret’s arguments very convincing. He seemed to be looking for a reason to disagree at every step .
Idk, you might take a look at economics to find out why modelling might be a bad way to check your hypothesis
He's also a vile Zionist.
In science, you're supposed to try and find refutations to your own theories. That's the whole point of science.
Why am I receiving a notice for these comments? Ohh let me guess...my comment was removed...again.
Bravo on organizing this discussion!! Looking forward to more!
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 difference between these two biologists is that one is stuck for payment while the other isn't. Dawkins is a media milking center, and he dares not to say anything beyond the Overton window. Get a drill and cave your face in.
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
yes, I too would have liked to have known about the innate heteronormative racist sexual behaviours in badgers
@@elingrome5853 If that's the first thing your mind jumps to when you hear "cultural anthropology," then clearly one's presence was even more sorely needed than OP could have thought!
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.
if you havent watched the love letters to richard dawkins videos, dont go another day without them. he reads emails that he gets from religious fanatics. its the best
These cheer me up every once in a while.
“Dawkins’ books are fucking stupid bullshit”
Am I the only one who thought that the resolution to the peacock problem is simple? Weinstein said that there is a huge cost that needs to be accounted for, but that cost doesn’t need to be accounted for at all. Evolution, natural selection, and sexual selection are not without error and species go extinct all the time. The idea that female peacocks have to take into account the effects of their mating decision 5 generations down the road is ludicrous. They see a pretty tail, they think it makes the male look strong or beautiful or whatever, and they mate with them. What was once a useful indicator to the females as to males that were strong or fit and had good genes, becomes exaggerated to the point of impracticality regarding survival. However, as long as it doesn’t have an immediate negative impact on their survivability, why would you expect any individual female peacock to take that into account? Individual biological organisms are bad at taking externalities and downstream effects of their actions into account. We see this all the time with corporations that seek short term profits that not only harm the planet, but even harm the company’s ability to make long term profits. Short term incentives are overvalued compared to long term ones, especially by animals and humans at earlier stages of developments, because the distant future is uncertain, but rewards in the near future are much more real and comprehensible. If humans are bad at this, why would we expect animals to be any better at it?
What begins as a useful indicator for health/survival morphs into something maladaptive. We see this nowadays with humans and sugary or fatty foods. What was once a great impulse to eat food that could help store calories and nutrition, is now maladaptive and causing an obesity epidemic due to our easy access to food in the modern era. Likewise with the peacocks, what was once an indicator of genetic fitness has now become maladaptive.
Obesity has next to no influence on reproduction in the modern era. It doesn't kill you until the kids have left the house. ;-)
I thought the same. The fact that the female 'inflicts' this on their progeny is just dumb. A muscle bound father is great in a time of plenty (or war etc), but 5 generations away when food is scarce, you want a fat guy that stores food for later but tough luck for all the muscle bound fellas that can't get enough to eat
@@mattjohnpowell The discussion overlooks the difference between genotype and phenotype. The only variations nature can produce are given by changes in genotype and therefor it can not produce "the ideal survivor" for any given environmental pressure to begin with. At most it can produce nearest candidates. This is compounded by problems like finite (and often small) population size and random chance (a predator will often eat the "best adapted" individual).
@@schmetterling4477 Yeah, i agree, I probably should have said something along the lines of 'the ability to be a muscle-bound father' or the ability to pack on lots of fat or muscle. But my point still stands. The phenotype is an expression of genotype and thus the underlying gene selected for by the female, with different genotypes maybe being ignored and thus not selected for. But the idea that anyone 'inflicts' it on their offspring is just stupid. You like what you like because of genes, environment, social status etc etc but you are not thinking 5 generations away
@@mattjohnpowell I understood the argument and it's kind of easy to see evolution as this idealized biological "optimization problem". In reality that's just not how it works, for a variety of reasons. Some take the shape of an asteroid, others that of the flint spear tip of a hunter. I think plenty of dinosaurs and the giant sloth would like to have a word... if they weren't extinct. They were certainly not poorly adapted to their environment... they just ran out of luck. It's a casino out there and not even the house wins.
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.
Read the description. It explains that this was recorded Oct 23, 2018, when moving picture technology was still in its infancy.
@@firecloud77 🤣
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ why ?
ruclips.net/video/c5HrkJ9QWxM/видео.htmlsi=4OaQEmLsxJVXCI3Y
Was Weinstein referring to Biden during the last election, or Hillary?
Amazing! I'd love to see a another if yalls can make it happen
The answer to Brett’s question about why big answers in Biology have not been answered is partly because the funding structures today have been politically motivated with professorship being given to people for representation purposes and giving platform to people who help industrialization of biology rather than those who pursue knowledge not position.
