How so? One promotes observable facts and evidence. The other one denies evolution and says that bc people enjoy watching shows about animals but not about space....therefore my point is correct.
So true. Well said. Bill Nye repeats false science myths as facts; Berlinski provides a wonderful example of questioning our conditioned thinking pathways.
@@MrLou948 When Bill Nye demonstrates abiogenesis, chemicals to life by duplicating the simplest living organism from chemicals, you would be coherent. Until then, no man in any of the most sophisticated laboratories in the world can copy the simplest example, with a working model in hand? Believing a primordial soup created life when a lab can't copy it? That's a fact.. You are a very low information reguarding the actual chemistry required for life. It has been demonstrated it couldn't happen in a mud puddle. RUclips James Tour: The Origin of Life. He's qualified as a synthetic chemist...
My thoughts as well! As a matter of fact, I scrolled down to say, "I have never heard of this man before, but am now interested in hearing more from him!"!:) Its rare to find honest people these days...... especially in academia! Intellectuals as a group have "SOLD OUT" to the domestic enemy left! All their interested in now is BRAINWASHING AMERICAS YOUTH FROM ALL LEVELS!! Its part of their coup attempt on this Country and that's not what's "surprising", what's surprising is....... WE THE PEOPLE ARE JUST WATCHING IT HAPPEN!! Its like: You are home, in bed watching TV. You notice there are trespassers in your closet. You also hear them talk about how their plans are to "TAKE OVER" your home and property. Then, instead of jumping up and DEFENDING yourself, your family, home and property......... YOU ROLL OVER AND GO TO SLEEP!?! "You/your" in that story is....... WE THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY!! I can guarantee one thing, our Founding Fathers would have "strapped up the boots" by now!! Anyway, rant over. I just love my Country and can't stand to know we have an enemy among us, yet are too blind, lazy, uninterested, cowardly, whatever, to do something about it!?! Just my opinion of course......
@@markcreemore4915 Could you clarify, for us that aren't trendy on internet terminology, what a groyper is? I've heard it a lot recently but I still have no idea what it is. Is it something specific to the US? Thank you.
@@mcmanustony actually he makes very compact and cogent arguments but one needs to declutter one's mind from all the things they think they know to understand him.
To be honest I think Berlinski sounds very smart, which to some extent he is, but he’s phenomenal at using words. He isn’t as deep a thinker as you’d think. Some of his answers were shallow, albeit well phrased. I’m tempted to call him a intellectual comedian/ wordsmith.
This was incredibly unexpected. Ben never fails to surprise me with his guests and Berlinski-I, being a huge fan-was a treat to watch in The Ben Shapiro Show. Thank you so much for this, Ben! Keep it coming and God bless!
I love Berlinski. Over the past several years I’ve listened to his talks, interviews and lectures on RUclips. I’ve been blessed by his knowledge and wit. A Rare man. Thanks, Ben.
@@michaelbabbitt3837 thanks for that useless outburst. I notice you don’t answer the question. What is he any good at? He has contributed precisely fuck all to our understanding of any aspect of any branch of any science at any time: unless you count sitting on your arse helplessly lying and sneering at your betters as a contribution. Not big on details are you?
DAVID BERLINSKI, FROM "THE DEVIL'S DELUSION": In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival" in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature. "Religion," he affirmed, "is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. BUT FOR GOOD PEOPLE TO DO EVIL THINGS, THAT TAKES RELIGION." (caps added). In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent: Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons? If memory serves, it was not the Vatican. END OF BERLINSKI QUOTE
@Zeke Bean They didn't operate on Christian principles whatsoever. They operated on the premise of biological evolution, that humans can be forced to evolve in certain paths and that it is not immoral to destroy humans who are not of the right breed or stock. Contrast that with the teachings of Jesus and there is no comparison. The Catholic Church has indeed committed atrocious deeds beyond comprehension throughout its history. However, it is not, and has never been, Christian. This can be seen by both looking at their origins as well as many of their doctrines and traditions which Catholic leadership has frequently and freely admitted go in complete opposition to the Bible's teachings. The Pope is considered (as evidenced by the Church's past statements and letters) another Christ on earth and even beyond, being completely infallible and able to rebuke God himself and change His laws at will. It is a religious continuation of the pagan state of Rome with many Babylonian, Medo-Persian and Roman pagan doctrines as core elements of the religion. They changed the Bible in certain key ways to support their doctrines, and repeatedly killed tens of thousands of actual Christians who held on to any different Bible version including the correct original translation. Many Catholic versions of the Bible today undermine the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ and elevate man. The "Saints" are equivalent to pagan gods and are treated the same way as ancient pagan worshipers treated their gods. Catholics pray to certain Saints to get certain benefits in the Saints' area of dominion and even bury statues of whichever Saint they need help from (whether that be the saint of finance, love, revenge, etc.) Catholics universally worship Mary as the mediatrix between Jesus and man, casting Jesus as an unforgiving tyrant who can only be persuaded to help man by "seeing the breast which gave him suck, and his wrath shall be appeased." (St. Alphonsus Liguori). They are the single greatest pagan religion in the world all under a vague semblance of Christianity. See the book "Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern" for a full analysis of where Roman Catholicism derives its doctrines and the many parallels it shares with old paganism.
@@valthiriansunstrider2540 I know you mean well, but your understanding of Catholicism is so far off that is is impossible to know where to start in response. So, instead, I'll direct you - if you are really seeking to make an argument - to go over to Catholic Answers at www.catholic.com/, and just look around. Find something you disagree with, and ask questions there. Put the various authors to the test. This should not be a problem to you, as you seem to have all your arguments worked out. If your statements are true, your arguments should be able to win any test you put. Perhaps we can both agree that we both pray that the Lord will lead you to the truth?
I know! Bullshit isn't it. Zyklon B was designed by scientists to kill lice. Which it does effectively. That it was used by the Nazis to kill human beings is no more a reflection on the scientists than that fact that carbon monoxide also kills humans. Berlinski is pseudo intellectual poseur of the fist order.
Weinberg's assertion was very vague. I don't understand what he really meant by "good people" and "evil people". Are there any descriptions of Good and Evil found in science? Or Weinberg was just taking the benefit of equivocation? Or he has his own unproven beliefs in the abstract?
@@mcmanustony I'd say you have a point for Zyklon B. Still, science is a human endeavor, and has the ability to do good and evil because humans are both. Mengele was doing scientific research, yes? Science and religion are only as good as the people practicing them, perhaps. All have sinned, I'm sure of that.
@@kylejantjiesauthor He's an academic failure. He never had a full time job and was routinely fired from a succession of non tenured, temp, part time teaching assistant jobs. Academic? What do you think his speciality is? What is he an academic IN?
Sam... I am certain metaphysical realities do not exist. David... metaphysical realities may exist but science can only speculate on what they might be and not prove or disprove them, as the metaphysical is outside the boundaries of what science is able to observe and hence comment on. Jordan...I behave as if metaphysical realities exist. Craig...I not only believe in metaphysical realities but I know the truth of what they actually are.
“Many many aspects of the French Revolution are quite similar to things that are taken place today, in terms of the rhetoric, the propaganda, the level of indignation and the synthetic anger. Most anger that we experience today in the United States and Europe is synthetic, it’s the product of a confection: it’s like taking an egg white and beating it up, it may increase in volume but it’s not going to increase in substance.” - best summary of living in 2019 I have ever heard!
These two are like opposites in speech. One is slow and takes his time to form his words, while the other spits out his words like a machine gun. I love It
@@mcmanustony lol that’s interesting inference seems pretty opposite to me. These two are are the best in their separate fields and combined have more knowledge and intelligence than half the world
37:15 Berlinski: “Against stupidity even the gods are helpless.” Priceless. Accurate proverb to apply to much of the twaddle coming out of the social (pseudo)sciences and the humanities of today. Love you Ben! You are a refreshing thinking person.
@@michaelbabbitt3837 Your retorts are as pitiful as they are childish. I mentioned having done research in mathematics. In that I proved a conjecture of my supervisor about the complexity of indecomposable modules over valuation rings. Given that Berlinski has contributed fuck all to any science it would seem that you’re wrong, once again. Maybe look up that word “troll”. It doesn’t mean what you think it does. It doesn’t mean: someone smart enough to see my hero as a pretentious, lying jerk.
The way David Berlinksi conducts himself is so pleasantly hilarious. He's a clever man who is capable of having a civil discussion... he can disagree with Ben and provide counter evidence... he even calls Ben out on several instances when he believes that his argument is insufficient simply by saying "sure, so?" 39:35 LOL to which even Ben himself starts to chuckle. Also, i like the fact that Ben has a more respectable approach to this guest (unlike how he talks in college campuses with hormonal students who seem to "know everything") Very refreshing conversation. Feels like I'm watching Bob Ross painting - but in eloquent existential debate of verbal formatting :D
The true difference between two gentlemen getting together to talk about their differences vs taking their differences and bashing each other over the head like clubs. When people can hide behind keyboards, it's easy to try and club each other. We should all take every chance though to talk to people about their ideas and try to help them follow the train that leads to their own fallacies instead of calling them names and trying to make them feel dumb for their ideas
They way I saw it was: David personally disagrees with it, so does Ben but Ben clearly states his libertarian position on the matter thus ended repeating himself twice, so David asking 'So what' just means he wasnt really following... as long as government dont cross the line, Ben is fine
Philosophically speaking, Dr. Berlinski is the Galileo of the 20th century and beyond. Very heterodox to the establishment narrative. And BTW, his word smithing is exceptional which is why I recommend reading any of his books, and if you enjoy sarcastic humor, he’s your man.
Berlinski often speaks in a very difficult to comprehend manner. I was glad to see that he was conscious of that and was able to convey his message in a more understandable way.... still a bit lofty but better than usual.
"You should never underestimate the attraction of a primitive worldview. It's tedious to develop a sophisticated worldview." Berlinski dropped that Pure Fire.
Love Berlinski. He has some of the same insight GK Chesterton had 100 years ago... “Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin - a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philospher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”
I love me a good Berlinski interview. He's like a living library, and I'm continually astonished at the things he dredges out of memory on the fly. A treat to listen to him.
