Me too. I'm a lay person who loves science and tries to follow the best representitives of specific disciplines. I was also taken in by the Weinstein brothers. Eventually I figured it out, but it is disheartening to be duped. Dawkins never suffered fools though.
I agree with Eric, How He and Bret dont both have Nobel Prizes is beyond me!! Yes, they have zero publications between them, but look at how many times they've been on Joe Rogan!! Edit: Bret's fans have informed me that Bret does actually have publications. Indeed, he does in fact have two publications! Yet more evidence that this prolific academic was cheated out of his Nobel prize!
Reading these comments is kind of wild. This sounds like a normal intellectual conversation. Science is based in skepticism. Even if Weinstein is wrong, it is the scientific communities responsibility to scrutinize theories, data, assertions, etc... Dissenting opinions are healthy for science until the evidence is so obvious that there can be no objection. It is okay to be wrong, Dawkins admits to his previous understandings of the subject to be in error. This kind of discussion is healthy.
Weinstein goes full regard in two obvious ways: 1) acts like there’s no work being done on serious issues, which Dawkins conclusively shuts him down on and 2) criticizes mathematical modeling in general when in reality they are exceptionally useful, and Dawkins shows him a specific example of how his graduate student proved that a female can retain certain genes that are costly to her to maintain but nevertheless workout overall (maintaining decorative male characteristics in her offspring). Weinstein simply ignores both corrections and continues with his contrarian routine. Dawkins is polite but appropriately incredulous.
yeah right. I mean more sunlight mean more photosynthesizers thus more food for the species above in the food chain. Life is predominantly sun-energy based so that explains the current distribution. Had it really started in anaerobic environments near the volcanic vents undersea based on geothermal energy, then the distribution at that time would be concentrated around such vents. Wherever the energy source is more, there is more life. I wonder why dawkins let this pass.
"And, like why do organisms have to have finite lives, mannn. All the aging and dying gives me the sad! Somebody's gotta put a stop to it - but just for us though. . ."
It seems like he intentionally looks for questions that are just not very good, and portrays them as forbidden or a sign of incompetence in the establishment. I can't stop my eyes from rolling when he starts talking. Yes, look for blind spots by all means... But then do the research and report it instead of whining that it's not being done.
We only know about him because of his Jordan Peterson'esque experience at Evergreen College. There are guys teaching in Rural Kansas community colleges who are more intelligent than him.
The intellectual dark web positioned the Weinsteins as intellectual rebels standing up to the supposed establishment. The cult of Reflexive Contrarianism adopted them as their patron saints. Years have gone by where they just got better and better at spouting unquestioned BS from their pulpits. This is the issue with "public intellectuals"; people just assume they're smart because they get attention. But there are lots of ways to sound smart and get attention without actually saying anything.
i had to dislike the video because after listening, i couldnt for the life of me understand the title. 😅 whoever titled this must have struggled the most.
The anti-Weinstein comments here are harsh and unsupportable. Both these guys are advanced in their field and are having quite a respectable conversation. Too bad these commenters are incapable of same.
Most people in our society are scientifically illiterate worshippers of "The Science". It's a cargo cult. It's Lysenkoism. It's scientism. It's a religion purposefully manufactured by social engineers through so-called "popularizers of science" (NDT, Bill Nye the Scientism guy, etc.) to get them to do things like "follow The Science"--the most unscientific utterance in the history of utterances.
@@VeganSemihCyprus33you buy your more consistent morality by rejecting your place in this world and putting a luxury simulacrum in its place. That’s a high price
@@utubemewatch That's just silly. More resources would be obviously advantageous for both survival AND speciation. Either way, @bradleyware1445 used the exact same verbiage as Weinstein did, so if anyone is equivocating, it's Weinstein.
Dawkins still is over confident in trusting our human brain. He needs to keep asking why so he can logically get back to the essence of everything, which I'm confident he'd say doesn't exist. He's just argumentative and happy with a limited understanding. It's good for now but weisntein isn't a charlatan.
The questions he is asking is shaking the foundation of modern science where everyone believe we completely understand everything while brushing the unsolved under the carpet at the same time...
I don't really get the connection (does Harris dislike this guy?) but I think Harris is a dotard and a charlatan but this Weinstein guy is the same and seems to also have an IQ equivalent to dice roll. Harris seems smart but so insanely ideologically captured he's lost all sight of reality and sense and basically become a schizophrenic. This guy is just a dunce.
He's being systematically smeared in order to discredit someone who opposes the current elite. But the actual NPCs commenting here are little more than religious zealots, attacking a disbeliever.
The two reason males are beautiful, usually meaning quite visible in the wild is is to have females choose them AND to decoy predators away from the female and her offspring. Picture a colorful mallard male duck and a brownish yellowish female mallard duck. Their territory is areas that is similar in color to the female mallard duck resulting in the female being camouflaged in its natural surroundings, while the very visibly male duck can decoy the predator away from the female and her you.
And to add to that, the male display is often good at intimidation and confusion to predators, helping their chances of survival as well as helping the chances of his families survival in the ways you have already stated.
This hypothesis makes sense, and it means that full, bright and intact male plumage is essentially a signal to the female that indicates: _"I'm very successful as a decoy to help protect you and our potential offspring, because I haven't lost a single feather while acting as a decoy."_
Interesting. I hadn’t thought of the decoy strategy. It could also be that having an overly large tail makes them slower and become an easier target for predators so that the females can escape.
@@captainlockes2344 Males are disposable. One male can fertilize many females resulting in many chicks being born while the converse where there are many males and one female would result in population decline.
thats some bs. colorful displays of males has many different reasons that work together, but its certainly not a trigger for predators, thats ridiculous. if you consider species which live alone or are not social, there is no need to lure predators away, because mating is a one time thing, so the male isnt around the female or the offspring in that case, meaning there would be no correlation between the male dying and the offspring living. its not like there is only one species of prey animal, so being eaten would mean that a random animal in the ecosystem survives, which has no relation to his offspring. if you consider a social species, this also doesnt work, because the male typically stays around the female and offspring for protection, so if he gets eaten, another male might come in, kill the offspring and reproduce with the female, or the female and offspring get eaten because of not protection. a far more rational idea would be that characteristics such as the peakcocks tail originally evolved for some function or were the byproduct of genes that originally had a survival function, making females select for it, and then the females attraction selects for larger and larger tails beyond its original use, and this will go on until a penalty is reached for the excessive size that offsets the mating advantage. so the tails evolution started out as functional, and then coevolved with female attraction until a point of diminishing returns was reached. this means that the tail might be a hindrance for survival, but not enough to offset the females preference. also , females dont have reproductive choice in nature and cant reject males cause they will jump them anyway, so it might just be that the intimidation factor of other males or even predators alone by the larger tale might a driving the tales evolution. I would bet that larger tails is intimidating to other males, causing them to not risk a fight to death and flee form the conflict, allowing the male to win more fights against other males.
The point on mathematical models making errors, such as the sphere on the razors edge, are blatantly untrue… a sphere will balance on a razors edge, but only if placed exactly centrally and without external forces, and with a perfectly spherical sphere with infinitely consistent density, which are conditions exceptionally challenging to replicate in real life. So what do we do? We include parameters that reflect reality in the model. We don’t “throw out math” because Bret has been unable to balance a sphere on his razor…
@@Cogitovision balancing a perfect sphere on a razors edge in a vacuum? No, because the conditions required to do that would be unreasonable in reality as well as very costly. Not to say this hasn’t been done, just not by me personally. But a razor has non-zero width, so naturally, any object placed exactly at center of mass will balance. But why go through the trouble when mathematical models can demonstrate this result far more quickly and cheaply? Hence the benefit of modeling.
Pretty interesting conversation. These comments are wild though. If you, some random nobody on the internet, listened to this discussion and came away with the impression that either of these men is an "intellectual Steven Seagal" I think you might need to step back and realize that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Am I the only one who didn't come away from this thinking Bret humiliated himself? Also, as probably one of the few people in this comment section who has actually written and worked with mathematical models, I don't understand why people are so hostile to the idea that we should be skeptical of them.
They do not understand what mathematical models are and what is the difference between simulation and the reality of a physical process. You can write an infinite number of complicated models that seem to fit a process but none of them might be an actual mathematical isomorphism for that process. As a biologist Dawkins seemed unaware of this and his non-scientific admirers are even more clueless. He was satisfied there was a model that fitted the data ... but is the model correct?? That is the question!
@@GeDePeU Not sure that's an accurate characterization. IMO it's more like: Dawkins: I thought Zahavi's idea was dumb and could *never* work. My student did some modeling and showed that it *can* work. So I was wrong. Weinstein: You should be more skeptical. The model showed it's possible, but that doesn't mean the model is correct. I'm skeptical of models for . Dawkins: OK. But what do you do when a verbal argument isn't enough? You have to do *some* math, right? [Video Ends] There's nothing in this exchange that indicates either side is 'clueless' or doesn't know the difference between simulations and reality. No need to be inflammatory.
Especially as it relates to subjects where the root of the phenomenon is a complex system. Wolfram wrote an entire treatise on a very simplistic system, which pales in comparison to biology, especially a subject like this that crosses one or more boundaries.
I find it interesting that most of the comments here are just criticizing without really understanding the deep discussion here, but only critisize because their precious worldview is being challenged
I think one of the most important points he's (weinstien) making is that science should always be pushing, questioning, and challenging. Exactly the opposite of what is happening in many fields of study.. it's kinda like the narrative is the most important thing to uphold and adhere to now. To challenge the narrative is to invite the wrath of the ideologues.
I thought this sort of criticism was pretty common in physics as well. I've heard concerns about the divide between theorists and experimentalists and this discussion reminded me of that. Mathematical models can lead us to expect things like dark matter, but unless/until we actually find it, there's no telling if we've made a wrong turn somewhere.
The sphere on a razor problem can be resolved using mathematics. It's an unstable system which means the tiniest displacement will lead to the sphere rolling off the razor.