What is your experience in research in biology? I'm just curious if you have any basis for this claim. When I was in college I was close with people who were on the cutting edge of biology, one getting a Ph.D, and I didn't see any of that so what have you observed while being a part of biology research?
Really? I find the answer to that question to be that Darwinian evolution has been debunked.
But another answer that is equally true is that you don’t actually need to know Darwinian evolution to “do” science, but you do need to know it to “teach” science, and not everyone is lining up to be biology teachers.
"...why big answers in Biology have not been answered..." like where children come from.
What is things you made up and never happened on the Internet.
Crap
I keep noting that people seem defensive, rambling almost apologetic at times around Richard Dawkins.
Silence speaks for him.
A rare gift indeed.
I imagine that no matter how well read you are, being the presence of someone like Darwin's natural successor is intimidating.
@@ancientnpc
Absolutely. Although there is a man who can argue with him extremely well. The man who is possibly the true successor of Darwin. Dennis Noble.
They two are friends so that looming reputation is equalised.
Cheers.
@@longshotkdb successor? They guy is 87 years old!
@@shimmy1984
Yes, but Darwin is 215 ?
It's relative.
Surely... lol
What?
@@shimmy1984
Oh I see.
You read that as ' Dawkins successor '
No, Noble has argued that neo-Darwinism is dead. Worse, it was a non starter to begin with.
You're familiar I'm sure.
*Cheers.
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.
Fuck me, this is like idiocracy int the making. I only envy Mr Dawkins is old enough that he’ll not have to live through the bullshit future Brett is serving us.
2018? This looks like its recorded in 1976.
My hat's off for "Sir Richard Dawkins. " You have evolved the patience of a "God" 😉
It is incredible that Weinstein keeps getting rolled out next to these brilliant minds and treated as a substantial interlocutor.
Godlike qualities.
@@michaelcarrig627 Wowwy zowwy! You used interlocutor in a sentence! You must be super duper smart. Maybe they will read your comment and invite you instead of Weinstein next time lol. I'm sure you can debate math with Weinstein, after all, you used a big word in a sentence. It is profoundly implausible that the physics professor, whose ideological proclivities you find execrable, could conceivably deploy such an abstruse term in a perspicacious and contextually germane manner. Like, you like totally rekt this dude on gang.
@yanwain9454 that's brets brother, eirc. Bret is a great thinker, but he's an evolutionary biologist. People are hostile to what they don't understand.
Richard is spot on as usual.
The mathematical models are correct enough if you understand mathematics. A sphere balancing on a razor is sitting on an unstable fixed point in the space.
It’s True! You two make this evo conversation fun and even more interesting! Thank you, gents…
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.
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
You're 6 years late
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.
Classic bad faith criticism. You say the person is bad without mentioning anything specific about what they said that you disagree with. You're a sheep.
It’s not a debate. It’s a conversation… why do u think it’s a debate?
@@PleasekillmysonsdadThat's just not true? Are you involved in the sciences?
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.
This is wonderful and I feel I understand all of what they are saying. Well done
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...
...or if a virus loses its host population
Right? If I get what you are saying, it's that memes/mythology/ideas are essential to ensuring the continuation of the species deep into the future.... which means that they are an extended phenotype like Bret believes. On the contrary, Dawkins believes that they are replicators which suggests a drive to propagate themselves thats separate from their hosts and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
@byakugan2173 yes, this. Shared myths, memes, ideals are social glue for cooperation.
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:)
The really interesting debate would be with David Sloan Wilson.
Both are educated highly but Dawkins is on another level.
Ummm… yes… that’s an understatement. Dawkins has published an absurd amount of scientific papers and books but probably more importantly is the obscene amount of times his work is cited in other scientific works. The Selfish Gene alone has been cited several dozens of thousands of time.
Weinstein, by comparison, has published less than a handful of items and cited by others an order of magnitude less than Dawkins.
Their contributions to their field of study is just not even remotely comparable.
Dawkins eventually pivoted to a certain anti-theism type of work which has almost overtaken his scientific works and made him a controversial figure especially to religious folks.
Weinstein on the other hand intentionally misrepresented what was occurring at Evergreen and used his misrepresentations as a pivot toward monetization and later went on to start a podcast and grift toward an anti-scientific base of far right nut jobs.
I’m shocked this discussion ever took place.
@@Ayyy_its_Wallybullshit. "What happened at evergeen". You know what happened. Bret's there deservedly and has shown the rigour of his thought time and time again. You're beleiflving the grift.