@@Eric-hw4fm "he's one of the smartest people I've listened to"- try to get out more. He's contributed precisely nothing to any branch of any of the sciences he lies about and sneers at. He sycophants trot out a list of all the universities he has been associated with- not mentioning that he was merely a short term teaching assistant and was fired from almost all of them. His claim to have been a "post doctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology" turned out to be, in his words, "self styled"- or what normal people would call a lie. He never managed to get a full time job anywhere and is now paraded around the right wing Christian bobble head circuit as some kind of intellectual colossus- just not one who has actually discovered anything about anything....ever. In the sciences he lies about he is totally unknown. My background is in mathematics and philosophy. I studied precisely the branch of philosophy where he did his PhD. His name never came up. I did research in mathematics. Again....no mention of the great Berlinski. I've met precisely ONE mathematician who has ever heard of him- and that had to do with Berlinski's idiotic antics regarding evolution. An example of a smarter person would be the French mathematician Rene Thom with whom Berlinski claims to have worked.....oddly enough, the "work" can be found nowhere in the collected works of Rene Thom. Maybe the cat ate it....or maybe Berlinski is simple what he appears to be: a pretentious, lying fraud.
@@Eric-hw4fm "the depth and intricacies of his answers"- the what now? Have you listened to the utter drivel of his "cows to whales" routine? It would embarrass a child. "his insanely sophisticated vocabulary"- He knows all the words. Would be nice if he could actually use them to say something of depth. "Like two immense polar bears, Newton and Leibniz, remain for ever frozen on the tundra of time".......ummm.....polar bears evolved to NOT freeze. His writing on mathematics, as well as being frequently wrong, is pretentious, narcissistic tripe. His accidentally comical account of explaining the concept of "limits" to a group of professional mathematicians is indeed "insane"...but not sophisticated. He does raise one interesting question: how the fuck does he get away with it?
@@documenter1199 he’s not an actual mathematician- as I explained. He has a bachelors and has done no research in the subject. I did research in pure mathematics- indecomposable modules over valuation rings- and hence can spot that he’s a pretentious fraud. There is one video on RUclips where he attempts to discuss advanced mathematics- it’s a train-wreck of comedic proportions. Almost nothing he said- in reference to the Riemann Hypothesis- was correct. He waffled about the nature of “conjecture”, missing the the RH is a HYPOTHESIS- meaning, there’s a ton of work predicated on it being true. He identified it as a problem in “complex function theory”. Nonsense- it has huge implications for the distribution of the primes. It is a problem in number theory He dropped the fascinating nugget that poor tragic Riemann died at the same age as poor tragic Schubert- not even close to being true, but how almost painfully cultured he sounded. He then talked absolute drivel about the hypothesis- revealing that what he might once have known about “complex function theory” he’s long since forgotten (the RH can be understood by a second year undergrad- the stuff he’s forgotten is very very basic) He then babbled about “proofs that are being considered”- there are none. Were he an honest man, on being asked he’d have said- I’ve no idea, it way beyond me- but he’s not an honest man. In short- you’ve been duped. I’ve worked in mathematics at a far higher level that Berlinski and know that he’s a pretentious fraud. I’m not a mathematician. Neither is he.
I've never listened to David Berlinski not read any of this work. However, this man is one of the most articulate intellectuals walking on this Earth. He's the personification of the education that used to be presumed in previous generations. We've lost our curiosity and he proves it.
So not only did C.S. Lewis say "Plato was right" but Berlinski is affirming the same (at least to an extent). Most ordinary people are "essentialists" and don't know it. Their "essentialism" is what makes them happy and they don't know it. Most intellectuals are "existentialists" of the "atheistic" kind and they know it. This is what makes them unhappy and I think they know it?
Finally! One of my favorite scientists. A true, independent voice of reason in academia. People should hear what he has to say about the biased attitudes and peer pressure regarding the theory of Evolution, in higher education, research and publication.
He is not a scientist and never has been. He is also not in academia having been fired from a succession of temporary teaching assistant jobs long ago. Where do you think he does his "science"? Which department, which university?
@@mcmanustony A simple Wikipededia search proves that you full of s**t. After his PhD, *Berlinski was a research assistant in the Department of Biology at Columbia University.* (Last time I checked, that is a field of science) *He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford University, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris.* (Last time I checked, that is academic positions) He was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. And considering the state of universities nowadays, if he is not in academia today, that says more about the state of academia than it does him.
@@mcmanustony A little subtlety, pls!! Berlinski presents it that way for entertainment purposes. He lives in and loves France, where self-deprecation is considered elegant. He will inevitably have ruffled a few feathers in the woke mind virus infected academia. Besides, since when is academic acceptance a mark of brilliance ? At that rate, Einstein was an idiot : he was rejected from all academia after graduation !!
@@AlloBruxelles no, I have a career in the clean world that doesn’t involve lying about degrees I don’t have (like Berlinski’s mathematics PhD), feigning expertise I lack (Berlinski on mathematics, biology, genetics, palaeontology, particle physics etc.) pontificating about subjects I’ve never not bothered my backside to study, … What’s to be jealous of? I note you didn’t answer my question….
@@mcmanustonyyou are not an academic but you feel entitled to judge an academic's career ? Take your jealousy elsewhere. We don't need your useless noise.
I'm so glad you had David on. He's one of my favorite people. It's rare to find someone so incredibly self-aware, who makes no excuses for themselves and expects the same of others.
I’ve loved Berlinski’s brilliance for a few years. Extremely under appreciated mind. Officially an Agnostic, yet impressively free spirited intellectual willing to genuinely criticize any viewpoint.
Because mainstream media refuses to promote him, or Stephen Meyer, John Lennox, James Tour, William Lane Craig etc. Unlike, Ben and Jordan Peterson. Enquiring minds will question why some are promoted while others aren’t! It’s no a coincidence, it’s by design.
Dr Berlinski was my philosophy professor at San Jose State in the 80's and he was as gracious and sincere with a bunch of state school knuckle heads as he is with Ben. He dressed the same and carried himself the same way which suggests a solid, integral character.
I must admit Ben asked very good questions that by and large engaged David on a sincere intellectual level, and his replies, as always, never cease to take your breath away if you are actually listening.
@@2sumu his books are elementary, dreadful in their pompous narcissism, riddled with mistakes and out of print. I have only once seen him attempt to discuss advanced mathematics. It was a comedic train wreck of staggering ignorance and pretentious posturing. Asked his “opinion” of the Riemann Hypothesis his honest answer would have been “not a fucking clue. WAY beyond my grasp”….he is not honest however. We were treated to a pompous monologue about “conjecture” vs “theorem”. Something that could have been said clearly in 2 sentences. He missed the import of “hypothesis” entirely. He could have made, were he not too busy preening himself, the point that a large body of mathematics has been predicated on the RH being true…. “It’s a problem in complex function theory”. Wrong. It involves a complex function but it’s a problem in number theory- again no mention from the “mathematician” Berlinski. Then a slew of pompous horseshit about poor tragic Riemann dying at the same age as poor tragic Schubert! They didn’t (31=\=39) but how almost painfully cultured he sounds…. Then some nonsense about the upper half plane….WRONG the zeta function is defined everywhere except at 1. He’s half remembering some pop account of modular forms in the proof of Fermat- irrelevant and wrong. “The question is do the zeros line up on a pole or are they all over the place”….what the actual fuck is that? A pole is a POINT, not a line, where a function has a singularity. The first several thousand BILLION zeros are known to lie on the critical LINE re(z)=1/2. The rest are known to be within a narrow strip around the line. So what the flailing arm gestures illustrating “all over the place” were about is anyone’s guess. After this comical mess, for an encore he yammered on about proofs that are being examined…..ummmm….there are none. The last was Atiyah’s years ago and a flaw was found very quickly. Berlinski is a pretentious lying fraud and nothing more. If you’d like some actual mathematicians to listen to I can recommend many. But this academic failure will waste your time.
To be sure....though if I remember correctly Ravi accidentally/erroneously claimed Beinski was a physicist when quoting him...when Berlinski isn't. Which makes me question how closely Ravi follows David Berlinski.
@Soaring Wings Second Stage Yes, but Ayn Rand meant it in terms of an individual's selfish pursuit. Peterson means it in terms of an individual's maturation by taking up responsibility.
Agree, was just commenting that he is very interesting. But more over, he was very easy to follow despite his seemingly "convoluted" words that don't feel convoluted at all.
It's odd to see an unironic Nietzsche quote under a Ben Shapiro video - then again, Nietzsches main concern was how people were going to make sense of the World without religion in the 20th century. Their attempt made people like Ben - or me, in a reactionary sense.
@@arthurobrien7424 yeah I can't even remember what it was David Berlinski said that made me think of it. There's alot to consider in this talk. I think it would be pretty cool to have so much study and meditation to draw from and to be able to effortlessly articulate my thoughts in a more precise way. But I just have fun learning as I bumble around.
I have searched high and low, think I've listened to / watched every 20+ min interview of Berlinski that's on YT. Insane that there aren't more. Especially on other topics like mathematics. He combines brilliance and profundity beyond Roger Scruton levels
@@adamsmith-wi3qg He lied for decades about having a PhD in mathematics and was finally outed. He has a basic bachelors from many decades ago and has contributed nothing original whatsoever to the subject. His books are elementary- pompous, narcissistic tripe and all out of print. I have once heard him try to discuss advanced mathematics- it was a comedic train wreck. Asked about the Riemann Hypothesis he should have answered- "not the faintest idea, it's WAY beyond my pay grade".....instead he droned on and on about the difference between a theorem and a conjecture. Utter waffle that could have been said in 5 seconds. He should have talked about the nature of HYPOTHESIS. He didn't. The point is that a large body of mathematics is predicated on the RH being true- hence Riemann HYPOTHESIS. Not a syllable from the great intellectual. Then some drivel about poor tragic Riemann dying at the same age as poor tragic Schubert. They didn't as 31=/=39, but how painfully cultured Berlinski sounded dropping that nugget of nonsense. "It's a problem in complex function theory"- NOPE. It involves a complex function, the Riemann zeta function, but the problem is in number theory as it involves the distribution of the primes and has HUGE implications for that if true- again no mention from the great "mathematician". The then waffled about "the upper half plane...." confusing, I can only guess, some account of Wiles' proof of Fermat. This involves modular forms- defined on the upper half plane. The zeta function is defined everywhere except at 1. Again- totally confused....and wrong. He then droned on about the zeroes lining up on "some pole..."..huh? A "pole" is a singularity, a POINT not a line. Zeta has a pole at 1, nowhere else. "....they line up on a pole or are all over the place"- illustrated with wild arm gestures. Absolute nonsense. The first several hundred billion zeros are known to be ON the line Re(z)=1/2. ALL are known to lie within a narrow strip. The RH is that ALL lie ON the line. After this pretentious horse shit, for an encore he said that some proofs are being considered but there's no agreement that any is correct. Again- absolute nonsense. Atiyah's was the last seriously considered claim of proof and an error was found quickly. He did manage to raise one question of interest: how the fuck does a preening, self obsessed bore and failed academic, reduced to lying and sneering from the sidelines, convince anyone that he's an intellectual?