Confession through projection. You’re really demonstrating Weinstein’s point. Clearly you’re channeling the rage of the intellectual well situated in the academy or university, fuming over the criticisms of Colleges/Universities, disciplines, academic departments, corrupted periodicals, and the perverse incentives driving all of them. And their defenses are always ad hominem and logical fallacies-this adds credence to the original criticism that claims, for example: “Science” has become a bastardized term for academics to protect their sacred cows-science itself was sacrificed at the altar of sacred cows & now too many so-called “scientists” can’t endure criticism, opposition, heterodox views, or anything they consider profane. Such debates were always the lifeblood of science-it’s in fact the scientific method itself. Inductive reasoning is the engine of science but it’s labeled charlatanism when used by Weinstein & the heterodox thinkers. Real science has become the 4th or 5th priority among university departments & intellectual associations & clubs, periodicals etc. All of the really productive, creative, successful or even just thought provoking individuals agree that these disciplines have atrophied, become sclerotic & too bureaucratic. And the hysterical types raging against such critiques always make this point appear more credible than it appeared on first glance. Perhaps these too people agree w/ Dr. Fauci “I am the science” and thus take these critiques personally. Pathology always thinks it’s eminently reasonable, fair, prudent, and of course, the victim. Edit-I should note I’m not referring to all universities, all departments, disciplines, academics, periodicals etc. but the problem has become systematic, standards have fallen, & missions perverted. The universities or departments founded in excellence, that maintain faculties w/ real academic freedom, and w/ the fewest perverse incentives & political/rapacious administrators will remain bastions of excellence. The formula is that simple.
@@saerainagreed the generational divide in the scientific and technical fields are radically pronounced mainly because of how the university system was filled to capacity with professorships then 40 plus years later those person's haven't retired. Similarly this happened in many fields. Similar to the Democrat party. Boomers and the generation preceding and following just squatted on top of the power structures for over half a century not allowing subsequent generations to become vested in them. It's not an unfair observation, it's a statement of what happened. It's why as an engineer when I got my bachelor's the modeling courses were taught by retirement age person's on software over 20 years out of date. My 6th grade CAD class was more relevant to my first job than my radically more expensive collegiate education.
I'm surprised at how Bret thinks these "problems" are bigger than they are. With sexual selection, there's a variety of reasons for it, not just one, such as putting on displays and being beautiful being an indicator of health and fitness in an environment, but he's expecting a universal answer for different species. With more species near the equator than the poles, one needs only look at how it's quite difficult living nearer to the poles, and that's ignoring human influence making species go extinct. Growing feeble and inefficient with age is slightly tricky, but I think it's quite understandable that as chemical systems we inevitably break down, and if we didn't break down there'd be too little genetic diversity and inbreeding as such a successful species as us would keep making more of ourselves and becoming too closely related. Plus, Bret just dismissing the science being done is very disappointing, it's as if he doesn't understand scientific progress takes time, and that answers are given or available if looked for.
Does physical impressiveness always provide a good indicator of male potency in nature? It is not true of humans. There are plenty of infertile men with very good physiques, whilst some pretty poor and general appearance and health who are very fertile in terms of sperm count and motility.
@@GeoffV-k1hyou’re desperately trying to defend your religion with minor exceptions it’s really sad. The general rule is, if you’re in good shape. You are healthy. There are exceptions to this like ALL things. But you’d be a clown to absolutely discard this idea because of your desperate need for Jeebus to be real.
i'm a guy who likes girls with freckles and white skin, for which there can be no "fitness" justification. to dismiss the "mystical" as unscientific, is in truth a presupposition that the mystical does not exist, which is in itself unscientific.
@@GeoffV-k1h there are exceptions to every rule. But generally a good physique is a sign of good health. To think otherwise is just desperate cope and need for a sky daddy to exist.
@@The_Gallowglass He's an evolutionary biologist that has done a 180 on basically everything he learned and teached, without evidence or scientific studies to back up his extraordinary new claims.
Rd has been struggling his whole life because he chose evolution as his religion, darwin has been debunked many times and im not talking about creationists, in france the microbiologists didier raoult has wildly debunked his claims. Darwin theory was accepted at the time because great britain was the world order at the time controlling half of the earth and they needed something to justify their domination and there is nothing better then the idea of social darwinism to justify it.
@@Wizzy678 Looks like you've bought the Creation lie hook, line and sinker. Evolution is no more a religion than Germ Theory, Atomic Theory etc. Like all Scientific Theories, Evolution doesn't depend upon worshipping an absentee Deity and is clearly not a religion. Darwin didn't get every single thing right but, 150 years on, his Theory of Evolution stands solid and has not been compromised as more evidence has come to light. Interestingly Russel Wallace arrived at the same conclusion as Darwin albeit with different data. No Creationist nor scientist has ever debunked Darwin. Try as they might, Creationists rely upon the non falsifiable claim "God dunnit" (A Scientific Theory has to be potentially falsifiable). Social Darwinism has absolutely no relation to Speciation by Natural selection. How many more invalid memes can you fit in a comment?
The Pangburn comment section is gold. You people represent the arrogance, haughtiness, and general defense of ignorance of a generation. Please keep illustrating this for us. As I doubt a single person here knows who Hamilton or Wallace is. And if you did you would see that neither of these camps would fit either of these men. What's funny to me is my new suspicion that Harris is using a bot farm in 2024.
Weinsteins argument is weak in two ways. First, if female selection prevented the introduction of bad genes, then I see no reason for it to fall away. And second, just because an animal has a strategy doesn't mean it is a good one. The vast majority of species are extinct, maybe the peacocks have gone down a blind alley. And indeed, one might even say that any strategy that doesn't lead to our kind of technical dominance is a bad one, given our impact. Evolution isn't purposeful, it demonstrably does make "mistakes".
Yeah, your first point makes sense to me. I'm no expert on evolution, genetics or math though at all haha. But isn't Bret's reasoning gives too much credit to evolution, almost as if it's a thinking being that goes: "oh yeah, now there are almost zero of these bad genes, why should we go on with this selection?". Also, from what I could look up, mutations actually still happen relatively frequently - or at least frequent enough I guess that keeping up the selection is beneficial and necessary. So no, evolution doesn't/can't just get rid of all the bad genes even in the long run.
This is one of the problems with the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin. There are a lot of examples of unsuitable traits passed on genetically in a variety of species.
@@richardavery4692 That is not a "problem" at all. Evolution only works to the standard of "good enough", it;s quite possible to have both good and bad mutations at the same time.
@@garethmartin6522 More holes than swiss cheese. Wouldn't go away even when not used, so not ever evolving or adapting. Right... The whole it doesn't make genetic sense, just random or disadvantage but here we are as a world, continuously progressing like a clock is a very small minded way to brush away the real holes in the formula. It's just random and some bad traits occur and it somehow works out! There's a clear design in the entire system that is so complex, so utterly transparent in functionality that its mind boggling. Primordial soup theorists attempt to explain what they see, and explaining the mechanism doesn't answer how the foundational blueprint, before it ever existed in tangible reality, exists.
It’s true that the Weinstein brothers have been ostracized by the left due to their engagement in politics. I, for one, am grateful for a new thread to follow. Dawkins and evolutionary biology has never been my interest, but the infighting has added a new layer and I am enjoying it
@ there is certainly a “community” of people who share common interests here. Could be a distaste or rejection for religion as you said. Their common interests has them digesting content from creators like Dawkins. Weinstein seems to be a polarizing figure within the community with some taking him on good faith and others wanting to exile him. Ironically, I’ve found this to be very similar to religion. Weinstein being the heretic to the most passionate atheists
@@LukeDevescovi I think the word gets bandied about too much. Agreeing with people on things doesn't make it a community. Religions have tenets - there's no tenets in not believing in God unless or until evidence is stronger.
This is the beauty of the internet. The truth can be explored academically via a professional discussion and resulting comments. Thumbs up numbers and comments reflects public reaction. This can also be inspiring to become better educated and involved in the physical and mental aspects of our personal existence.
I much prefer the interactions in other fora but sure, the internet might help people to get interested. What the public thinks is hilariously stupid anyway considering that there are hundreds of millions that think the earth is 6k years old. The public should shut the fuck up and listen.
@@michaelmay5453sounds like you’re being misled by propagandized surveys and social “studies” tbh - most ppl (yes even those religious) do not think the earth is 6000 years old… you’re being propagandized to divide up the populous by beliefs. Don’t get attached to your beliefs or the “facts” as history has repeatedly shown we are wrong. Hubris is deadly. Side note - I can also probably guess your thoughts and opinions on most controversial topics or debates just from your comment alone. Which is the case for most of the scientific community (which im apart of) - I wonder what that tells you?
It would be funny if it weren't so rude due to the fact that Weinstein himself was born in 1969, so he's only missed being in the same generation as Dawkins by 4 years.
I don't care about Weinstein but i love this conversation, i wish there were more discussions of biologists explaining their scientific problems in simple terms in front of an audience.
This isn't even a valid conversation. Weinstein is delusional, conspiracy laden grifter, not a scientist. Dawkins might as well be debating a 3rd grader up there. The conversation with a 3rd grader would involve more factual, good faith arguments and debate.
Dawkins never fails to impress with the narrowness of his bandwidth. Oh, the irony! After side lining God as a folk tale to explain the unexplainable, he prostrates himself at the foot of a mathematical model he doesn't understand (by his own account). He should join Monty Python!
Isn't there an easier answer... a Peacock with a big and decorated design is just easier to see, and is more prominant. Add a million years of evolution and voila.
I feel like Dawkins sort of showed that Darwin already knew the answer. It can be applied to nearly any animal or insect. It's essentially up to females what genes are past on because, it is essentially their choice.. There isn't really anything more to it other than that, it is just what they want because of whatever they think at the time. Nothing deep about it. It has nothing to do with passing on the strongest genes to make the animal this way, or because the female knows this is the best person to mate with.. Kids are born every single day with the genes of deadbeat dads. Trying to understand why women do things is something men will never understand, because i don't believe the women understand why they do it either and they can't explain it.. They do it just because. I feel like your answer to it, makes perfect sense. You would think making yourself an obvious target to predators would deter attention from mates, but reality shows that isn't the case in the animal kingdom or in mankind.
von Neumann said "with two parameters I can make an elephant, with three I can make him wag his tail". So with enough parameters you can "explain" anything.