@@Ayyy_its_WallyDo you think Robert malone and the countless other scientists bret has engaged with are far-right nutjobs? All you have done is signalled political allegiance. You have not advocated science. You should be ashamed.
You couldn't hold a candle... your comments rely on the unfamialirity of people to bret, you hope your words will dissuade them from ever listening to him. You have less and less people being as willingly ignorant. Desperate fool.
@@Ayyy_its_Wally
That's a pretty subjective take
@@rcmysm9123 Using someone's record of academic publication and citation as a measure of their contribution to science is not subjective. It's pretty much the most objective way you can make that judgement.
I´m a big fan of Richard but why would nationalism not be (at least partially) explainable through biology? Nationalist is extended tribalism and later one is a biologically evolved feature. It´s a pity to see Richard getting so impatient about ideas he disagree on. Bret seems to have a point about the extended phenotype/Memmes, too.
Nationalism is not about extended tribalism, its about splitting the tribe and declaring one side less worthy. Its purely symbolic.
@@stoneneils tribalism is a mechanism by which one group is bound together against the "others". Bevor villages and cities emerged this applied to the "tribes" (in the original meaning), small groups of people who knew each other, had the same culture, were (at least partially) related and made their cooperation possible. The theory goes that this unity-feeling is still in our genes. So when the groups extended other features bound people together, like religion, same language, culture, common goals. In nationalism the same mechanism is in place, people cooperate and see each other as one "tribe". Same holds true for sports teams. People can be very tribalistic regarding their teams/schools ect and still have a bigger "tribe" like their nation and go to war against others.
Bret isn't a researcher or an expert on the field. What Dawkins is saying is that trying to frame very delicate topics into simplistic Darwinian terms (especially on social media) can be a dangerous thing. That's why he said that you have to be very careful about it
@@Fractoide Bret might not be a the biggest researcher on the planet but he was professor and probability had his share of input on this topics. Btw Dawkins used others research to come up with his conclusions, too. Here he seems just to be uncomfortable and annoyed to even talk about it. Bret’s approach is that biology plays a bigger role on our behavior and has an impact as well on our political problems, like nationalism, war ect. I think he had good points there. Btw many biologists think that.
@@tomaszdziecielski2634 usually experts on particular topics are hesitant to step out of their respective fields and attempt to provide explanations to very complex and delicate subjects in front of a very big audience. Imagine a physics professor from a small university, who studies classical mechanics, claiming on live TV that the discovery of a new particle at CERN was incorrect. Obviously I'm using an exaggerated example to illustrate it. But I think that's what Dawkins was implying, which is why even himself was hesitant to venture into that topic.
I think Dawkins is actually right here about trying to find a Darwinian explanation of these social/political issues. It’s like trying to describe the ingredients of a cake in terms of the chemistry of the paper & ink on which the ingredients were written.
Except the cake doesn't make itself. It doesn't just spring into existence. It's made by a person who has some base code running that influenced how that recipe came to be.
More like the chemistry of the cake. Biology certainly has something to do with the individual at a fundamental level, so at least reflects society also (not a biologist).
All of the evidence suggests biological chemistry emerged from chemistry. No deities required. @@kutark
Humans: kill eachother for hundreds of thousands of years. Biologists: there's no way this has anything to do with biology 🤡
Evolutionary biology could certainly be used to describe how society acts, but I think Dawkins was emphasizing that it is the domain of psychology and sociology, and they are the professionals that can recognize when human behavior is driven by biology, or not, or how much.
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.
Dawkins: an atheist who believes in objective morality, moral facts, morality is universal. a True morality. How? He believes “Evil” is a universal moral fact.
Naturalism: it’s a fact that human society invents moral codes for itself. It’s a fact that morality, moral codes, are relative to the culture in question. It’s also a fact that what is evil in one culture can be a moral obligation in another - AKA Cultural Moral Relativism. It takes as much faith to believe in universal moral obligations, that Universal Human Rights is true, as it does to believe in a god.
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?
Camera genes evolved slower than the human genes
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.
Why do we bother with Bret Weinstein again?
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.
Good to see the Weinstein's word salad hubris directly addressed. Now debate Wilson.
Damn, Bert just getting educated here.
David Sloan Wilson disagrees.
Loll
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
Wow. I’m a huge fan and follower of Dawkins and I’ve never seen him appear to be so intellectually challenged. Fascinating.
I don't think he's on Bret's level to be honest. He kept misunderstanding Bret's points.
That's convenient for you
He did not look intellectually challanged. Just bored. He doesn't waste any time thinking about his answer. Expecting natural selection to explain things that are not related to natural selection is the issue here.