Virtually no one in any science has ever heard of him. Outside of his circus act in the US where he poses as a scientist for audiences of gullible scientifically illiterate conservatives he is an utter non entity. He is not and never has been a scientist and the same for his supposed field of expertise- mathematics. The one moderately interesting question he raises- albeit accidentally- is: how the fuck does he get away with it?
@@lucavasilache2390 I am a professional musician. My publications are recordings- and, unlike those of the preening bore Berlinski, they are all still in print. Maybe you were working up to addressing my point. Berlinski is not and never has been a scientist and is not and never has been a mathematician. His contribution is merely to helplessly lie and sneer from the sidelines. Maybe as you do that you'll realise the irrelevance of my publication record to the antics of Berlinski. As it happens I have a publisher in England and am working on a book now. I'll keep you posted.
he has called Berlinski one of the world's greatest physicists. He not a physicist at all. He poses as a mathematician but isn't that either. Zacharias is too busy lying about his own education to properly rehearse the lies about Berlinski.
If you're wondering why you may not have heard of David Berlinski there are a couple. He absolutely infuriates the scientific / aetheistic / intellectual community (even though he himself a member of all 3..and a jew). Another reason for his anonymity, to a larger extent, is Berlinskis" main body of work was done before the modern internet was as sophisticated and accessible as it is today. Just as in all likelihood your odds of knowning who Ben Shapiro is would be slim had he been born 40 years earlier. Berlinski has stood alone unintimidated by the University pharisees and the legions of robotic godless academics they have cranked out with his trademark nonchalance and carefully chosen (and always irreverent) words. He has a unique ability to expose their claims and render it nonsense with ease. He undresses their worldview without breaking a sweat...and they HATE him for it. You haven't heard of him because the tenured and deeply entrenched priests of all things "science" prefer it that way. Then things like RUclips and social media came along and you begin to hear highly intelligent voices that challenge the academic & political establishment of our times.
I like this guy. He's cocky and frank with a healthy awareness of his own limitations. And his point about government not being the only solution to problems, but rather social pressure being a very effective tool, is spot-on and too seldom discussed these days.
I've been reading and watching David for many years, and I can honestly say he's one of the most intelligent, and straight forward thinkers I've ever read. His thoughts on Darwinian evolution is amazing and forward.
He's actually an academic failure with no the faintest clue about evolution.....this has been explained to you. He claims to be a mathematician. Which of his mathematical discoveries is the most significant do you think?
@@apologiaromana4123 What a stupid comment. Why is it that so often the defenders of this pretentious fraud start bleating about "ad hominems" as soon as the facts about David Berlinski are pointed out? Here's some remedial logic for you. "Ad hominem" means- "to the man". It is a logical fallacy that takes the form "X is a bad person, therefore X is wrong about Y". An example "vegetarianism is wrong because Hitler was a vegetarian". Good luck finding an example of this from me. Pointing out that Berlinski is a fraud is not an ad hominem- it's a fact. He lies about a PhD in mathematics, he has no such degree. He feigns expertise in evolutionary biology- he has none. He lied about having been a post doc in "mathematics and molecular biology"- he was nothing of the sort, having no graduate experience in either subject. He was a temporary TEACHING ASSISTANT at various institutions and was routinely fired because he was rubbish at it. Again, pointing out that Berlinski is a fraud is simply stating a fact. You can chant "ad hominem" till you're blue in the face. It will remain a fact. I hope this helps.
@@apologiaromana4123 "These are all claims."- and maybe if you spent less time sitting on your backside sneering in ignorance at someone you know nothing about, you could CHECK THE CLAIMS. My background is in mathematics- in which I worked at a far higher level than Berlinski. I am therefore INTELLIGENT and knowledgeable enough to see this ridiculous fraud for what he is. He presents himself as a mathematician- having peddled the lie that he has a PhD in the subject. I have seen him refer to mathematics constantly, seen many of his sycophants drool over his prowess, seen him today referred to as a mathematician AND physicist! It's only a matter of time before he's seen as a member of The Spice Girls, the inventor of the smartphone and The King of Nigeria. I have once heard him attempt to discuss advanced mathematics- the status of the Riemann Hypothesis, only the most significant unsolved problem in pure mathematics. Had he a shred of integrity he'd have admitted: I've absolutely no idea, it's WAY beyond my pay grade and I couldn't even STATE it. Instead we got a pompous, long winded sermon on the nature of conjecture vs theorem. He COULD have stated that it's called a "hypothesis" because a large body of work has been done assuming it's true- though that hasn't been shown. Nope. Then we get the bizarre nugget that poor tragic Riemann died at the same age as poor tragic Schubert. They didn't, as 31=/=39 but how painfully and exquisitely cultured he sounded. We are then told it's a problem in complex function theory! It involves a complex function but the significance is in NUMBER THEORY. If RH is true there are HUGE implications for the distribution of primes. The great mathematician seems to know nothing about this. We then got something about "the upper half plane"......nope. The zeta function is defined on *C\{1}* NOT the upper half plane. I'd bet the house he was garbling something he read about Wiles proof of Fermat which involves modular forms- defined on the upper half plane. Either way- it's just nonsense. We then get his version of RH- "either the zeros line up on some pole or (flails arms wildly) they are all over the place". Good fucking grief! A pole is a POINT not a line- a singularity. The zeta function has a simple pole at z=1 corresponding to the divergence of the harmonic series. NOTHING can line up on a pole. The critical line is Re(z)=1/2. Far from being "all over the place" the first several trillion zeros are known to be ON the line and ALL are known to lie within a critical strip of the line. Again- Professor Sir Dr Lord Berlinski PhD, DDR, DDT seems oblivious to this FUNDAMENTAL piece of knowledge. For an encore he tells us that some proofs are being considered but haven't been verified as of yet. This is totally false. The last "proof" offered was Atiyah's and it was flawed. Just to remind you- the man responsible for the above miserable trainwreck would like you to believe this is his area of expertise. His horseshit on evolution is even more embarrassing. Try to be less presumptuous.....you don't know what you think you know, either about Berlinski or about me.
Awesome! I just recently read 'The Devils Delusion' by Berlinski. Great book by quite complex at times. I like his wit, humility and honesty. We need more thinkers like him.
Mark Metternich Photography, LLC isn’t that the truth, i wish he was as prevalent a public figure as Jordan Peterson. I wish everybody was interviewing Berlinski... his vocabulary, eloquence, rhetoric, penetrating insights & ability to gracefully draw lines between key points we aught to have recognized in plain sight!
I've never thought Ben would bring David Berlinski on the show. As a christian I would love to see him turn to Christ. this was a special show for me, i have a deep respect David Berlinski over the past years. GOOD JOB BEN. GREAT SHOW AS USUAL
Brilliant man. I follow his interviews, explanations, and they are from another world. İncredible scientist and very gifted by God. Mr. Berlinski tells it like an artist. His language skills are incredible almost poetic like swan lake. Unbelievable and just marvelous. Very happy about the interview. Please bring him back. Thanks
"İncredible scientist "- he has a bachelors in mathematics almost all of which he's forgotten, and a Phd in philosophy. He is not and never has been a scientist of any kind. He poses as an authority on anything from particle physics to genetics while knowing damn all about anything. Here's a chronological list of Berlinski's research publications in all the sciences. . . . . . Here's that list again, this time in alphabetical order. . . . . . The only incredible thing about this pretentious fraud is that he been getting away with it for decades.
Why do this clown's drooling sycophants run away when asked to identify precisely what the hell he' any good at. You have similarly failed. Could it be that he's just a pretentious poseur- I think it could.
A very great conversation between two intelligent, educated, respectful men. Despite my limited formal education, as compared to them, I'd enjoy sitting down with them for a like conversation. I do question some of the comments, if only ton clarify that with which I disagree. Great post. Thank you.
@@mcmanustony Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques.
@@sirsleepy2472 " Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University"- and had ZERO impact on the study of Wittgenstein. He has since published one minuscule paper on Quine 50 years ago. Good work though! You can cut AND paste! "was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. "- utter bullshit. A post doc in two subjects, neither of which he has any graduate training and one not even UNDERgraduate training...sure thing. Tune in next week and we'll have Professor Schmorg Blorgendorf, post doctoral fellow in economics and quantum mechanics with his PhD in dentistry. He was at Columbia for ONE semester- post docs are hired for a year minimum and often three. They also produce research- where's Berlinski's? He was forced to admit that "post doctoral fellow" was "self styled"- or as we say in the clean world; a lie. He had a string of low level, non tenured teaching assistant stints at various places, none full time and, by his own admission he was FIRED from almost all. So, more of a rubbish teaching assistant than an intellectual. "He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, "- expository article, and a book review- decades ago, impact nil. His mathematics books are godawful pompous tripe- decades out of print- and his pretensions around being a mathematician are simply comical. Here's a chronological list of his original research in all scientific fields. . . . . . . here's that list again this time in alphabetical order. . . . . . . "he has held research fellowships"- I don't believe that for a second for the simple reason that he has fuck all published research and a track record of grotesquely inflating his credentials- including lying about a non existent PhD in mathematics. So, what is he any good at?