I'm not a mathematician but when Brett is talking about the coffee in a room taking infinitely long to reach room temperature according to mathematical models, is that even true? Isn't there a thing about if you run 1/2 a certain distance in 1 second, 1/2 the remaining distance in 1/2 a second, and so on, intuitively you might think you'd never reach the finish line but in fact, according to the math, you reach the finish line in 2 seconds. Is Brett making a similar mistake here?
Yes, the two examples he is telling are poor examples, the first one is just to address the expected issues of ideal conditions in physics, and the second one is also that plus the uncomfortable existence of infinite. But Limits, statistics, probability, ranges, are also math. It is true that many times we can build bad math models that doesn't represent reality or are too complex and imaginary that deviate a lot from it. And it is important not to accept any math model because it is sound, those must be debugged, corroborated even indirectly, and always review the correspondence with reality open to change with more data and observations. But Math models are one of the best tools in science to examine and describe reality, adding structure and identifying variables that are not possible with other models. What Bret is saying is kind of dumb.
None of this matters, Abiogenesis trumps all of this speculation - this is just debates inside the subject. The main issue is that Darwinism cannot answer the question of Abiogenesis and none of the current discoveries, thinking, theories hold a candle to how life began and we are nowhere near discovering it, despite the lunatic claims of Dawkins and others. Go ahead and watch James Tour and you will appreciate how far we are.
There is no problem with our not knowing. We're working on it, we simply don't have all the answers yet. Admitting we don't know is far better than inventing a Space God who has "always been" and saying - "he did it!"
@@MaterLacrymarumTour’s evaluation of the work on abiogenesis in nutshell is that it’s come up against physicians-chemical hurdles that cannot be surmounted without the human intellect inserting themselves into the experiments, plus statistically absurd likelihood for chance encounters (once past those earlier hurdles) to be considered “possible”. They would be thrown out without any concern in any other branch of science. He’s put he entire reputation & internet output on the line as a challenge to the combined ranks of abiogenesis researchers to come up with either theoretical or practical refutations of his challenges to abiogenesis being a reasonable explanation for the beginning of life.
@@MaterLacrymarumactually, we don't understand any phenomenon fully. Ask Feinman. We still can't fully explain why we can push a chair with our hand. Literally not one single natural phenomenon has been fully explained.
@@NigelPeters-s1m If he's going to make claims, then he needs to support those claims. We can't do what we can't do, it's not a gotcha. That said, there has been progress made, and to ignore that progress is silly and disingenuous. I assume he's a God botherer. If so, he lays down challenges to science while not being to explain, illustrate, or birth a God. Why doesn't that prove there is no God? Because a book has a one-liner in it?
@@DrGeorgeAntonios Sounds like you are simply moving the goalpost every time a conclusion is reached. That's the only way I can imagine your comment to make sense. You know full well we know "why we can push a chair". What's unknown about that?
The notion that the peacocks tail is purely ornamental is a fallacy, this plumage on full display makes the bird instantly larger with what appear to be lots of eyes. It is a bluff to ward off predators, which is a successful strategy employed by other species.
Exactly, maybe Bret should consider that humanity's "lack" of further advancements is also due to pseudo intellectuals like him, if we can even call him that
I've recently seen criticism of Weinstein as a charlatan, and now I see why. His 'critisism' of mathematical modelling is complete sophistry and he shows he has little to no idea what he's talking about. It's a complete strawman argument.
I’m sorry to see Bret become so unreasonable. I had great respect for him as a moderator between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, and thought he had incredible intellectual potential. Sad to see he has so little integrity.
These guys like the Weinsteins and JP figured out, there are some stupid humans that will pay them to make the folks paying feel smart about holding BS positions on matters. The god idea is selling like crazy in the US right now with Jesus salesman like JP. There are ignorant folks who are desperate to feel reasonable, pretending a god is real and this god cares about them personally. JP goes around telling folks there's nothing wrong with pretending gods are real. Of course those selling conservatism or acting as if they are in support of it, JP and others, are making serious money selling conservative ideology. These guys are smart because they figured out how to legally con money from idiots just like the church. I just can't sell the god idea for money, even though I know it is very easy money and the targets are gullible.
I don't suppose anybody has ever attempted to bakance a perfect sphere on a perfect razor, inside a vacuum. Largely because we don't have a way to create that level of perfection. Doesn't mean the mathematical modelling is wrong.
Your video reviews were the main reason I got the Exway Wave, and for the same reasons (easily swappable travel battery; small enough for city use). My only gripe was that the board-side connector broke within a month of light use and Exway accused me of abusing it - some glue fixed that. I had to adjust the trucks which required making holes in the padded grip tape (not a great design choice) but I just laid a new tape right over the top and it looks great.
Mathematical model is not reality. When you create mathematical model and than study that model, you study model not reality. Mathematic is langauge. Its like using english and write "Cars can fly". Its proper sentence, we can call that model of car. Would you for real treat that "Cars can fly" as reality? It would be madness. You write "NEED", no one need mathematical models. Its very false assumption. You can make science without that. But if you use mathematical model than you should be consciouss that its not reality, its mathematical abstraction.
I’m with the guy who DIDN’T arrogantly write a book called THE GOD DELUSION when it’s clear we know sweet FA about soooooo very very much about motivations and from where they come. And we exist in a world where most of our urges and inspirations are of inexplicable origin.
Am i the only one who feels like listening to biologists in a modern setting is like listening to the kid giving a presentation in philosophy that will land him an f.
Dawkins: "Get my agent on the phone.. Why did he put me on the stage with this numbskull? I told him I wanted to debate someone who understands evolution."
@@Reece-u3f I was quoting Sir Isaac Newton. And… what is true? Evolution? Not exactly. The only true statement you can make about the truth of it is that you believe it to be so. I.e. you have faith that it is.
@@guydegroof9415 Incorrect. There is no level of "evidence" that does not require faith. However, if we're speaking of evolution, in particular, much faith is required to believe it is true. Also, harkening back to my original reply, apprehending something called evolution does not mean that one has knowledge of it. He or she merely believes he has knowledge of it, and one has put their faith in it. The same can be said of any religious dogma, where certain premises are accepted as facts, and everything is explained through that sense, which gives the illusion of being facts.
You can come up with an evolutionary mechanism that plays out mathematically in ways that are very convincing . you can demonstrate that it’s mathematically viable but that does not mean that it has any correspondence to any kind of biological reality. One glaring example would have to be Alfred Wallace’s version of sexual selection.
@@ssehe2007 You can build bad models, not only mathematical. The issue with the bad mathematical models is because the robust appearance can be misleading and it is important to be careful. But Math models are one of the best tools to describe reality in science because with debugging through experimentation when posible, observation with reality, prediction power, and even some levels of indirect corroboration, those can show us things and variables that are not easy to find or extract with other models. What Bret says, and how he says it, does not reflect healthy skepticism but rather prejudice.
@@ElectricBluJay Bret only mentioned his mentor to describe in another way why he agreed to despise mathematical models. It is true that one must be careful with mathematical models, as with all models, even if they are only logical, bad models can always be made. But what Bret implies and how he says it are prejudices against mathematical models that are a one of the best tools in science for abstracting structure, connections, and variables from reality that are not easy to see with other models. And that phrase is very silly.
@@damirregoc8111 Then go on, since you're knowledgeable, give us the precise reasons why Bet Weinstein is incorrect, or "stupid" as everyone in these comments seem to call him.
Weinstein is intentionally being an idiot. The only question is if you’re willing to think he is being profound while he talks like an idiot, asks stupid questions, and invents petty inconsequential “problems”.
As strange as it sounds, maximizing efficiency is not a good survival strategy, because it leaves you vulnerable to environmental fluctuations. If you learned to utilize every bit of available resources, you'll die in bad time even from minor scarcity. That's why you need a reserve of inefficiency you'll be willing to sacrifice in bad time. Showing it off to your mate you show how much more you able to get above what you need.
I feel sorry for the people who think Bret is a pseudo-intellectual, it must be rough trying to navigate life without being able to think for yourselves. Two brilliant men having a long overdue conversation.
I think it's because of his argument, which, like one person posted, is: Why isn't there any work being done to answer some of these questions, Dawkins: there is work being done to answer these questions, Weinstein: but my generation hasn't answered them yet so that doesn't count.. I think it's fair to criticise him over a 15 minute conversation over something which has no merit. I like to hear him talk. And I like to hear people like Dawkins challenged, though I don't think that was very intellectually challenging. Seems like he was speaking on something he doesn't know about and then fillabusted with things which didn't really help his argument in the slightest, no matter how interesting or clever they seemed.
@@chriscanavanii9064 regardless of whether it's real or not (it *definitely* is, I've seen it happening), my point is that Weinstein doesn't even understand what scientists are claiming about evolution. How could one even hope to have a productive conversation when one of the parties doesn't even understand the topic of conversation?
"Why is there more species by the equator than the poles?" Oh, I don't know, Bret, it couldn't possibly be because it's fucking cold, has no sunlight for 6 months and nothing grows in solid ice....
When this aired, was the first time my opinion of Bret's academic abilities declined and no longer cared about his commentary. And watching him now is just sad.
Richard is a fan of "settled science", especially if he can lay claim to have settled it! And Brett questions the narrative when he sees discrepancies. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out who has your best interests in mind
It's not mathematical representation, it's mathematical modelling. The model gives insight which is used to craft future questions. These questions are then tested experimentally. Where the model fails to reflect experimental results, the model is improved. Is Weinstein claiming that a sphere, absent of other forces, can't balance on a razor? Pointing out a flaw in a model, i.e., Newton's Law of Cooling asymptotically approaching equilibrium, does not justify throwing out mathematical modelling. Weinstein also doesn't provide an alternative. Science is just our best guess at the truth and mathematical modelling is one of many tools used to approach the truth. Weinstein and his brother are just so very irritating with how they abuse information to sow discontent.
He speaks (naievely or deliberately?) of ideal models, not models of things in the real world. In other words, in the absence of any forces other than gravity, the model will demonstrate a sphere will balance on a razor. When you then add in real world conditions, the model is then able to demonstrate the probability of achieving that balance conditions.