Check the jordan perterson conversation with Dawkins recently. Same shortness and refusal to even hypothetically explore ideas he instinctually disagrees with.
At what timestamp does the meme discussion happens?
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.
@@Eleutherios1
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.
@@Eleutherios1
Lol
He always says I don’t think we auto go down that path when he’s stuck!
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...
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
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.
Brett and Eric are charlatans. I'm disappointed in RD for engaging with Brett. The shakey voice and glitzy names in lights are an embarrassment.
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.
@@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.
@@erictf9638 You're not getting why Dawkins is reluctant to use those terms. Why invoke "evolution" when the same exact questions are already studied in great depth in something like.... I don't know, sociology? What is improved by invoking evolution into an already FAR AND BEYOND deeper subject than evolution even is to begin with?
Why does a child mimmic their parents and friends so much? If I answer in a "non-evolutionary way", invoking social studies, I am still gonna have to invoke evolution to answer it thoroughly. It's not like those studies are VOID of biological perspective. Humans are studied in a thousand ways every day, and saying "what about evolution" to any and all questions really isn't helpful. It's shoe-horning a word into sentences where there are better words to convey what's actually going on.
In the end, if you keep invoking evolution into everything, all you're really saying is that one thing (or being, event, etc) led to another, that led to another, that led to another. We tend to call that cause and effect, not evolution. What caused the dam? The beaver. What caused the beaver? It's parents. What caused that species of beavers? EVOLUTION. That's an example where invoking evolution is more than fitting.
That's the entire reason why Dawkins was reluctant. Because it's silly. Maybe next we can discuss why WW2 happened using terms of quantum physics? Since we're all physical? I mean, why not? We're all physical so it should come out great!
Fantastic videography skills, looks so crystal clear that I can nearly tells who's who
The idea of having an intellectual debate with people who believe in magic! Religion is the main reason we lost 1000 years of human progress after the fall of th Roman Empire!
I do not care about religions but I believe in Christianity and its worldview that made it possible to invent science. Christians (like, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Mendel, Copernicus) were able to invent science and follow math and logic because they believed that the universe was designed and man, being made in the image of God was able to understand the laws of nature.
@@bhocatbho " and its worldview that made it possible to invent science"
Stop being stupid, science predates christianity.
And also the reason we got Chartres, Michelangelo and Bach. Expand your data set if you want to affirm the consequent.
@@willmercury non sequitur
@willmercury we got those because they were forced by the church to paint what the church wanted or ELSE! The church was the only one paying, but it was run like the mob back then!
How can I listen to this if the video is not crystal clear???
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
What's the science of me disliking Bret's nasal voice?
Lmaoo wondering the sameee thing
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 😂
This guy seemed to just want to "disagree" without actually managing to say anything meaningful at all
Dawkins face on the thumbnail perfectly captures my feelings toward Weinstein
Endless drivel?
Same 😂
Two clowns
Oh, there are two people talking. All I could see was a massive over-illuminated, low-hanging, oppressive canopy.
I'm beginning to think that Weinstein doesn't understand darwinian evolution.
He doesn't, he's not even a scientist.
The genes which help function in the past will be appropriated into whatever world we end up in.
I imagine genes allow for some expressions to happen before others, and how this relates to adult moral development would be a wonderful meld of different scientific fields
Wow even Richard Dawkings thinks Bret is stupid
As soon as that guy said sailing over the horizon to find new land was one step away from sucide his credibility was destroyed for me so I stopped watching! Moronic would be an understatement....
I hope everyone goes away from this and reads at least one Dawkins book: they are all brilliant, life-enhancing, beautifully written, and they will stand the test of time. (Unlike anything said by any of these waffling pretenders.)
Praise be to our Lord, savior and prophet Richard Dawkins.
A book constantly referenced and endorsed by weinstein as foundational in learning biology?
I'm fascinated by the orangutan's unique head shape! The evolutionary explanation for its development is intriguing, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how it might have provided a survival advantage. I have some ideas, but I'd love to hear other perspectives first!
No one can step to Richard Dawkins as a biologist. Bow down Brett. Stay in your lane playboy.😎👊
Is this the same video from 5 years ago just posted again?
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!
Bret’s opening was laudable. If only he stood by a single letter of that statement himself though. In this discussion yes there was respect and patience but I happen to find his views utterly abhorrent and verging on dangerous. We should not allow anti-vaxxers such a platform. You can be against vaccines - but encouraging others to follow with his speculation and misinformation is wrong in my view.
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" 🥴
This was an awesome conversation.