@@mcmanustony 😂! I thought you were asking a sincere question. So of course I copied and pasted the information. But to answer your last question since I am not an intellectual myself I really couldn’t tell you about his post doctoral positions and the papers he wrote or there impact. What I can say is that if you are correct and I don’t think you are, but if you are correct he is good at getting away with and convincing people all those credentials are true and well deserved. People in those very intellectual circles and who are far more intelligent than you or I.
@@sirsleepy2472 " I really couldn’t tell you about his post doctoral positions and the papers he wrote or there impact."- you can now because I took the time to inform you. He lied about being a "post doctoral fellow" and has admitted it. He has lied for decades about a PhD in mathematics that doesn't exist. Besides his outright lies, he is more guilty of grotesque credential inflation. He blabbers about a period at one prestigious institution where, as far as any record I can find, he was there for a few days and gave two expository talks. Whoop! It's thoroughly dishonest. I gave a graduate seminar hosted by the Economics Department of the City University of New York. Were I as deceitful as Berlinski I'd therefore present myself as a huge figure in academic economics. In the real world I was there for 2 days as an invited guest to teach MBA graduate students about the finances of the independent music sector. Berlinski's career as an academic was an unmitigated disaster. He never managed to have a full time teaching job and was routinely fired from one institution after another. His "research" you'd need an electron microscope to detect. One short paper on the philosopher WVO Quine 50 years ago.....wow! If you read what actual scientists and mathematicians (the small number who have actually heard of him) say about him you'll see he doesn't get away with it. He is widely seen for what he is: a lying, sneering, self-important fraud. "who are far more intelligent than you or I."- you don't know anything about my intelligence. I have worked in mathematics at a far higher level that Berlinski and can see him for the pretentious, non-achieving ego-maniac he is. You're welcome.
Chilling in his apartment in France haha. Seriously, search for his interview with Rational Religion. He literally gives the entire interview lying down on his couch.
Probably laughed at in any intellectual circle bc he’s a joke. Apparently Ben is now promoting pseudo science but jobs in order to promote his assertion that the bible is the basis for morality.
Lou L lot of ad homs and not a lot of substance in your response. Having read “The Devils Delusion” back when I was an atheist, you claiming Berlinski believes in pseudo science is silly. As far is Ben is concerned, he’s asking you to make a rational case for your morality: since atheism relies on the subjective, you can’t and that’s why you are salty.
His first sentence is absolutely the TRUTH. I gratuated from a Polish University. My political sciences studies were completely drenched in this idea. Everything I studied only proved that to be Truth further. And it Has NOTHING to with being religious
Dear Ben, This is by a far the best interview this year. Alongside, Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. Jordan Peterson and Dr. Stephen C Meyer. Thank you for also creating free content for us not so rich viewers to watch. 🙏🏼 you may count it as Tzedakah. 🇮🇱🔯✡️
Berlinski is a rationalist in the true sense of the word. First, he is honest. Next, he remains honest when he applies logic to his reasoning, with no shortcuts, simplifications, or hidden agendas. Along the way, he stays moral, maintains a healthy sense of wonder and humility, and never forgets that if we give up our right to doubt, we give up our humanity.
Thoroughly enjoyed this interview with David Berlinski . Love this guy , could listen to him for hours and hours . This is a testimony to how mart Ben is too , because keeping up with Berlinski is no walk in the park . I read Berlinski's book " The Devil's delusion" it was brilliant . I will be looking for his latest seen here "Human Nature" Thank you so much for this video .
5 лет назад+19
Feminisation is what happened to colleges and broader western society.
He hit the nail on the head, “the collapse of authority.” He witnessed intelligent men who were willing to let the mob rule. These “wise” men gave away their authority through fear and inaction. The feminist’s were opportunists who filled the void...they were merely a symptom of a much more insidious failure of mankind. Everyone man and women unwilling to stand up for what is right is equally culpable in the collapse of our society.
I've seen a couple versions of this quote attributed to George Carlin: "Political correctness is fascism pretending to be good manners." Word! Berlinski is an important thinker. Thanks for the interview!!
Not only is David brilliant and funny, he's a bit of a fashion statement too. You should see him when he's more relaxed and not wearing his suit. ... a one-of-a-kind, through and through 🤗
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that Bill Nye has more credibility to our culture than David Berlinski says so much about our society.
How so? One promotes observable facts and evidence.
The other one denies evolution and says that bc people enjoy watching shows about animals but not about space....therefore my point is correct.
So true. Well said. Bill Nye repeats false science myths as facts; Berlinski provides a wonderful example of questioning our conditioned thinking pathways.
pushing the narrative vs debunking the narrative in a nutshell
@@MrLou948 When Bill Nye demonstrates abiogenesis, chemicals to life by duplicating the simplest living organism from chemicals, you would be coherent. Until then, no man in any of the most sophisticated laboratories in the world can copy the simplest example, with a working model in hand? Believing a primordial soup created life when a lab can't copy it? That's a fact.. You are a very low information reguarding the actual chemistry required for life. It has been demonstrated it couldn't happen in a mud puddle. RUclips James Tour: The Origin of Life. He's qualified as a synthetic chemist...
What a wonderfully true statement
I’d never heard of this guest before, he is absolutely fascinating.
He is great. Rapier wit. Check out his book: The Devil's Delusion
If you like this, I cannot recommend enough that you search his other materials out as well as his books. The guy is a legend.
Uncommon knowledge interviews
My thoughts as well! As a matter of fact, I scrolled down to say, "I have never heard of this man before, but am now interested in hearing more from him!"!:) Its rare to find honest people these days...... especially in academia! Intellectuals as a group have "SOLD OUT" to the domestic enemy left! All their interested in now is BRAINWASHING AMERICAS YOUTH FROM ALL LEVELS!! Its part of their coup attempt on this Country and that's not what's "surprising", what's surprising is....... WE THE PEOPLE ARE JUST WATCHING IT HAPPEN!! Its like: You are home, in bed watching TV. You notice there are trespassers in your closet. You also hear them talk about how their plans are to "TAKE OVER" your home and property. Then, instead of jumping up and DEFENDING yourself, your family, home and property......... YOU ROLL OVER AND GO TO SLEEP!?! "You/your" in that story is....... WE THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY!! I can guarantee one thing, our Founding Fathers would have "strapped up the boots" by now!! Anyway, rant over. I just love my Country and can't stand to know we have an enemy among us, yet are too blind, lazy, uninterested, cowardly, whatever, to do something about it!?! Just my opinion of course......
He's done some great interviews with the Hoover Institution that you should check out
This guy's actually super funny. I like him. I would enjoy him as a professor.
Lol
@ excuse me? What are you talking about? Haha.
I'm funnier
Absolutely!
@@markcreemore4915 Could you clarify, for us that aren't trendy on internet terminology, what a groyper is? I've heard it a lot recently but I still have no idea what it is. Is it something specific to the US? Thank you.
This man is an absolute wordsmith. I could listen to him all day
He feels the same way.
Yep, sublime.
you would need to listen to him all day to catch him saying anything of substance......and even then you'd be lucky.
@@mcmanustony actually he makes very compact and cogent arguments but one needs to declutter one's mind from all the things they think they know to understand him.
@@TheKbthakur No he doesn't. He's a complete charlatan posing as an intellectual.....just one that hasn't actually DONE anything.
“Not attacks. Meditations.”
I love a good dose of passive aggression.
Good seeing you here
Just a great sense of humour
That’s not passive aggressive he’s being slightly facetious
It's actually humor, but I can clearly see how and why you in particular would make that mistake... #SeeWhatIDidThere
He'd blend into Minnesota well then
This is the best Sunday special ever. First time Shapiro wasn’t the smartest person in the room.
To argue against evolution is like the story of the viking king who said he was so powerful he could stop the tide.... he couldn't!
To be honest I think Berlinski sounds very smart, which to some extent he is, but he’s phenomenal at using words. He isn’t as deep a thinker as you’d think. Some of his answers were shallow, albeit well phrased. I’m tempted to call him a intellectual comedian/ wordsmith.
Ummm.....william lane Craig, Jordan Peterson....
Isaiah Armstrong he is definitely an intellectual... jus sayin.
Jordan Peterson yes but William Lane Craig? Naaaahh. This guy reminds me of Deepok Chopa.
This was incredibly unexpected. Ben never fails to surprise me with his guests and Berlinski-I, being a huge fan-was a treat to watch in The Ben Shapiro Show.
Thank you so much for this, Ben! Keep it coming and God bless!
Certain he arrived to the studio in a DeLorean.
Oh shit I really like berlinski but you right on this one haha
I THOUGHT THE SAME THING
A cybertruck
Ben kinda looks like Marty😂😂😂
😁😁😁😂😂🤣🤣😊😊😋😋
Berlinski’s sense of humor is so dry he could start a brush-fire in Kuala Lumpur in March
Excellent!
I love it
Cousin Mike HL Mencken is his hero
🤣🤣
I live in kuala lumpur and im confused about this joke (still laughing tho)
I love Berlinski. Over the past several years I’ve listened to his talks, interviews and lectures on RUclips. I’ve been blessed by his knowledge and wit. A Rare man. Thanks, Ben.
What exactly is he any good at?
@@mcmanustony Boy, you are certainly a hate-filled troll. Wow, I am glad not all musicians are run by such hatred.
@@michaelbabbitt3837 thanks for that useless outburst. I notice you don’t answer the question. What is he any good at? He has contributed precisely fuck all to our understanding of any aspect of any branch of any science at any time: unless you count sitting on your arse helplessly lying and sneering at your betters as a contribution.
Not big on details are you?
DAVID BERLINSKI, FROM "THE DEVIL'S DELUSION":
In 2007, a number of scientists gathered in a conference entitled "Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival" in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing. The physicist Steven Weinberg delivered an address. As one of the authors of the theory of electroweak unification, the work for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize, he is a figure of great stature. "Religion," he affirmed, "is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. BUT FOR GOOD PEOPLE TO DO EVIL THINGS, THAT TAKES RELIGION." (caps added).
In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded, not one member of his audience asking the question one might have thought pertinent:
Just who has imposed on the suffering human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery, pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs, attack submarines, napalm, intercontinental ballistic missiles, military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?
If memory serves, it was not the Vatican.