This is the right question to ask. And the answer necessarily has to be _empirical._ I don't know answer to that one, but . . . here is just one _possible_ resolution to the issue: Perhaps the adult male, with its outstanding plumage, acts as a decoy to predators, and then the struggling, yet still strong, and healthy male, has to make a getaway that diverts much attention from the truly vulnerable younger members of the species, and their mothers. In this way, a predator might be successful at taking down the male, and also might not be, but there is a trade-off where the younger ones have still benefited by having much more time to hide and/or escape from predation. The net result could conceivably be a high attrition rate amoung the oldest males, and low attrition rate amoung the youngest males, and a significantly enhanced prospect of all the younger members for survival to sexual maturity, as well as their mothers. Could I be wrong? Of course I could be wrong, but it still makes sense to empirically investigate actual populations for the mathematically likely age distribution of male mortality, baby mortality and female mortality.
@@heatfield4243 - I'm sure we both considered that, and I'm also sure that no tiger wants just the feathers, but if it ends up with just feathers after trying to kill the peacock, then the peacock just barely survived. Do you disagree? Under my hypothesis, the full, undamaged plumage of the peacock indicates to the female that the wearer has been a successful decoy in the past, and will likely act that way again to protect her and any of their potential offspring. Wouldn't you agree that's quite possible?
You can test it out by strapping a really big tail to your back and try running with it. Compare the time that you got with and without the feather and see if it makes a difference 🙂
@@pauligrossinoz I am not disagreeing, however, I don't know what a female peacock has in mind. I thought the feathers were supposed to reflect virility regardless of decoy duty. Peacock feathers are large and tough, and may discourage eating. So the next time, the predator may look elsewhere. When I was growing up, we slaughtered and cleaned chickens for food. Removing the feathers was the absolute worst part.
It's actually pretty fascinating subject if you think about it. We selectively breed dogs for a myriad of reasons. One could argue that female birds are doing the same thing. Allowing the breeding of only birds of their choosing. The kicker is that some scientists would call that natural selection but might not call dog breeding "natural" selection. Something to think about.
I’m certainly not a biologist but could many of these behaviours essentially be vestigial? I.e. have served a genuine purpose many generations ago, even in an earlier species and now be largely useless but also largely harmless?
Only when it's stupid and this person is held up as an intellectual. We are supposed to be bothered by that. It's called scrutiny of their position. You just want people to be able to say whatever and not be challenged?
@@adamsmith307 when all you can do is quote mine you also don’t have a counter argument. That being said this dude already has been proven to be a fraud especially with Prof Dave’s latest video shedding his lack of integrity and showcasing the fraud he is so what do we do? raise the exact same points as him? Not needed as he’ll just dismiss and ignore because of his followers find out he full of crap he won’t be able to pawn himself off as some sort of science Jesus. The Weinsteins have no interest in any science that proves them wrong. The basis of their arguments is that my argument is scientifically correct we just have to dismiss all the science that argues otherwise. Calling him stupid was less so name calling as it was making a valid observation. His points have already been disproven but he continues to regurgitate them and pretend they haven’t. Stupid behaviour IMO. Real scientist put beliefs or dogma aside to better understand the world around them by basing their conclusions off overwhelming evidence. Weinstein doesn’t do this with any of his theories Weinstein brothers are just clout farming by offering pseudoscience to those that don’t understand the topics enough to prove them wrong until a paper comes out from more intelligent members of the scientific community proving them wrong which they’ll never address EVEN when pressed on the matter. They have 0 interest in good faith arguments much like creationists do. However I will grant you crystein is name calling but I’ll sign my name to that one aswell as the name is a reflection on how he behaves when his hypothesis or “theories” get dunked on. Similar to what Terrance howard did with his 1x1=2 garbage. The only difference is they don’t randomly throw in words like aether and crystallization. He has no counter other than the system is rigged when in reality he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
@@adamsmith307 when all you can do is quote mine you also don’t have a counter argument. That being said this dude already has been proven to be a fraud especially with Prof Dave’s latest video shedding his lack of integrity and showcasing the fraud he is so what do we do? raise the exact same points as him? Not needed as he’ll just dismiss and ignore because of his followers find out he full of crap he won’t be able to pawn himself off as some sort of science Jesus. The Weinsteins have no interest in any science that proves them wrong. The basis of their arguments is that my argument is scientifically correct we just have to dismiss all the science that argues otherwise. Calling him stupid was less so name calling as it was making a valid observation. His points have already been disproven but he continues to regurgitate them and pretend they haven’t. Stupid behaviour IMO. Real scientist put beliefs or dogma aside to better understand the world around them by basing their conclusions off overwhelming evidence. Weinstein doesn’t do this with any of his theories Weinstein brothers are just clout farming by offering pseudoscience to those that don’t understand the topics enough to prove them wrong until a paper comes out from more intelligent members of the scientific community proving them wrong which they’ll never address EVEN when pressed on the matter. They have 0 interest in good faith arguments much like creationists do. However I will grant you crystein is name calling but I’ll sign my name to that one aswell as the name is a reflection on how he behaves when his hypothesis or “theories” get dunked on. Similar to what Terrance howard did with his 1x1=2 garbage. The only difference is they don’t randomly throw in words like aether and crystallization. He has no counter other than the system is rigged when in reality he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
This is why multiple signals evolve. One signal gets fixed and then another one evolves. A Large tail is not only large, but then colourful, then it has eyes, and then is is irridescent, etc.
"Why is this question still unanswered? Science nowadays gets no answers recently" "That question was answered 60 years ago" "Okay, but there's this tiny part that I don't understand about it" "That was answered recently" "That doesn't count because it uses maths"
Both Weinststeins have fallen to classic blunder of arrogant smart people. Thinking that because they are smart they know or can figure out anything instantly. They can cow and impress until they face a real expert (as seen here).
They are not smart and they somehow show up on these "discussions" as if they are somehow equals. They are absolutely not equals, they are mediocre at best, this is why Dawkins had to explain everything for Bret when he should have left it up to Bret to dig his own hole with the word salad bullshit then call him out on it.
They are not smart. They learnt to speak in over complicated way using a lot of scientific terms. Pretending they are experts in all the fields they are touching. And if you ask them direct question about anything they say they will change the subject.
People are either really smart at one thing, or they know only a little about everything. Thinking that they’re smart about everything is just asking for trouble.
Anyone noticed we were often told red heads would become very much rarer and rarer yet there seems to be a huge increase in our ginger friends and the younger red heads are substantially better looking?
1:00 crikey, even while he is saying i can see he must be short sighted to think dawkins "has solved all the major issues with evolution". and i only have an art degree. where does that come from?
Shit in equals shit out, and if variable input is wrongly assumed to play a larger role then what they actually play, the model certainly can be decieving
i'm a guy who likes girls with freckles and white skin, for which there can be no "fitness" justification. to dismiss the "mystical" as unscientific, is in truth a presupposition that the mystical does not exist, which is in itself unscientific.
The dismissal of the mystical isn't due to a presupposition that it doesn't exist, nor is it a dismissal. "Mystical" solutions are merely considered weak as they explain an unknown subject of study by invoking a second unknown, thereby illuminating nothing and merely kicking the can down the road a little. Having a well-defined reason for some phenomenon, take for example the mass and distance causing gravitational force, allows you to make predictions and prove the theory wrong, in our example we can calculate celestial trajectories and note the positions of the planets with telescopes to verify/correct our theory. Mystical answers don't allow this and so you can't test whether you're right or wrong and therefore don't make progress. At least not until you dispense with the bullshit explanation. Also no one wants to know about your preference for freckles or white skin, use a less exhibitionistic example next time you try to make a point on the internet.
Pale skin with freckles shows a propensity to absorb vitamin D in cloudy northern climates. People with black skin in these environments tend to suffer from vitamin D deficiency which can cause immune system problems, to name just one of many. Or...maybe it's just an in-group preference, which means your mate may be more acceptable to members of your own tribe, meaning your offspring will be more likely to survive in your particular tribal group. Pale skin tends to be preferred across cultural, racial and geographoc groups. It's probably a status signal, as somebody with pale skin is less likely to say, work the fields. Mating with a higher status mate can increase the status and the fitness of your offspring. I could go on.
@@bbainter7880 you could, but you greatly underestimate me, and more importantly what you have just revealed about yourself btw i'm 61 years old and nothing you just said is new to me..
There is an orchid that both looks like and smells like a female bee in heat, attracting male bees and thus pollinating itself. To imagine a world in which such a thing could happen through accidental mutations is magical thinking.
I have another story: There is an omnipotent being that deliberately gave his most prized creation dodgy eyesight. A faulty build with the construction of the human eye apparatus. He also made a creature with eyes that were constructed perfectly, without that flaw. Now, to believe that that omnipotent being cares all that much about humans clearly is wishful thinking. It's not a human God, it's an octopus God!
@gernwind9262 who said anything about God, you silly person. Try to let your mind advance a bit outside of the highschool debate level that you seem impressed with in yourself.
I wish I could ask Dr Dawkins the following Q: why in all other animals, male and female species are aligned on whether the male species should be monogamous or polygamous, but humans are an exception?
1. Are humans and exception by biological means or cultural? Or even an exception at all? 2. While there are many monogamous pairing in the non human world there is also a vast variety of polygamy partners where it's male centric or female centric or neither.
Humans aren't the exception. A monogamous species, like a particular bird for example, may appear to "mate for life" - which means that they stick together and jointly raise offspring, but a high percentage of the males are actually raising babies from another male. Females of many species will stick with a "good provider" male, while going after a different one for his genes.
@@Fahrenheit4051 Yes. Eursian beavers, Coppery titi monkeys, and black vultures are examples of monogamous animals. A male Coppery monkey wants to be monogamous as much as their female and never dreams to be like a gorilla with many female companions! On the other hand, female gorillas or lions shoo their male companion away to mate with other females and are not full of rage and jealousy if that happens. Why humans are the only species amongst in the animal kingdom where the females want a man of their dream for life, but many men like to fool around with many women. Of course, my question is strictly from the evolutionary point of view and not moral.
Let me elaborate: in the animal kingdom, Coppery titi monkeys or coyotes are monogamous. That means the male Coppery titi monkey doesn’t dream to be like a gorilla with many female companions. On the other hand, female gorillas or lions shoo their male partner away to mate with other females without being filled with rage and jealousy. Humans are the only species that are not compatible in this. Why? Of course, my question is from the scientific and evolutionary point of view and not moral.
Imagine getting one of the greatest intellectuals alive to do a public speaking performance with you, and your main argument is “progress not fast enough, progress not in straight line, math not finished, therefore math bad, brrr….”