I think the whole section in which they were talking about a hipothetical genetic influence on a supposed genocide proclivity is worth re-watching as good example of proper argumentation
I may lay a few timestamps of what seems the most remarkable takes on that for me, at some point in the future
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.
He wasn't saying we should never use mathematical models... just that we should be sceptical of their outputs. I agree.
@@shanemac7185 if you go back and listen it was more than just skepticism. It is an appeal from ignorance. The models are literally designed to be questioned, that is science, so your argument seems disingenuous at best, harmful at most. I would rethink your stance and come to a better conclusion.
Mathematical proofs and formulae based models are simple and act as profound tools even with the inclusion of irrational numbers and “placeholder” quantities. They are robust, yes.
But Bret is right about how maths is employed in building statistical models. They have a higher burden put upon them to correctly predict outcomes in complex systems and subject to higher degrees of error as he outlined.
Have you studied mathematical models? I understad where bret is coming from, they are frought with assumptions and instability. However i do agree with dawkins that the answer is better models. But yeah, models should be approached in a sceptical manner.
Yeah Bret can’t do math, nailed it
“Let us pray”.
This is a perfect opening to a metaphor and introduction to a meeting of brilliant minds we can learn from.
“Let ua prey”.
Is the same message from the brilliant minds that refuse to learn.
It seems “we” are on divergent paths.
Maybe wanna decide to pray or prey sooner than later.
Or dont.
After all,
Who could possibly be listening or looking and studying you and alll that you have interacted with digitally?
Pray or prey. Thats up to you (Recommend the former)
Either way…. don’t twitch.
Cause you will regret which pray/prey you thought you were doing at the time.
Jeremy
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.
Something can have limits and also achieve much
Weinstein's introduction can be interpreted as "I am going to say some idiotic things and I claim the right to say them."
So, you're a Dawkins fan. We get that.
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 😂 🤡
15 minutes in and I have lost patience with Bret already. Peacocks exist so clearly the 'balance' works. He cites a mathematical explanation as to why it should not work then says he he is skeptical of mathematical models. Besides which, biology is not a branch of bogus economics in which supply and demand are magically balanced by an invisible hand. Given the terrible state of the environment, it's probably true to say that the existence of peacocks, and everything else, hangs in the balance. Given a 'perfect' environment (unencumbered by human excess), species still go extinct so the utility of the tail can only be judged by the success of the peacock in an environment we don't actually have? Pointless conjecture.
Wow incredible intellectual discrepancy at display here! Smart and clear Dawkins, twisted and dishonest Weinstein. How quickly he ran away from beaver ponds to Catholics after Dawkins explained his error was so telling:) Bret is not interested in truth, only self promotion. Yet he made it so far with this attitude!
Yet, Bret Weinstein is there and you're just a random on RUclips
Natively smart grifters tend to do well ... they fool most of the population.
I don't listen to anyone who disrespect mathematical models. Mathematical models are the HIGHEST form of rationality and intelligence humans have created. They are NOT just BULLSHIT like oral debates. Or legal arguments, which are unfalsifiable and politically biased claims. They are not just BULLSHIT crap like chess or Go or any videogame. The only LOGICALLY CONSISTENT way of DEFINING causation is via MATHEMATICAL MODELS.
I celebrate ANYONE wiping their ass on the koran or bible or US constitution or any other political document.
Because those are meaningless unfalsifiable excrement.
But mathematical models are sacred, because they can be improved upon, modified.
You are quite correct but didn't I say essentially the same thing?
Dave
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?
What an awesome conversation!
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?
@@bladdnun3016I wonder how many people who are actually biologists agree with you vs. not. I'm a biologist. I don't agree with you take.
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.
Richard: “Ponds don’t mutate.”
Bret: “Do you want to understand the nature of Catholicism?”
This is a lesson in logic and wisdom brought to us by Dawkins.
😂
Terrible video quality along with an annoying graphic at the top of the screen.
I believe everyone would agree that Prof. Dawkins' talking is clearer and more succinct than Bret! I mean Bret talks a lot saying little, which is not the case with Richard.
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?
Dawking attributes many human atrocities to religion but will not discuss Darwinisms negative effects on humanity.
Because Social Darwinism is a (false) mimicry of biological functions. It's tempting to design Social based upon Darwin , but really it makes as much sense as designing a Society around blood clotting mechanisms or a political party designed around Black Hole formation mechanics. In other words, these naturalistic mechanisms have nothing to do with Society, and have existed long long before man has been around to judge it's Value.
In other words, is a Sloth really Slow and Lazy?, or is the Sloth adapted successfully to its environment?
And did Sloths exist before man was around to assign negative value judgements upon it?
Same thing with Darwinism