END OF BERLINSKI QUOTE
@Zeke Bean They didn't operate on Christian principles whatsoever. They operated on the premise of biological evolution, that humans can be forced to evolve in certain paths and that it is not immoral to destroy humans who are not of the right breed or stock. Contrast that with the teachings of Jesus and there is no comparison.
The Catholic Church has indeed committed atrocious deeds beyond comprehension throughout its history. However, it is not, and has never been, Christian. This can be seen by both looking at their origins as well as many of their doctrines and traditions which Catholic leadership has frequently and freely admitted go in complete opposition to the Bible's teachings. The Pope is considered (as evidenced by the Church's past statements and letters) another Christ on earth and even beyond, being completely infallible and able to rebuke God himself and change His laws at will.
It is a religious continuation of the pagan state of Rome with many Babylonian, Medo-Persian and Roman pagan doctrines as core elements of the religion. They changed the Bible in certain key ways to support their doctrines, and repeatedly killed tens of thousands of actual Christians who held on to any different Bible version including the correct original translation. Many Catholic versions of the Bible today undermine the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ and elevate man. The "Saints" are equivalent to pagan gods and are treated the same way as ancient pagan worshipers treated their gods. Catholics pray to certain Saints to get certain benefits in the Saints' area of dominion and even bury statues of whichever Saint they need help from (whether that be the saint of finance, love, revenge, etc.) Catholics universally worship Mary as the mediatrix between Jesus and man, casting Jesus as an unforgiving tyrant who can only be persuaded to help man by "seeing the breast which gave him suck, and his wrath shall be appeased." (St. Alphonsus Liguori). They are the single greatest pagan religion in the world all under a vague semblance of Christianity.
See the book "Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern" for a full analysis of where Roman Catholicism derives its doctrines and the many parallels it shares with old paganism.
@@valthiriansunstrider2540 I know you mean well, but your understanding of Catholicism is so far off that is is impossible to know where to start in response. So, instead, I'll direct you - if you are really seeking to make an argument - to go over to Catholic Answers at www.catholic.com/, and just look around. Find something you disagree with, and ask questions there. Put the various authors to the test. This should not be a problem to you, as you seem to have all your arguments worked out. If your statements are true, your arguments should be able to win any test you put. Perhaps we can both agree that we both pray that the Lord will lead you to the truth?
I know! Bullshit isn't it. Zyklon B was designed by scientists to kill lice. Which it does effectively. That it was used by the Nazis to kill human beings is no more a reflection on the scientists than that fact that carbon monoxide also kills humans.
Berlinski is pseudo intellectual poseur of the fist order.
Weinberg's assertion was very vague. I don't understand what he really meant by "good people" and "evil people". Are there any descriptions of Good and Evil found in science? Or Weinberg was just taking the benefit of equivocation? Or he has his own unproven beliefs in the abstract?
@@mcmanustony I'd say you have a point for Zyklon B. Still, science is a human endeavor, and has the ability to do good and evil because humans are both. Mengele was doing scientific research, yes? Science and religion are only as good as the people practicing them, perhaps. All have sinned, I'm sure of that.
Berlinski, one of the last of a dying breed. thanks for having him on
Dying breed of what? Failed academics?
@@mcmanustony Honest academics
@@kylejantjiesauthor He's an academic failure. He never had a full time job and was routinely fired from a succession of non tenured, temp, part time teaching assistant jobs.
Academic? What do you think his speciality is? What is he an academic IN?
@@kylejantjiesauthor Still waiting to hear about Berlinski's field as an academic. Quick FYI- sneering at your betters is not an academic field.
Three hour discussion with Sam Harris, David Berlinski, Jordan Peterson, and William Lane Craig on metaphysical realities please and thank you Ben
Peterson may need some more time before he takes the world stage again.
Sam... I am certain metaphysical realities do not exist.
David... metaphysical realities may exist but science can only speculate on what they might be and not prove or disprove them, as the metaphysical is outside the boundaries of what science is able to observe and hence comment on.
Jordan...I behave as if metaphysical realities exist.
Craig...I not only believe in metaphysical realities but I know the truth of what they actually are.
...leave Sam home....he isn't up to the intellectual standard of the others.
Travis C. I’d replace Sam Harris with someone like Peter Boghossian instead.
I would sub for Bishop Barron.
“Many many aspects of the French Revolution are quite similar to things that are taken place today, in terms of the rhetoric, the propaganda, the level of indignation and the synthetic anger. Most anger that we experience today in the United States and Europe is synthetic, it’s the product of a confection: it’s like taking an egg white and beating it up, it may increase in volume but it’s not going to increase in substance.”
- best summary of living in 2019 I have ever heard!
These two are like opposites in speech. One is slow and takes his time to form his words, while the other spits out his words like a machine gun. I love It
David is a sniper with words, like Jordan Peterson but Ben is a machine gun.
@@Him.TheOneAndOnly Excellent analogy
and neither has the faintest idea what he's talking about.
Haha so true!!
@@mcmanustony lol that’s interesting inference seems pretty opposite to me. These two are are the best in their separate fields and combined have more knowledge and intelligence than half the world
37:15 Berlinski: “Against stupidity even the gods are helpless.” Priceless. Accurate proverb to apply to much of the twaddle coming out of the social (pseudo)sciences and the humanities of today. Love you Ben! You are a refreshing thinking person.
David Berlinski is one of my favourite intellectuals. He is a guy deserving of the moniker.
What exactly is he any good at?
@@mcmanustony Certainly more than you, an internet troll.
@@michaelbabbitt3837 Your retorts are as pitiful as they are childish.
I mentioned having done research in mathematics. In that I proved a conjecture of my supervisor about the complexity of indecomposable modules over valuation rings. Given that Berlinski has contributed fuck all to any science it would seem that you’re wrong, once again.
Maybe look up that word “troll”. It doesn’t mean what you think it does. It doesn’t mean: someone smart enough to see my hero as a pretentious, lying jerk.
The way David Berlinksi conducts himself is so pleasantly hilarious. He's a clever man who is capable of having a civil discussion... he can disagree with Ben and provide counter evidence... he even calls Ben out on several instances when he believes that his argument is insufficient simply by saying "sure, so?" 39:35 LOL to which even Ben himself starts to chuckle.
Also, i like the fact that Ben has a more respectable approach to this guest (unlike how he talks in college campuses with hormonal students who seem to "know everything")
Very refreshing conversation.
Feels like I'm watching Bob Ross painting - but in eloquent existential debate of verbal formatting :D
The true difference between two gentlemen getting together to talk about their differences vs taking their differences and bashing each other over the head like clubs. When people can hide behind keyboards, it's easy to try and club each other.
We should all take every chance though to talk to people about their ideas and try to help them follow the train that leads to their own fallacies instead of calling them names and trying to make them feel dumb for their ideas
Great comparison with Bob Ross. Didn't think of that! 😊
They way I saw it was: David personally disagrees with it, so does Ben but Ben clearly states his libertarian position on the matter thus ended repeating himself twice, so David asking 'So what' just means he wasnt really following... as long as government dont cross the line, Ben is fine
I was the first one ever to suggest Dr. Berlinski be invited to the show. Thank you Jesus!
Philosophically speaking, Dr. Berlinski is the Galileo of the 20th century and beyond. Very heterodox to the establishment narrative. And
BTW, his word smithing is exceptional which is why I recommend reading any of his books, and if you enjoy sarcastic humor, he’s your man.
Sad to report, I had his book, "The Devil's Delusion;" Lent it to a high school teacher who never returned it.
Well.....He's a breath of fresh air.
This is more interesting than I thought it would be.
Check out Steven Meyer
@@jendernewtrall9846 Ben interviewed him Episode 43 Sunday Special.
Berlinski often speaks in a very difficult to comprehend manner. I was glad to see that he was conscious of that and was able to convey his message in a more understandable way.... still a bit lofty but better than usual.
I think Shapiro actually learned some things here
I like your username
"You should never underestimate the attraction of a primitive worldview. It's tedious to develop a sophisticated worldview." Berlinski dropped that Pure Fire.
BRILLIANT!!! ❤❤ LOVE DR BELINSKY!
Love Berlinski. He has some of the same insight GK Chesterton had 100 years ago...
“Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin - a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R. J. Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philospher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”
I love me a good Berlinski interview. He's like a living library, and I'm continually astonished at the things he dredges out of memory on the fly. A treat to listen to him.
@@Eric-hw4fm Seriously? His peddles the notion that mathematics is his field of expertise. His "grasp" of that subject is hopeless.....
@@Eric-hw4fm "he's one of the smartest people I've listened to"- try to get out more. He's contributed precisely nothing to any branch of any of the sciences he lies about and sneers at. He sycophants trot out a list of all the universities he has been associated with- not mentioning that he was merely a short term teaching assistant and was fired from almost all of them. His claim to have been a "post doctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology" turned out to be, in his words, "self styled"- or what normal people would call a lie.
He never managed to get a full time job anywhere and is now paraded around the right wing Christian bobble head circuit as some kind of intellectual colossus- just not one who has actually discovered anything about anything....ever.
In the sciences he lies about he is totally unknown. My background is in mathematics and philosophy. I studied precisely the branch of philosophy where he did his PhD. His name never came up. I did research in mathematics. Again....no mention of the great Berlinski. I've met precisely ONE mathematician who has ever heard of him- and that had to do with Berlinski's idiotic antics regarding evolution.
An example of a smarter person would be the French mathematician Rene Thom with whom Berlinski claims to have worked.....oddly enough, the "work" can be found nowhere in the collected works of Rene Thom. Maybe the cat ate it....or maybe Berlinski is simple what he appears to be: a pretentious, lying fraud.
@@Eric-hw4fm "the depth and intricacies of his answers"- the what now? Have you listened to the utter drivel of his "cows to whales" routine? It would embarrass a child.
"his insanely sophisticated vocabulary"- He knows all the words. Would be nice if he could actually use them to say something of depth. "Like two immense polar bears, Newton and Leibniz, remain for ever frozen on the tundra of time".......ummm.....polar bears evolved to NOT freeze. His writing on mathematics, as well as being frequently wrong, is pretentious, narcissistic tripe. His accidentally comical account of explaining the concept of "limits" to a group of professional mathematicians is indeed "insane"...but not sophisticated.