Imagine the same only your arguments are: huge number of unsolved mysteries, the things you call progress do not bridge the gaps only provide more holes to be filled, the math done until now is very little and has almost none of the "proof-power" it has in other similar fields ...say in medicine or psychology, therefore since mathematics is OK it means your theory is crap ... Dawkins looks reeeeeally bad!
Math is an abstraction from nature, but just because its possible in math doesn't mean that nature is going follow what works in math. There's more to nature than math, its a layer for understanding nature not its totality.
NEW EVENT! THE ANTISCIENCE OF GOD? Lawrence Krauss & Stephen Hicks ruclips.net/video/extbcWCnhxU/видео.htmlsi=zbwVhOBBgwxLtB1e
Actually evolution is anti science.
It took me too long to realize the Weinstein brothers were intellectual Steven Seagals.
Me too. I'm a lay person who loves science and tries to follow the best representitives of specific disciplines. I was also taken in by the Weinstein brothers. Eventually I figured it out, but it is disheartening to be duped. Dawkins never suffered fools though.
That's a perfect description
Ditto. Perfect metaphor by the way.
Accurate comparison 😂😂
I'm greatly reassured to see others expressing this kind of opinion.
I agree with Eric, How He and Bret dont both have Nobel Prizes is beyond me!! Yes, they have zero publications between them, but look at how many times they've been on Joe Rogan!!
Edit: Bret's fans have informed me that Bret does actually have publications. Indeed, he does in fact have two publications! Yet more evidence that this prolific academic was cheated out of his Nobel prize!
Lol well Brett thinks he deserves a Nobel prize, he actually tried to sued a prize winner because he said they stole his work, which was total BS
😂😅
😂
@@justincarter1950 omg I didn't know that, that's hilarious
😂
Reading these comments is kind of wild. This sounds like a normal intellectual conversation. Science is based in skepticism. Even if Weinstein is wrong, it is the scientific communities responsibility to scrutinize theories, data, assertions, etc... Dissenting opinions are healthy for science until the evidence is so obvious that there can be no objection. It is okay to be wrong, Dawkins admits to his previous understandings of the subject to be in error. This kind of discussion is healthy.
They are hyper orthodox lefties. Can't think about any other possibilities.
He isn't arguing for regular scientific scepticism. He's arguing for people to "have an open mind" for charlatans like his brother and himself.
@ lol what does his brother have to do with anything? But okay, if you say so.
Meathead logic
@@Popito84why are they charlatans?
Whole lot of people attacking the man--precious few attacking the ideas.
Weinstein goes full regard in two obvious ways: 1) acts like there’s no work being done on serious issues, which Dawkins conclusively shuts him down on and 2) criticizes mathematical modeling in general when in reality they are exceptionally useful, and Dawkins shows him a specific example of how his graduate student proved that a female can retain certain genes that are costly to her to maintain but nevertheless workout overall (maintaining decorative male characteristics in her offspring). Weinstein simply ignores both corrections and continues with his contrarian routine. Dawkins is polite but appropriately incredulous.
His schtick only works on people that aren’t educated in what he’s talking about. It’s obvious what he’s doing.
Got a load of geniuses in the comments
Genii.
We're all on the same level as the Weinstein bros.
Weinstein: "Why are there more species at the equator than at the poles?" Huh?
Like, why are there more species on planet earth than on the moon?
yeah right. I mean more sunlight mean more photosynthesizers thus more food for the species above in the food chain. Life is predominantly sun-energy based so that explains the current distribution. Had it really started in anaerobic environments near the volcanic vents undersea based on geothermal energy, then the distribution at that time would be concentrated around such vents. Wherever the energy source is more, there is more life.
I wonder why dawkins let this pass.
@@bratwurstmitbiryani "I wonder why dawkins let this pass."
Well, there's a lot to chose from when rebutting Weinstein.
"And, like why do organisms have to have finite lives, mannn. All the aging and dying gives me the sad! Somebody's gotta put a stop to it - but just for us though. . ."
It seems like he intentionally looks for questions that are just not very good, and portrays them as forbidden or a sign of incompetence in the establishment. I can't stop my eyes from rolling when he starts talking. Yes, look for blind spots by all means... But then do the research and report it instead of whining that it's not being done.
@@douglascutler1037😂 Target rich environment.
Why was Brett EVER considered a profound thinker?
Honest question.
I just see him NOT KNOWING things and not asking actually good questions
We only know about him because of his Jordan Peterson'esque experience at Evergreen College.
There are guys teaching in Rural Kansas community colleges who are more intelligent than him.
Just like Jordan Peterson he rode the fame of being "anti-woke" and persecuted by the left. Neither of them got famous on the merits of their ideas.
He presented himself to right wingers who lack powers of discrimination & intellectual capacity.
The intellectual dark web positioned the Weinsteins as intellectual rebels standing up to the supposed establishment. The cult of Reflexive Contrarianism adopted them as their patron saints. Years have gone by where they just got better and better at spouting unquestioned BS from their pulpits.
This is the issue with "public intellectuals"; people just assume they're smart because they get attention. But there are lots of ways to sound smart and get attention without actually saying anything.
If you are not vegan, don't even talk about logic or morals 👉 Dominion (2018)
I love how Weinsteins are always complaining about the science not making progress when they didn't make any in any possible field.
Neither has contributed anything. Clowns.
Eric makes more sense than bret. That being said dawkins' selfish gene model on evo is debunked. Dawkins is spot on religions though.
@@kaiserkhan9832 It has not been debunked.
@@kaiserkhan9832debunked where? Lol what?
Why would Dawkins debate this charlatan?
If the question before us was whether Dawkins struggled with Bret Weinstein regarding evolution, the answer is no, he did not.
i had to dislike the video because after listening, i couldnt for the life of me understand the title. 😅 whoever titled this must have struggled the most.
I think they meant struggled not to claw his own eyes out.....
@@bestbehave Strange impression.
@@saerain Frankly I don't know how he has teh patience.....
Stuggles to understand his buffoonery
The anti-Weinstein comments here are harsh and unsupportable. Both these guys are advanced in their field and are having quite a respectable conversation. Too bad these commenters are incapable of same.
Most people in our society are scientifically illiterate worshippers of "The Science". It's a cargo cult. It's Lysenkoism. It's scientism. It's a religion purposefully manufactured by social engineers through so-called "popularizers of science" (NDT, Bill Nye the Scientism guy, etc.) to get them to do things like "follow The Science"--the most unscientific utterance in the history of utterances.
I was looking for this comment. The amount of arrogance in the comments is predictable.
"Why isn't that work being done?"
"But it is being done."
"But my generation hasn't answered it, so that doesn't count."
💯 spot on.
Classic Weinstein 😅
Even this is too generous to him. It makes it sound like he ever makes any point, even if it's the wrong one. He doesn't.
If you are not vegan, don't even talk about logic or morals 👉 Dominion (2018)
"but we have answered it"
"yeah but I don't believe it"
@@VeganSemihCyprus33you buy your more consistent morality by rejecting your place in this world and putting a luxury simulacrum in its place. That’s a high price
more energy at the equator > more available resources > More chance for specialization to take advantage of those resources > more species.
I would think that more specialization would be required away from all that “ energy “
Also, the equator isn't solid ice.
@@stevenclark2104 Speciation seems like the more apt term.
You’re equivocating between speciation & basic survival. You’re not actually supporting your point, you may actually supporting the inverse.
@@utubemewatch That's just silly. More resources would be obviously advantageous for both survival AND speciation. Either way, @bradleyware1445
used the exact same verbiage as Weinstein did, so if anyone is equivocating, it's Weinstein.
Bret's brand of BS is less befuddling than Petersons making it easier to tell he is FOS.
Thks for bringing in J P to this. Have followed jp for yrs but have disliked the last number of them
@@clarkpalace Well, he was a drug addict for a long time.
@@bartonlee3594 That on its own means nothing.
This is before he went off the deep end haha.
Try listening to him now lol.
@@damirregoc8111it does betray the hypocrisy in his own philosophy though.
The caption is misleading. Bret Weinstein is just being a contrarian without offering possible alternatives.
I think Brett is in awe and star struck and is desperately trying to feel an equal
Weinstein ain't Einstein
Hey that's what atheists do!
"Nuh uh!"
That's what progressives do.
Dawkins still is over confident in trusting our human brain. He needs to keep asking why so he can logically get back to the essence of everything, which I'm confident he'd say doesn't exist. He's just argumentative and happy with a limited understanding. It's good for now but weisntein isn't a charlatan.
The questions he is asking is shaking the foundation of modern science where everyone believe we completely understand everything while brushing the unsolved under the carpet at the same time...
Utter fucking nonsense
Is this comment section only filled with Sam Harris Stans?
Looks like it! 😄
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Be nice. Atheists need SOMETHING or someone to believe in. Its either this or narcotics for them
It filled with people who are too afraid to think outside the boxes they’re told to think within.
I don't really get the connection (does Harris dislike this guy?) but I think Harris is a dotard and a charlatan but this Weinstein guy is the same and seems to also have an IQ equivalent to dice roll.
Harris seems smart but so insanely ideologically captured he's lost all sight of reality and sense and basically become a schizophrenic.
This guy is just a dunce.
Comments seem unduly harsh on Bret. I found the conversation intriguing and agree with Brett on the shortcomings of mathematical modeling.
He's being systematically smeared in order to discredit someone who opposes the current elite. But the actual NPCs commenting here are little more than religious zealots, attacking a disbeliever.
yes!
Most of the hate comes from people that still hate his views on the vaxx
So do many serious ppl from religious to atheist. New atheism is stuck at basic bitch scientism.
They smell a heretic. And you know what the religiously minded do to heretics.
Dawkins explains things so well. That’s another reason why I love listening to him
little dicky dawkins is not very bright what does that say about you
But he doesn’t. (This is not a defense of Bret)
@@arnoldziffel4943how does he not? He literally explains the concepts very concisely and simply.
@@1234EggNoggIf only they ever make the effort of listening they would know.
I feel captivated when Richard speaks. I feel icky when hearing Eric speak.