He does raise one interesting question: how the fuck does he get away with it?
@@mcmanustony and of course you would know better than an actual mathematician
@@documenter1199 he’s not an actual mathematician- as I explained. He has a bachelors and has done no research in the subject.
I did research in pure mathematics- indecomposable modules over valuation rings- and hence can spot that he’s a pretentious fraud. There is one video on RUclips where he attempts to discuss advanced mathematics- it’s a train-wreck of comedic proportions. Almost nothing he said- in reference to the Riemann Hypothesis- was correct. He waffled about the nature of “conjecture”, missing the the RH is a HYPOTHESIS- meaning, there’s a ton of work predicated on it being true.
He identified it as a problem in “complex function theory”. Nonsense- it has huge implications for the distribution of the primes. It is a problem in number theory
He dropped the fascinating nugget that poor tragic Riemann died at the same age as poor tragic Schubert- not even close to being true, but how almost painfully cultured he sounded.
He then talked absolute drivel about the hypothesis- revealing that what he might once have known about “complex function theory” he’s long since forgotten (the RH can be understood by a second year undergrad- the stuff he’s forgotten is very very basic)
He then babbled about “proofs that are being considered”- there are none.
Were he an honest man, on being asked he’d have said- I’ve no idea, it way beyond me- but he’s not an honest man.
In short- you’ve been duped. I’ve worked in mathematics at a far higher level that Berlinski and know that he’s a pretentious fraud.
I’m not a mathematician. Neither is he.
His mastery of the language is striking.
Oh, I need a dictionary when listening to him
I've never listened to David Berlinski not read any of this work. However, this man is one of the most articulate intellectuals walking on this Earth. He's the personification of the education that used to be presumed in previous generations. We've lost our curiosity and he proves it.
He is like Jordan Peterson if, Jordan never cleaned his room.
😁🤣
@@mrburley I, stand, by, my, grammatical, errors.,
@@mrburley nah, its correct. He is the person speaking, sooooo, he can place a pause where ever he likes...
Rich B if you stand by your grammatical errors, it must mean you also stand by your messy room as well, am I right? 🤨
@@mrburley ahhhh, nope,,,,
Superb conversation!
As always, David Berlinski's interviews are invigorating. Lots of food for thought
So not only did C.S. Lewis say "Plato was right" but Berlinski is affirming the same (at least to an extent). Most ordinary people are "essentialists" and don't know it. Their "essentialism" is what makes them happy and they don't know it. Most intellectuals are "existentialists" of the "atheistic" kind and they know it. This is what makes them unhappy and I think they know it?
Finally! One of my favorite scientists. A true, independent voice of reason in academia. People should hear what he has to say about the biased attitudes and peer pressure regarding the theory of Evolution, in higher education, research and publication.
He is not a scientist and never has been. He is also not in academia having been fired from a succession of temporary teaching assistant jobs long ago. Where do you think he does his "science"? Which department, which university?
@@mcmanustony A simple Wikipededia search proves that you full of s**t.
After his PhD, *Berlinski was a research assistant in the Department of Biology at Columbia University.* (Last time I checked, that is a field of science) *He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford University, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris.* (Last time I checked, that is academic positions) He was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France.
And considering the state of universities nowadays, if he is not in academia today, that says more about the state of academia than it does him.
Berlinski is brilliant. Always à delight to listen to him.
Brilliant at what? His academic career was an unmitigated disaster with him being routinely fired from temp teaching assistant gigs decades ago.
@@mcmanustonyyou must be jealous considering your obsession with flooding Berlinski's video comments with the same lame critique.
@@mcmanustony A little subtlety, pls!! Berlinski presents it that way for entertainment purposes. He lives in and loves France, where self-deprecation is considered elegant.
He will inevitably have ruffled a few feathers in the woke mind virus infected academia.
Besides, since when is academic acceptance a mark of brilliance ? At that rate, Einstein was an idiot : he was rejected from all academia after graduation !!
@@AlloBruxelles no, I have a career in the clean world that doesn’t involve lying about degrees I don’t have (like Berlinski’s mathematics PhD), feigning expertise I lack (Berlinski on mathematics, biology, genetics, palaeontology, particle physics etc.) pontificating about subjects I’ve never not bothered my backside to study, …
What’s to be jealous of?
I note you didn’t answer my question….
@@mcmanustonyyou are not an academic but you feel entitled to judge an academic's career ? Take your jealousy elsewhere. We don't need your useless noise.
I'm so glad you had David on. He's one of my favorite people. It's rare to find someone so incredibly self-aware, who makes no excuses for themselves and expects the same of others.
I am absolutely floored by this guest. How did I not know of him before?
Jordan Breon I did he rebutted Dawkins Book: The God Delusion called The Devil’s Delusion.
I’ve loved Berlinski’s brilliance for a few years. Extremely under appreciated mind. Officially an Agnostic, yet impressively free spirited intellectual willing to genuinely criticize any viewpoint.
Because mainstream media refuses to promote him, or Stephen Meyer, John Lennox, James Tour, William Lane Craig etc.
Unlike, Ben and Jordan Peterson.
Enquiring minds will question why some are promoted while others aren’t! It’s no a coincidence, it’s by design.
Matthew 24:4 they don’t want a thinking population.
@Jordan Breon
He works with the discovery institute which are the guys who promote Intelligent Design. THAT'S why you haven't heard of him.
I am a huge fan of both of these guys. What a treat this Sunday especial is!!!
Dr Berlinski was my philosophy professor at San Jose State in the 80's and he was as gracious and sincere with a bunch of state school knuckle heads as he is with Ben. He dressed the same and carried himself the same way which suggests a solid, integral character.
Was that one of the many jobs he ended up getting fired from?
@@mcmanustony cope
@@marcusaviles3646 were you hoping at some time to make a point?
When are David Berlinski and Jordan Peterson going to have a public discussion together?
When Patterson learns to humble himself.
I must admit Ben asked very good questions that by and large engaged David on a sincere intellectual level, and his replies, as always, never cease to take your breath away if you are actually listening.
Wonderful conversation, thank you for offering actual critical thinking and thinkers to the masses.
I never tire of listening to Mr. Berlinski. I pray for him often because I really want to meet him in heaven.
Getting an MS in Math because of this man right here
Jakeyy T Hell yeah. Good for you brother. This man is my hero.
His grasp of mathematics is pitiful.
@@mcmanustony And you are an internet noone-troll. Grow up.
@@mcmanustony "pitiful" : 'A short history of Mathematics,' 'The advent of the algorithm' are but a few books of David Berlinski on Mathematics.
@@2sumu his books are elementary, dreadful in their pompous narcissism, riddled with mistakes and out of print.
I have only once seen him attempt to discuss advanced mathematics. It was a comedic train wreck of staggering ignorance and pretentious posturing.
Asked his “opinion” of the Riemann Hypothesis his honest answer would have been “not a fucking clue. WAY beyond my grasp”….he is not honest however.
We were treated to a pompous monologue about “conjecture” vs “theorem”. Something that could have been said clearly in 2 sentences. He missed the import of “hypothesis” entirely. He could have made, were he not too busy preening himself, the point that a large body of mathematics has been predicated on the RH being true….
“It’s a problem in complex function theory”. Wrong. It involves a complex function but it’s a problem in number theory- again no mention from the “mathematician” Berlinski.
Then a slew of pompous horseshit about poor tragic Riemann dying at the same age as poor tragic Schubert! They didn’t (31=\=39) but how almost painfully cultured he sounds….
Then some nonsense about the upper half plane….WRONG the zeta function is defined everywhere except at 1. He’s half remembering some pop account of modular forms in the proof of Fermat- irrelevant and wrong.
“The question is do the zeros line up on a pole or are they all over the place”….what the actual fuck is that? A pole is a POINT, not a line, where a function has a singularity. The first several thousand BILLION zeros are known to lie on the critical LINE re(z)=1/2. The rest are known to be within a narrow strip around the line. So what the flailing arm gestures illustrating “all over the place” were about is anyone’s guess.
After this comical mess, for an encore he yammered on about proofs that are being examined…..ummmm….there are none. The last was Atiyah’s years ago and a flaw was found very quickly.
Berlinski is a pretentious lying fraud and nothing more.
If you’d like some actual mathematicians to listen to I can recommend many. But this academic failure will waste your time.
Smart guys like Ravi Zacharias cites Mr. Berlinski. So cool to hear this discussion.
To be sure....though if I remember correctly Ravi accidentally/erroneously claimed Beinski was a physicist when quoting him...when Berlinski isn't. Which makes me question how closely Ravi follows David Berlinski.
@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 yeah Zacharias was supposed to say that Berlinski is a mathematician. He isn't- but that's the usual lie.
"The individual is the ultimate minority" Jordan Peterson
@Soaring Wings Second Stage Truth defies ownership.
@Soaring Wings Second Stage Yes, but Ayn Rand meant it in terms of an individual's selfish pursuit. Peterson means it in terms of an individual's maturation by taking up responsibility.
Bill Whittle often references Individualism (conservative) vs Collectivism (progressive).
@Soaring Wings Second Stage Fair enough.
@Soaring Wings Second Stage The mathematicians said it first; the social scientists and wordsmith types finally caught up.
This was fantastic. Felt like 10mins.
Really though!
Agree, was just commenting that he is very interesting. But more over, he was very easy to follow despite his seemingly "convoluted" words that don't feel convoluted at all.
It is easier to endure any "how" if you have a "why"
It's odd to see an unironic Nietzsche quote under a Ben Shapiro video - then again, Nietzsches main concern was how people were going to make sense of the World without religion in the 20th century. Their attempt made people like Ben - or me, in a reactionary sense.
@@arthurobrien7424 yeah I can't even remember what it was David Berlinski said that made me think of it. There's alot to consider in this talk.
I think it would be pretty cool to have so much study and meditation to draw from and to be able to effortlessly articulate my thoughts in a more precise way.
But I just have fun learning as I bumble around.
I have searched high and low, think I've listened to / watched every 20+ min interview of Berlinski that's on YT. Insane that there aren't more. Especially on other topics like mathematics. He combines brilliance and profundity beyond Roger Scruton levels
His grasp of advanced mathematics is pitiful.