The two reason males are beautiful, usually meaning quite visible in the wild is is to have females choose them AND to decoy predators away from the female and her offspring. Picture a colorful mallard male duck and a brownish yellowish female mallard duck. Their territory is areas that is similar in color to the female mallard duck resulting in the female being camouflaged in its natural surroundings, while the very visibly male duck can decoy the predator away from the female and her you.
And to add to that, the male display is often good at intimidation and confusion to predators, helping their chances of survival as well as helping the chances of his families survival in the ways you have already stated.
This hypothesis makes sense, and it means that full, bright and intact male plumage is essentially a signal to the female that indicates:
_"I'm very successful as a decoy to help protect you and our potential offspring, because I haven't lost a single feather while acting as a decoy."_
Interesting. I hadn’t thought of the decoy strategy. It could also be that having an overly large tail makes them slower and become an easier target for predators so that the females can escape.
@@captainlockes2344 Males are disposable. One male can fertilize many females resulting in many chicks being born while the converse where there are many males and one female would result in population decline.
thats some bs. colorful displays of males has many different reasons that work together, but its certainly not a trigger for predators, thats ridiculous.
if you consider species which live alone or are not social, there is no need to lure predators away, because mating is a one time thing, so the male isnt around the female or the offspring in that case, meaning there would be no correlation between the male dying and the offspring living. its not like there is only one species of prey animal, so being eaten would mean that a random animal in the ecosystem survives, which has no relation to his offspring.
if you consider a social species, this also doesnt work, because the male typically stays around the female and offspring for protection, so if he gets eaten, another male might come in, kill the offspring and reproduce with the female, or the female and offspring get eaten because of not protection.
a far more rational idea would be that characteristics such as the peakcocks tail originally evolved for some function or were the byproduct of genes that originally had a survival function, making females select for it, and then the females attraction selects for larger and larger tails beyond its original use, and this will go on until a penalty is reached for the excessive size that offsets the mating advantage. so the tails evolution started out as functional, and then coevolved with female attraction until a point of diminishing returns was reached. this means that the tail might be a hindrance for survival, but not enough to offset the females preference.
also , females dont have reproductive choice in nature and cant reject males cause they will jump them anyway, so it might just be that the intimidation factor of other males or even predators alone by the larger tale might a driving the tales evolution.
I would bet that larger tails is intimidating to other males, causing them to not risk a fight to death and flee form the conflict, allowing the male to win more fights against other males.
The point on mathematical models making errors, such as the sphere on the razors edge, are blatantly untrue… a sphere will balance on a razors edge, but only if placed exactly centrally and without external forces, and with a perfectly spherical sphere with infinitely consistent density, which are conditions exceptionally challenging to replicate in real life. So what do we do? We include parameters that reflect reality in the model. We don’t “throw out math” because Bret has been unable to balance a sphere on his razor…
Succint ❤
Have you ever tested it, though?
@@Cogitovision balancing a perfect sphere on a razors edge in a vacuum? No, because the conditions required to do that would be unreasonable in reality as well as very costly. Not to say this hasn’t been done, just not by me personally. But a razor has non-zero width, so naturally, any object placed exactly at center of mass will balance. But why go through the trouble when mathematical models can demonstrate this result far more quickly and cheaply? Hence the benefit of modeling.
That’s the point, math says it’s possible but it’s not. Go try to actually do what you just said in real life and you will see it cannot happen.
Thank you for describing a thing that doesn't exist in real life as an example of how math CAN accurately represent real life.
Pretty interesting conversation. These comments are wild though. If you, some random nobody on the internet, listened to this discussion and came away with the impression that either of these men is an "intellectual Steven Seagal" I think you might need to step back and realize that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Too late. Anyone that came to that conclusion has already been eclipsed, intellectually, by Seagal.
Yeah two guys who pretty much talk and write for a living, having done little real-world work... kinda embarrassing.
@@Roescoe you’ve just described nearly every public intellectual in history.
@@DaveM86 Yuppers. Though back in the day they would actually face consequences more than being removed from an online platform.
@@Roescoe such as?
In what part of the discussion is it that Dawkins is struggling? I can't find that particular part.
Mathematical modeling. He recognizes their worthlessness, but refuses to give up on them.
Am I the only one who didn't come away from this thinking Bret humiliated himself? Also, as probably one of the few people in this comment section who has actually written and worked with mathematical models, I don't understand why people are so hostile to the idea that we should be skeptical of them.
They do not understand what mathematical models are and what is the difference between simulation and the reality of a physical process. You can write an infinite number of complicated models that seem to fit a process but none of them might be an actual mathematical isomorphism for that process.
As a biologist Dawkins seemed unaware of this and his non-scientific admirers are even more clueless. He was satisfied there was a model that fitted the data ... but is the model correct?? That is the question!
@@GeDePeU Not sure that's an accurate characterization. IMO it's more like:
Dawkins: I thought Zahavi's idea was dumb and could *never* work. My student did some modeling and showed that it *can* work. So I was wrong.
Weinstein: You should be more skeptical. The model showed it's possible, but that doesn't mean the model is correct. I'm skeptical of models for .
Dawkins: OK. But what do you do when a verbal argument isn't enough? You have to do *some* math, right?
[Video Ends]
There's nothing in this exchange that indicates either side is 'clueless' or doesn't know the difference between simulations and reality. No need to be inflammatory.
Especially as it relates to subjects where the root of the phenomenon is a complex system. Wolfram wrote an entire treatise on a very simplistic system, which pales in comparison to biology, especially a subject like this that crosses one or more boundaries.
I find it interesting that most of the comments here are just criticizing without really understanding the deep discussion here, but only critisize because their precious worldview is being challenged
It's like they hate the scientific method if they get the answer they weren't hoping for.
I think one of the most important points he's (weinstien) making is that science should always be pushing, questioning, and challenging. Exactly the opposite of what is happening in many fields of study.. it's kinda like the narrative is the most important thing to uphold and adhere to now. To challenge the narrative is to invite the wrath of the ideologues.
I thought this sort of criticism was pretty common in physics as well. I've heard concerns about the divide between theorists and experimentalists and this discussion reminded me of that. Mathematical models can lead us to expect things like dark matter, but unless/until we actually find it, there's no telling if we've made a wrong turn somewhere.
@@rsvp87 Too dangerous to encourage study of physics outside of the narrative.
Mostly because what he's saying is incorrect...
The sphere on a razor problem can be resolved using mathematics. It's an unstable system which means the tiniest displacement will lead to the sphere rolling off the razor.
I don't care for them either, but the comments sound like intellectual snobbery.
Just cuz u weren't selected.
@@PolPot-si7czsavage 😂
Didn't you know all the evolutionary experts hang out in random yt comment sections? Hello fellow experts
@bjangles8718 Sorry, I hadn't seen this. I was evolving. Doing good. You?
The comments are politically motivated.
What Clown. Playing the generational divide card to score points with angst ridden young folk.
The hell are you talking about?
@saerain really? The "well your generation..." that shit has no place in science.
Confession through projection. You’re really demonstrating Weinstein’s point. Clearly you’re channeling the rage of the intellectual well situated in the academy or university, fuming over the criticisms of Colleges/Universities, disciplines, academic departments, corrupted periodicals, and the perverse incentives driving all of them. And their defenses are always ad hominem and logical fallacies-this adds credence to the original criticism that claims, for example:
“Science” has become a bastardized term for academics to protect their sacred cows-science itself was sacrificed at the altar of sacred cows & now too many so-called “scientists” can’t endure criticism, opposition, heterodox views, or anything they consider profane. Such debates were always the lifeblood of science-it’s in fact the scientific method itself. Inductive reasoning is the engine of science but it’s labeled charlatanism when used by Weinstein & the heterodox thinkers. Real science has become the 4th or 5th priority among university departments & intellectual associations & clubs, periodicals etc. All of the really productive, creative, successful or even just thought provoking individuals agree that these disciplines have atrophied, become sclerotic & too bureaucratic. And the hysterical types raging against such critiques always make this point appear more credible than it appeared on first glance. Perhaps these too people agree w/ Dr. Fauci “I am the science” and thus take these critiques personally. Pathology always thinks it’s eminently reasonable, fair, prudent, and of course, the victim.
Edit-I should note I’m not referring to all universities, all departments, disciplines, academics, periodicals etc. but the problem has become systematic, standards have fallen, & missions perverted. The universities or departments founded in excellence, that maintain faculties w/ real academic freedom, and w/ the fewest perverse incentives & political/rapacious administrators will remain bastions of excellence. The formula is that simple.
@@saerainagreed the generational divide in the scientific and technical fields are radically pronounced mainly because of how the university system was filled to capacity with professorships then 40 plus years later those person's haven't retired.
Similarly this happened in many fields. Similar to the Democrat party. Boomers and the generation preceding and following just squatted on top of the power structures for over half a century not allowing subsequent generations to become vested in them.
It's not an unfair observation, it's a statement of what happened.
It's why as an engineer when I got my bachelor's the modeling courses were taught by retirement age person's on software over 20 years out of date. My 6th grade CAD class was more relevant to my first job than my radically more expensive collegiate education.
I'm surprised at how Bret thinks these "problems" are bigger than they are. With sexual selection, there's a variety of reasons for it, not just one, such as putting on displays and being beautiful being an indicator of health and fitness in an environment, but he's expecting a universal answer for different species. With more species near the equator than the poles, one needs only look at how it's quite difficult living nearer to the poles, and that's ignoring human influence making species go extinct. Growing feeble and inefficient with age is slightly tricky, but I think it's quite understandable that as chemical systems we inevitably break down, and if we didn't break down there'd be too little genetic diversity and inbreeding as such a successful species as us would keep making more of ourselves and becoming too closely related. Plus, Bret just dismissing the science being done is very disappointing, it's as if he doesn't understand scientific progress takes time, and that answers are given or available if looked for.
Does physical impressiveness always provide a good indicator of male potency in nature? It is not true of humans. There are plenty of infertile men with very good physiques, whilst some pretty poor and general appearance and health who are very fertile in terms of sperm count and motility.
@@GeoffV-k1h I would say yes, but that's without other knowledge. That's why it's an "indicator" and not the final answer.
@@GeoffV-k1hyou’re desperately trying to defend your religion with minor exceptions it’s really sad.
The general rule is, if you’re in good shape. You are healthy.
There are exceptions to this like ALL things. But you’d be a clown to absolutely discard this idea because of your desperate need for Jeebus to be real.
i'm a guy who likes girls with freckles and white skin, for which there can be no "fitness" justification.
to dismiss the "mystical" as unscientific, is in truth a presupposition that the mystical does not exist, which is in itself unscientific.
@@GeoffV-k1h there are exceptions to every rule.
But generally a good physique is a sign of good health.
To think otherwise is just desperate cope and need for a sky daddy to exist.
At a certain point you realize Weinstein face plants on almost every subject he touches, even ones he's trained in.
How so?
He's such a disappointment to his mother. Failed to secure his Nobel
@@miikavihersaari3104 They always complain about him and never explain why. Why? Because they don't know what's going on.
@@The_Gallowglass He's an evolutionary biologist that has done a 180 on basically everything he learned and teached, without evidence or scientific studies to back up his extraordinary new claims.
Where's part 2 because i couldn't find RD struggling?
Rd has been struggling his whole life because he chose evolution as his religion, darwin has been debunked many times and im not talking about creationists, in france the microbiologists didier raoult has wildly debunked his claims. Darwin theory was accepted at the time because great britain was the world order at the time controlling half of the earth and they needed something to justify their domination and there is nothing better then the idea of social darwinism to justify it.
@@Wizzy678 Looks like you've bought the Creation lie hook, line and sinker.
Evolution is no more a religion than Germ Theory, Atomic Theory etc. Like all Scientific Theories, Evolution doesn't depend upon worshipping an absentee Deity and is clearly not a religion.
Darwin didn't get every single thing right but, 150 years on, his Theory of Evolution stands solid and has not been compromised as more evidence has come to light. Interestingly Russel Wallace arrived at the same conclusion as Darwin albeit with different data. No Creationist nor scientist has ever debunked Darwin. Try as they might, Creationists rely upon the non falsifiable claim "God dunnit" (A Scientific Theory has to be potentially falsifiable). Social Darwinism has absolutely no relation to Speciation by Natural selection.
How many more invalid memes can you fit in a comment?
The Pangburn comment section is gold. You people represent the arrogance, haughtiness, and general defense of ignorance of a generation.
Please keep illustrating this for us. As I doubt a single person here knows who Hamilton or Wallace is. And if you did you would see that neither of these camps would fit either of these men.
What's funny to me is my new suspicion that Harris is using a bot farm in 2024.
Both have valid points. Science is not complete, we need to keep questioning.
You're the only sensible person in these comments.
Exactly
Weinsteins argument is weak in two ways. First, if female selection prevented the introduction of bad genes, then I see no reason for it to fall away. And second, just because an animal has a strategy doesn't mean it is a good one. The vast majority of species are extinct, maybe the peacocks have gone down a blind alley. And indeed, one might even say that any strategy that doesn't lead to our kind of technical dominance is a bad one, given our impact. Evolution isn't purposeful, it demonstrably does make "mistakes".
I like how you gave an explanation of your first point..... oh wait.... 🤔
Yeah, your first point makes sense to me. I'm no expert on evolution, genetics or math though at all haha. But isn't Bret's reasoning gives too much credit to evolution, almost as if it's a thinking being that goes: "oh yeah, now there are almost zero of these bad genes, why should we go on with this selection?". Also, from what I could look up, mutations actually still happen relatively frequently - or at least frequent enough I guess that keeping up the selection is beneficial and necessary. So no, evolution doesn't/can't just get rid of all the bad genes even in the long run.
This is one of the problems with the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin. There are a lot of examples of unsuitable traits passed on genetically in a variety of species.
@@richardavery4692 That is not a "problem" at all. Evolution only works to the standard of "good enough", it;s quite possible to have both good and bad mutations at the same time.
@@garethmartin6522 More holes than swiss cheese. Wouldn't go away even when not used, so not ever evolving or adapting. Right...
The whole it doesn't make genetic sense, just random or disadvantage but here we are as a world, continuously progressing like a clock is a very small minded way to brush away the real holes in the formula. It's just random and some bad traits occur and it somehow works out!
There's a clear design in the entire system that is so complex, so utterly transparent in functionality that its mind boggling. Primordial soup theorists attempt to explain what they see, and explaining the mechanism doesn't answer how the foundational blueprint, before it ever existed in tangible reality, exists.
It’s true that the Weinstein brothers have been ostracized by the left due to their engagement in politics. I, for one, am grateful for a new thread to follow. Dawkins and evolutionary biology has never been my interest, but the infighting has added a new layer and I am enjoying it
This isn't in-fighting. In-fighting would be between 2 evolutionary biologists.
@ I’m not talking about Weinstein and Dawkins. I’m talking about you guys in the community
@@LukeDevescovi What community? I don't regard myself as being in a community at all when it comes to rejecting religion.
@ there is certainly a “community” of people who share common interests here. Could be a distaste or rejection for religion as you said. Their common interests has them digesting content from creators like Dawkins. Weinstein seems to be a polarizing figure within the community with some taking him on good faith and others wanting to exile him. Ironically, I’ve found this to be very similar to religion. Weinstein being the heretic to the most passionate atheists
@@LukeDevescovi I think the word gets bandied about too much. Agreeing with people on things doesn't make it a community.
Religions have tenets - there's no tenets in not believing in God unless or until evidence is stronger.
This is the beauty of the internet. The truth can be explored academically via a professional discussion and resulting comments. Thumbs up numbers and comments reflects public reaction. This can also be inspiring to become better educated and involved in the physical and mental aspects of our personal existence.
I much prefer the interactions in other fora but sure, the internet might help people to get interested. What the public thinks is hilariously stupid anyway considering that there are hundreds of millions that think the earth is 6k years old. The public should shut the fuck up and listen.
means nothing, how often has the majority been dead wrong?
@@dundundata7603 might not be majority either, may be bias in the comment section for a particular channel
@@dundundata7603 Well going by history, every single time.
@@michaelmay5453sounds like you’re being misled by propagandized surveys and social “studies” tbh - most ppl (yes even those religious) do not think the earth is 6000 years old… you’re being propagandized to divide up the populous by beliefs. Don’t get attached to your beliefs or the “facts” as history has repeatedly shown we are wrong. Hubris is deadly.
Side note - I can also probably guess your thoughts and opinions on most controversial topics or debates just from your comment alone. Which is the case for most of the scientific community (which im apart of) - I wonder what that tells you?
He keeps saying "your generation" implying Dawkins is so old. How rude
It would be funny if it weren't so rude due to the fact that Weinstein himself was born in 1969, so he's only missed being in the same generation as Dawkins by 4 years.
Only westerners are so insecure about age my god
@@TheByron130Dawkins was born in 1941 and is now 83. Brett is 55. 30 years is a significant age gap, probably 2 generations according to most.
@@TheByron130
Not true, Dawkins, as someone born before the end of WWII is Silent Generation, is not Baby Boomer.
@@help4343 I see, I was mistaken. Thank you.
I don't care about Weinstein but i love this conversation, i wish there were more discussions of biologists explaining their scientific problems in simple terms in front of an audience.
This isn't even a valid conversation. Weinstein is delusional, conspiracy laden grifter, not a scientist. Dawkins might as well be debating a 3rd grader up there. The conversation with a 3rd grader would involve more factual, good faith arguments and debate.
Dawkins never fails to impress with the narrowness of his bandwidth. Oh, the irony! After side lining God as a folk tale to explain the unexplainable, he prostrates himself at the foot of a mathematical model he doesn't understand (by his own account). He should join Monty Python!
Isn't there an easier answer... a Peacock with a big and decorated design is just easier to see, and is more prominant. Add a million years of evolution and voila.
I feel like Dawkins sort of showed that Darwin already knew the answer. It can be applied to nearly any animal or insect. It's essentially up to females what genes are past on because, it is essentially their choice.. There isn't really anything more to it other than that, it is just what they want because of whatever they think at the time. Nothing deep about it. It has nothing to do with passing on the strongest genes to make the animal this way, or because the female knows this is the best person to mate with.. Kids are born every single day with the genes of deadbeat dads. Trying to understand why women do things is something men will never understand, because i don't believe the women understand why they do it either and they can't explain it.. They do it just because. I feel like your answer to it, makes perfect sense. You would think making yourself an obvious target to predators would deter attention from mates, but reality shows that isn't the case in the animal kingdom or in mankind.
von Neumann said "with two parameters I can make an elephant, with three I can make him wag his tail". So with enough parameters you can "explain" anything.
I'm not a mathematician but when Brett is talking about the coffee in a room taking infinitely long to reach room temperature according to mathematical models, is that even true? Isn't there a thing about if you run 1/2 a certain distance in 1 second, 1/2 the remaining distance in 1/2 a second, and so on, intuitively you might think you'd never reach the finish line but in fact, according to the math, you reach the finish line in 2 seconds. Is Brett making a similar mistake here?
Brett is either wilfully or unintentionally confusing a philosophical paradox with what he claims to be a mathematical model paradox.
Yes, the two examples he is telling are poor examples, the first one is just to address the expected issues of ideal conditions in physics, and the second one is also that plus the uncomfortable existence of infinite. But Limits, statistics, probability, ranges, are also math. It is true that many times we can build bad math models that doesn't represent reality or are too complex and imaginary that deviate a lot from it. And it is important not to accept any math model because it is sound, those must be debugged, corroborated even indirectly, and always review the correspondence with reality open to change with more data and observations. But Math models are one of the best tools in science to examine and describe reality, adding structure and identifying variables that are not possible with other models. What Bret is saying is kind of dumb.
It’s one of Zeno’s paradoxes. Once calculus is introduced, it’s possible to add the infinite series and see the sum adds to 1.
We have calculus now. I mean I teach mechanical engineering for a living. I have written code for basic heat transfer problems. He is bulshitting
Bret doesn't realise that the real world has moved on from Zeno's paradox. (The paradox being a simple mind fuck that is not real.)
None of this matters, Abiogenesis trumps all of this speculation - this is just debates inside the subject.
The main issue is that Darwinism cannot answer the question of Abiogenesis and none of the current discoveries, thinking, theories hold a candle to how life began and we are nowhere near discovering it, despite the lunatic claims of Dawkins and others.
Go ahead and watch James Tour and you will appreciate how far we are.