@@mcmanustony what makes you say that?
@@adamsmith-wi3qg He lied for decades about having a PhD in mathematics and was finally outed. He has a basic bachelors from many decades ago and has contributed nothing original whatsoever to the subject. His books are elementary- pompous, narcissistic tripe and all out of print.
I have once heard him try to discuss advanced mathematics- it was a comedic train wreck. Asked about the Riemann Hypothesis he should have answered- "not the faintest idea, it's WAY beyond my pay grade".....instead he droned on and on about the difference between a theorem and a conjecture. Utter waffle that could have been said in 5 seconds. He should have talked about the nature of HYPOTHESIS. He didn't. The point is that a large body of mathematics is predicated on the RH being true- hence Riemann HYPOTHESIS. Not a syllable from the great intellectual.
Then some drivel about poor tragic Riemann dying at the same age as poor tragic Schubert. They didn't as 31=/=39, but how painfully cultured Berlinski sounded dropping that nugget of nonsense.
"It's a problem in complex function theory"- NOPE. It involves a complex function, the Riemann zeta function, but the problem is in number theory as it involves the distribution of the primes and has HUGE implications for that if true- again no mention from the great "mathematician". The then waffled about "the upper half plane...." confusing, I can only guess, some account of Wiles' proof of Fermat. This involves modular forms- defined on the upper half plane. The zeta function is defined everywhere except at 1. Again- totally confused....and wrong.
He then droned on about the zeroes lining up on "some pole..."..huh? A "pole" is a singularity, a POINT not a line. Zeta has a pole at 1, nowhere else. "....they line up on a pole or are all over the place"- illustrated with wild arm gestures. Absolute nonsense. The first several hundred billion zeros are known to be ON the line Re(z)=1/2. ALL are known to lie within a narrow strip. The RH is that ALL lie ON the line.
After this pretentious horse shit, for an encore he said that some proofs are being considered but there's no agreement that any is correct. Again- absolute nonsense. Atiyah's was the last seriously considered claim of proof and an error was found quickly.
He did manage to raise one question of interest: how the fuck does a preening, self obsessed bore and failed academic, reduced to lying and sneering from the sidelines, convince anyone that he's an intellectual?
@@adamsmith-wi3qg Clear now?
@@mcmanustony Quite clear. Also maybe seek counseling. My goodness you seem angry.
David Berlinski destroys the “feel good” , soft sciences. Great interview
Locke Li Social Sciences have a well known replication problem
Virtually no one in any science has ever heard of him. Outside of his circus act in the US where he poses as a scientist for audiences of gullible scientifically illiterate conservatives he is an utter non entity. He is not and never has been a scientist and the same for his supposed field of expertise- mathematics.
The one moderately interesting question he raises- albeit accidentally- is: how the fuck does he get away with it?
@@mcmanustony Okay, can you please point me in the direction of books you have personally written?
@@lucavasilache2390 Why? What possible bearing does my publication record have to do with the fact that Berlinski is a pretentious lying fraud?
@@lucavasilache2390 I am a professional musician. My publications are recordings- and, unlike those of the preening bore Berlinski, they are all still in print.
Maybe you were working up to addressing my point. Berlinski is not and never has been a scientist and is not and never has been a mathematician. His contribution is merely to helplessly lie and sneer from the sidelines. Maybe as you do that you'll realise the irrelevance of my publication record to the antics of Berlinski.
As it happens I have a publisher in England and am working on a book now. I'll keep you posted.
It's 2024, we need another interview with David!
I would love to see David Berlinski and Jordan Peterson do a discussion. That would truly be epic.
It would be repetitive
Too much sugar for a nickel.
Huge Berlinski fan. Haven't seen him in years though. Last I heard he was living the life of a hermit in Paris.
He still very much is lol.
I can't get the picture of David Berlinski watching kitten videos out of my head.
David is bold, intelligent and entertaining a first principles contrarian. Thank you Ben!
What is he any good at?
Ravi references Berlinski all the time in his talks/debates
Sheena Vaught great crossover
Yes!! That's why I was certain I heard the name before!
@@AdvocateSpirit Me too
he has called Berlinski one of the world's greatest physicists. He not a physicist at all. He poses as a mathematician but isn't that either. Zacharias is too busy lying about his own education to properly rehearse the lies about Berlinski.
If you're wondering why you may not have heard of David Berlinski there are a couple. He absolutely infuriates the scientific / aetheistic / intellectual community (even though he himself a member of all 3..and a jew). Another reason for his anonymity, to a larger extent, is Berlinskis" main body of work was done before the modern internet was as sophisticated and accessible as it is today. Just as in all likelihood your odds of knowning who Ben Shapiro is would be slim had he been born 40 years earlier.
Berlinski has stood alone unintimidated by the University pharisees and the legions of robotic godless academics they have cranked out with his trademark nonchalance and carefully chosen (and always irreverent) words. He has a unique ability to expose their claims and render it nonsense with ease. He undresses their worldview without breaking a sweat...and they HATE him for it. You haven't heard of him because the tenured and deeply entrenched priests of all things "science" prefer it that way.
Then things like RUclips and social media came along and you begin to hear highly intelligent voices that challenge the academic & political establishment of our times.
Interesting Observation.
Ben : “thanks so much for stopping by”
Everyone : “thanks for having me Ben”
David : “you’re welcome”
I like this guy. He's cocky and frank with a healthy awareness of his own limitations. And his point about government not being the only solution to problems, but rather social pressure being a very effective tool, is spot-on and too seldom discussed these days.
Thank you Ben for introducing me to him, I’m about to buy his books
Ana Sol thanks I’ll check it out, it’s so refreshing to find someone so precise and direct
I've been reading and watching David for many years, and I can honestly say he's one of the most intelligent, and straight forward thinkers I've ever read. His thoughts on Darwinian evolution is amazing and forward.
He's actually an academic failure with no the faintest clue about evolution.....this has been explained to you.
He claims to be a mathematician. Which of his mathematical discoveries is the most significant do you think?
@@mcmanustony Save those ad hominems for you last resort?
@@apologiaromana4123 What a stupid comment. Why is it that so often the defenders of this pretentious fraud start bleating about "ad hominems" as soon as the facts about David Berlinski are pointed out?
Here's some remedial logic for you. "Ad hominem" means- "to the man". It is a logical fallacy that takes the form "X is a bad person, therefore X is wrong about Y". An example "vegetarianism is wrong because Hitler was a vegetarian". Good luck finding an example of this from me.
Pointing out that Berlinski is a fraud is not an ad hominem- it's a fact. He lies about a PhD in mathematics, he has no such degree. He feigns expertise in evolutionary biology- he has none. He lied about having been a post doc in "mathematics and molecular biology"- he was nothing of the sort, having no graduate experience in either subject. He was a temporary TEACHING ASSISTANT at various institutions and was routinely fired because he was rubbish at it.
Again, pointing out that Berlinski is a fraud is simply stating a fact. You can chant "ad hominem" till you're blue in the face. It will remain a fact.
I hope this helps.
@@mcmanustony These are all claims. This man has said more intelligent things than you probably ever will.
@@apologiaromana4123 "These are all claims."- and maybe if you spent less time sitting on your backside sneering in ignorance at someone you know nothing about, you could CHECK THE CLAIMS.
My background is in mathematics- in which I worked at a far higher level than Berlinski. I am therefore INTELLIGENT and knowledgeable enough to see this ridiculous fraud for what he is.
He presents himself as a mathematician- having peddled the lie that he has a PhD in the subject. I have seen him refer to mathematics constantly, seen many of his sycophants drool over his prowess, seen him today referred to as a mathematician AND physicist! It's only a matter of time before he's seen as a member of The Spice Girls, the inventor of the smartphone and The King of Nigeria.
I have once heard him attempt to discuss advanced mathematics- the status of the Riemann Hypothesis, only the most significant unsolved problem in pure mathematics. Had he a shred of integrity he'd have admitted: I've absolutely no idea, it's WAY beyond my pay grade and I couldn't even STATE it. Instead we got a pompous, long winded sermon on the nature of conjecture vs theorem. He COULD have stated that it's called a "hypothesis" because a large body of work has been done assuming it's true- though that hasn't been shown. Nope. Then we get the bizarre nugget that poor tragic Riemann died at the same age as poor tragic Schubert. They didn't, as 31=/=39 but how painfully and exquisitely cultured he sounded.
We are then told it's a problem in complex function theory! It involves a complex function but the significance is in NUMBER THEORY. If RH is true there are HUGE implications for the distribution of primes. The great mathematician seems to know nothing about this. We then got something about "the upper half plane"......nope. The zeta function is defined on *C\{1}* NOT the upper half plane. I'd bet the house he was garbling something he read about Wiles proof of Fermat which involves modular forms- defined on the upper half plane. Either way- it's just nonsense. We then get his version of RH- "either the zeros line up on some pole or (flails arms wildly) they are all over the place". Good fucking grief! A pole is a POINT not a line- a singularity. The zeta function has a simple pole at z=1 corresponding to the divergence of the harmonic series. NOTHING can line up on a pole. The critical line is Re(z)=1/2. Far from being "all over the place" the first several trillion zeros are known to be ON the line and ALL are known to lie within a critical strip of the line. Again- Professor Sir Dr Lord Berlinski PhD, DDR, DDT seems oblivious to this FUNDAMENTAL piece of knowledge.
For an encore he tells us that some proofs are being considered but haven't been verified as of yet. This is totally false. The last "proof" offered was Atiyah's and it was flawed.
Just to remind you- the man responsible for the above miserable trainwreck would like you to believe this is his area of expertise.
His horseshit on evolution is even more embarrassing.
Try to be less presumptuous.....you don't know what you think you know, either about Berlinski or about me.
Awesome! I just recently read 'The Devils Delusion' by Berlinski. Great book by quite complex at times. I like his wit, humility and honesty. We need more thinkers like him.
Looooooooove Berlinski! I've been waiting years for this book. Great interview.
one of the few pepole that you can listen to again and again
Berlinski is not only brilliant but a fabulous communicator.
"synthetic anger". That sums up our time.
Exactly! You can beat an egg white until it's all fluffy, and the volume has increased, but not the substance. Genius!
Wow, he's brilliant
Is he? What at?
no answer?
You need to interview him like 50 times. So smart.
Mark Metternich Photography, LLC isn’t that the truth, i wish he was as prevalent a public figure as Jordan Peterson. I wish everybody was interviewing Berlinski... his vocabulary, eloquence, rhetoric, penetrating insights & ability to gracefully draw lines between key points we aught to have recognized in plain sight!
I've never thought Ben would bring David Berlinski on the show. As a christian I would love to see him turn to Christ. this was a special show for me, i have a deep respect
David Berlinski over the past years. GOOD JOB BEN. GREAT SHOW AS USUAL
David is one of the greatest scientists in our time
I agree with everything he said ...man the way he thinks is amazing to me
"David is one of the greatest scientists in our time"- What the hell are you smoking? He is not and never has been a scientist of any kind.
Brilliant man. I follow his interviews, explanations, and they are from another world. İncredible scientist and very gifted by God. Mr. Berlinski tells it like an artist. His language skills are incredible almost poetic like swan lake. Unbelievable and just marvelous. Very happy about the interview. Please bring him back. Thanks
What branch of science does this “incredible scientist” work in?
"İncredible scientist "- he has a bachelors in mathematics almost all of which he's forgotten, and a Phd in philosophy. He is not and never has been a scientist of any kind. He poses as an authority on anything from particle physics to genetics while knowing damn all about anything.
Here's a chronological list of Berlinski's research publications in all the sciences.
.
.
.
.
.
Here's that list again, this time in alphabetical order.
.
.
.
.
.
The only incredible thing about this pretentious fraud is that he been getting away with it for decades.
You never did indicate precisely what branch of science this “scientist” works in……
There’s a good reason for that.
Why do this clown's drooling sycophants run away when asked to identify precisely what the hell he' any good at. You have similarly failed.
Could it be that he's just a pretentious poseur- I think it could.
This is awesome, everyone I ever wanted has officially been on the show!
A very great conversation between two intelligent, educated, respectful men. Despite my limited formal education, as compared to them, I'd enjoy sitting down with them for a like conversation. I do question some of the comments, if only ton clarify that with which I disagree. Great post. Thank you.
Fantastic conversation. Berlinski is a fascinating and brilliant guy.
Love David's mastery of the English language...
Shame he's got so little of substance to say.
David Berlinski is a class act and an eloquent intellectual. Love all his interviews. Thanks Ben!
What exactly is he any good at? What is his field of expertise?
@@mcmanustony Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques.
@@sirsleepy2472 " Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University"- and had ZERO impact on the study of Wittgenstein. He has since published one minuscule paper on Quine 50 years ago. Good work though! You can cut AND paste!
"was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. "- utter bullshit. A post doc in two subjects, neither of which he has any graduate training and one not even UNDERgraduate training...sure thing. Tune in next week and we'll have Professor Schmorg Blorgendorf, post doctoral fellow in economics and quantum mechanics with his PhD in dentistry. He was at Columbia for ONE semester- post docs are hired for a year minimum and often three. They also produce research- where's Berlinski's? He was forced to admit that "post doctoral fellow" was "self styled"- or as we say in the clean world; a lie.
He had a string of low level, non tenured teaching assistant stints at various places, none full time and, by his own admission he was FIRED from almost all. So, more of a rubbish teaching assistant than an intellectual.
"He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, "- expository article, and a book review- decades ago, impact nil.
His mathematics books are godawful pompous tripe- decades out of print- and his pretensions around being a mathematician are simply comical.
Here's a chronological list of his original research in all scientific fields.
.
.
.
.
.
.
here's that list again this time in alphabetical order.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"he has held research fellowships"- I don't believe that for a second for the simple reason that he has fuck all published research and a track record of grotesquely inflating his credentials- including lying about a non existent PhD in mathematics.
So, what is he any good at?
@@mcmanustony 😂! I thought you were asking a sincere question. So of course I copied and pasted the information. But to answer your last question since I am not an intellectual myself I really couldn’t tell you about his post doctoral positions and the papers he wrote or there impact. What I can say is that if you are correct and I don’t think you are, but if you are correct he is good at getting away with and convincing people all those credentials are true and well deserved. People in those very intellectual circles and who are far more intelligent than you or I.
@@sirsleepy2472 " I really couldn’t tell you about his post doctoral positions and the papers he wrote or there impact."- you can now because I took the time to inform you. He lied about being a "post doctoral fellow" and has admitted it. He has lied for decades about a PhD in mathematics that doesn't exist.
Besides his outright lies, he is more guilty of grotesque credential inflation. He blabbers about a period at one prestigious institution where, as far as any record I can find, he was there for a few days and gave two expository talks. Whoop!
It's thoroughly dishonest. I gave a graduate seminar hosted by the Economics Department of the City University of New York. Were I as deceitful as Berlinski I'd therefore present myself as a huge figure in academic economics. In the real world I was there for 2 days as an invited guest to teach MBA graduate students about the finances of the independent music sector.
Berlinski's career as an academic was an unmitigated disaster. He never managed to have a full time teaching job and was routinely fired from one institution after another. His "research" you'd need an electron microscope to detect. One short paper on the philosopher WVO Quine 50 years ago.....wow!
If you read what actual scientists and mathematicians (the small number who have actually heard of him) say about him you'll see he doesn't get away with it. He is widely seen for what he is: a lying, sneering, self-important fraud.
"who are far more intelligent than you or I."- you don't know anything about my intelligence. I have worked in mathematics at a far higher level that Berlinski and can see him for the pretentious, non-achieving ego-maniac he is.
You're welcome.
great interview thank you
I can’t help but notice that how David speaks and phrases his sentences reminds me of Boris Karloff... which is really cool!
He fixed the flux capacitor I see.
I love this man. I never thought anyone could make Ben look like a hippie. I agree 100% with David Berlinski.
dude i havent heard from this guy in like a decade, where has be been???
Chilling in his apartment in France haha. Seriously, search for his interview with Rational Religion. He literally gives the entire interview lying down on his couch.
Probably laughed at in any intellectual circle bc he’s a joke. Apparently Ben is now promoting pseudo science but jobs in order to promote his assertion that the bible is the basis for morality.
Lou L lot of ad homs and not a lot of substance in your response. Having read “The Devils Delusion” back when I was an atheist, you claiming Berlinski believes in pseudo science is silly.
As far is Ben is concerned, he’s asking you to make a rational case for your morality: since atheism relies on the subjective, you can’t and that’s why you are salty.
Well, he had a very serious health scare three years ago I think it was. It was not long after his daughter had moved to Paris, I think.
"I understand the sentiment, but that still does not make it an argument."
Shapiro destroyed with facts and logic 😂.
Happens often
Whats the timestamp?
@@danoruhdanuk2647 It was a little more than half way through.
David Berlinski is brilliant here.
What at?
Slowest talker VS fastest talker.
And this proves that the fastest is not necessarily smarter
I'm usually bored by a slow talker. But this guy was pleasant, interesting and managed to make an hour feel like 10 minutes.
Eli S 🤣👍
Sumora isn’t that the truth!
His first sentence is absolutely the TRUTH.
I gratuated from a Polish University. My political sciences studies were completely drenched in this idea. Everything I studied only proved that to be Truth further. And it Has NOTHING to with being religious
The poetry, I’m slayed
Dear Ben,
This is by a far the best interview this year. Alongside, Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. Jordan Peterson and Dr. Stephen C Meyer. Thank you for also creating free content for us not so rich viewers to watch. 🙏🏼 you may count it as Tzedakah. 🇮🇱🔯✡️
What's so great about a pretentious fraud lying about branches of science he's never studied?
Ben...you gotta work on your posture in that chair. My back hurts just from watching you.
Those are the shoulders that have to carry all the lies he has been telling and evil he is causing
@@Gnolomweb lmao, that is so weak and pathetic I actually laughed... @you not your point though
@@spencerfly1007 spanish fly tells me about my maturity level. 🤣🤣🤣
Think those chairs are part of the problem actually. Stylish as they are the backs need to be more upright.
Berlinski is a rationalist in the true sense of the word. First, he is honest. Next, he remains honest when he applies logic to his reasoning, with no shortcuts, simplifications, or hidden agendas. Along the way, he stays moral, maintains a healthy sense of wonder and humility, and never forgets that if we give up our right to doubt, we give up our humanity.
"First, he is honest"- interesting description for someone who peddled an entirely fictitious PhD in mathematics for years.
I feel like I was just constantly fed this whole time.
Thoroughly enjoyed this interview with David Berlinski . Love this guy , could listen to him for hours and hours . This is a testimony to how mart Ben is too , because keeping up with Berlinski is no walk in the park . I read Berlinski's book " The Devil's delusion" it was brilliant . I will be looking for his latest seen here "Human Nature" Thank you so much for this video .
Feminisation is what happened to colleges and broader western society.
He hit the nail on the head, “the collapse of authority.” He witnessed intelligent men who were willing to let the mob rule. These “wise” men gave away their authority through fear and inaction. The feminist’s were opportunists who filled the void...they were merely a symptom of a much more insidious failure of mankind. Everyone man and women unwilling to stand up for what is right is equally culpable in the collapse of our society.
I've seen a couple versions of this quote attributed to George Carlin: "Political correctness is fascism pretending to be good manners." Word! Berlinski is an important thinker. Thanks for the interview!!
Not only is David brilliant and funny, he's a bit of a fashion statement too. You should see him when he's more relaxed and not wearing his suit.
... a one-of-a-kind, through and through 🤗
Wow! Wow! Wow!
What a breath of fresh air to listen to common sense👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
"They're Idiots!" Succinct and accurate!
One of the better Sunday specials!
“It invigorates me to find a good hater” 🤣
Right after that, he cites a Robert Frost poem from memory. 😱😁 impressive
McManustony must invigorate the hell out of Berlinski .
@@302indian Lmao yeah I've seen that guy around in the comments
Watching right before I head out to church, excellent discussion. Try to get James Tour on the next one!!!
What a fascinating conversion!
thank you for sharing with us!
50:21 well this is relevant given what has just happened at Columbia University again as I right this in late April 2024.