There is no problem with our not knowing. We're working on it, we simply don't have all the answers yet. Admitting we don't know is far better than inventing a Space God who has "always been" and saying - "he did it!"
@@MaterLacrymarumTour’s evaluation of the work on abiogenesis in nutshell is that it’s come up against physicians-chemical hurdles that cannot be surmounted without the human intellect inserting themselves into the experiments, plus statistically absurd likelihood for chance encounters (once past those earlier hurdles) to be considered “possible”. They would be thrown out without any concern in any other branch of science. He’s put he entire reputation & internet output on the line as a challenge to the combined ranks of abiogenesis researchers to come up with either theoretical or practical refutations of his challenges to abiogenesis being a reasonable explanation for the beginning of life.
@@MaterLacrymarumactually, we don't understand any phenomenon fully. Ask Feinman. We still can't fully explain why we can push a chair with our hand. Literally not one single natural phenomenon has been fully explained.
@@NigelPeters-s1m If he's going to make claims, then he needs to support those claims. We can't do what we can't do, it's not a gotcha. That said, there has been progress made, and to ignore that progress is silly and disingenuous. I assume he's a God botherer. If so, he lays down challenges to science while not being to explain, illustrate, or birth a God. Why doesn't that prove there is no God? Because a book has a one-liner in it?
@@DrGeorgeAntonios Sounds like you are simply moving the goalpost every time a conclusion is reached. That's the only way I can imagine your comment to make sense. You know full well we know "why we can push a chair". What's unknown about that?
The notion that the peacocks tail is purely ornamental is a fallacy, this plumage on full display makes the bird instantly larger with what appear to be lots of eyes. It is a bluff to ward off predators, which is a successful strategy employed by other species.
Dawkins' body language shows he's thinking "what is the guy going on about? But I need to remain polite and patient."
I read that in his voice lol.
That is almost always his posture.
What OP said is a bunch of horse dung, because Dawkins has no problem being an asshole when he feels like it.
HE did same thing in recent Jordan Peterson debate yesterday. A true english gentlemen.
Exactly, maybe Bret should consider that humanity's "lack" of further advancements is also due to pseudo intellectuals like him, if we can even call him that
I've recently seen criticism of Weinstein as a charlatan, and now I see why. His 'critisism' of mathematical modelling is complete sophistry and he shows he has little to no idea what he's talking about. It's a complete strawman argument.
Eh, Dawkins agreed with him on the notion that we are resorting to mathematical modelling to explain something we can't explain with words.
I’m sorry to see Bret become so unreasonable. I had great respect for him as a moderator between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, and thought he had incredible intellectual potential. Sad to see he has so little integrity.
Looking reasonable when JP is in the room is easy peasey 😂
Dude.... same... it sucks that he sold out like jordan peterson. Both had potential, but gave up their integrity
@@craigballington2214 Thanks for the chuckle! I needed that.
These guys like the Weinsteins and JP figured out, there are some stupid humans that will pay them to make the folks paying feel smart about holding BS positions on matters. The god idea is selling like crazy in the US right now with Jesus salesman like JP. There are ignorant folks who are desperate to feel reasonable, pretending a god is real and this god cares about them personally. JP goes around telling folks there's nothing wrong with pretending gods are real. Of course those selling conservatism or acting as if they are in support of it, JP and others, are making serious money selling conservative ideology. These guys are smart because they figured out how to legally con money from idiots just like the church. I just can't sell the god idea for money, even though I know it is very easy money and the targets are gullible.
BECOME? He has always been a complete hack. He hasn’t changed.
You must have.
I don't suppose anybody has ever attempted to bakance a perfect sphere on a perfect razor, inside a vacuum. Largely because we don't have a way to create that level of perfection. Doesn't mean the mathematical modelling is wrong.
Imagine my disappointment when I stopped at the word bakance and Googled it. You, Sir, are a fraud and a charlatan!
@MikeUIibarri 🤣✌️
Your video reviews were the main reason I got the Exway Wave, and for the same reasons (easily swappable travel battery; small enough for city use). My only gripe was that the board-side connector broke within a month of light use and Exway accused me of abusing it - some glue fixed that. I had to adjust the trucks which required making holes in the padded grip tape (not a great design choice) but I just laid a new tape right over the top and it looks great.
Or, it just shows that males are expendible even in the animal kingdom.
And, it shows beauty shows up all around you... Hrmm I wonder why beauty exists...
Dawkins should know better than to share a stage with that charlaton.
Brett is such a fool. You literally NEED mathematical modeling.
Yes, since you can¨t ask animals or break into their minds on such things.
If you are not vegan, don't even talk about logic or morals 👉 Dominion (2018)
Mathematical model is not reality. When you create mathematical model and than study that model, you study model not reality.
Mathematic is langauge. Its like using english and write "Cars can fly". Its proper sentence, we can call that model of car. Would you for real treat that "Cars can fly" as reality? It would be madness.
You write "NEED", no one need mathematical models. Its very false assumption.
You can make science without that. But if you use mathematical model than you should be consciouss that its not reality, its mathematical abstraction.
@@mehowop Math is the only reality. We are trying to figure it out
@@SaerdnaOoOoo If you cant "break into their minds" than you have no other way to know.
I’m with the guy who DIDN’T arrogantly write a book called THE GOD DELUSION when it’s clear we know sweet FA about soooooo very very much about motivations and from where they come. And we exist in a world where most of our urges and inspirations are of inexplicable origin.
A belief in “God” IS delusional. Very few things are inexplicable, it is far more likely that you just don’t know the answer.
@@jamesd5731 Do you have a belief in pure naturalism?
Am i the only one who feels like listening to biologists in a modern setting is like listening to the kid giving a presentation in philosophy that will land him an f.
Yes.
Bret seeks to generate notoriety by criticising and desparraging the scientific community
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yes. Is is unwarranted?
Dawkins: "Get my agent on the phone.. Why did he put me on the stage with this numbskull? I told him I wanted to debate someone who understands evolution."
The apprehension of something that is not true is not real knowledge. i.e. evolution.
@@jacoboneil1524except it is true. You must be American.
@@Reece-u3f I was quoting Sir Isaac Newton. And… what is true? Evolution? Not exactly. The only true statement you can make about the truth of it is that you believe it to be so. I.e. you have faith that it is.
@@jacoboneil1524Facts don’t need your faith or belief to be real and true. Evidence confirms truth and reality.
@@guydegroof9415 Incorrect. There is no level of "evidence" that does not require faith. However, if we're speaking of evolution, in particular, much faith is required to believe it is true. Also, harkening back to my original reply, apprehending something called evolution does not mean that one has knowledge of it. He or she merely believes he has knowledge of it, and one has put their faith in it. The same can be said of any religious dogma, where certain premises are accepted as facts, and everything is explained through that sense, which gives the illusion of being facts.
Did he say "math is what you resort to when you can't explain things"?
Omfg.
You can come up with an evolutionary mechanism that plays out mathematically in ways that are very convincing . you can demonstrate that it’s mathematically viable but that does not mean that it has any correspondence to any kind of biological reality. One glaring example would have to be Alfred Wallace’s version of sexual selection.
@@ssehe2007 You can build bad models, not only mathematical. The issue with the bad mathematical models is because the robust appearance can be misleading and it is important to be careful. But Math models are one of the best tools to describe reality in science because with debugging through experimentation when posible, observation with reality, prediction power, and even some levels of indirect corroboration, those can show us things and variables that are not easy to find or extract with other models. What Bret says, and how he says it, does not reflect healthy skepticism but rather prejudice.
He was quoting a mathematician who said mathematics is the language scientists use when they don’t have an explanation. That wasn’t Weinstein’s quote.
@@ElectricBluJay Bret only mentioned his mentor to describe in another way why he agreed to despise mathematical models. It is true that one must be careful with mathematical models, as with all models, even if they are only logical, bad models can always be made. But what Bret implies and how he says it are prejudices against mathematical models that are a one of the best tools in science for abstracting structure, connections, and variables from reality that are not easy to see with other models. And that phrase is very silly.
Playboi threw out all of physics 😕
But why is Richard even talking to this foo? I'm watching because I can't get enough of sources to mock Bret on. But why does Richard need this?
Maybe, because he doesn't think of Weinstein the same way you do. Probably, because they're both more intelligent than you.
@@The_Gallowglass No, they really aren't.
@@damirregoc8111 who are you? Nobody.
@@The_Gallowglass We don't have to be famous to be intelligent, you know. Or knowledgeable.
@@damirregoc8111 Then go on, since you're knowledgeable, give us the precise reasons why Bet Weinstein is incorrect, or "stupid" as everyone in these comments seem to call him.
Guy has doubts.
"Wow, what an idiot."
Weinstein is intentionally being an idiot. The only question is if you’re willing to think he is being profound while he talks like an idiot, asks stupid questions, and invents petty inconsequential “problems”.
As strange as it sounds, maximizing efficiency is not a good survival strategy, because it leaves you vulnerable to environmental fluctuations. If you learned to utilize every bit of available resources, you'll die in bad time even from minor scarcity. That's why you need a reserve of inefficiency you'll be willing to sacrifice in bad time. Showing it off to your mate you show how much more you able to get above what you need.
Bret dismissing the laws of thermodynamics with a wave of his hand ought to tell you everything you need to know about his way of thinking
I don’t recall him doing that. 🧐
I feel sorry for the people who think Bret is a pseudo-intellectual, it must be rough trying to navigate life without being able to think for yourselves. Two brilliant men having a long overdue conversation.
Right? The hate seems unwarranted. I didn't see any blaring red flags throughout this conversation at all.
Makes you wonder...
I think it's because of his argument, which, like one person posted, is: Why isn't there any work being done to answer some of these questions, Dawkins: there is work being done to answer these questions, Weinstein: but my generation hasn't answered them yet so that doesn't count.. I think it's fair to criticise him over a 15 minute conversation over something which has no merit. I like to hear him talk. And I like to hear people like Dawkins challenged, though I don't think that was very intellectually challenging. Seems like he was speaking on something he doesn't know about and then fillabusted with things which didn't really help his argument in the slightest, no matter how interesting or clever they seemed.
How does Weinstein have a degree in evolutionary biology when he clearly doesnt even have a high-school level understanding of evolution
Do you have a degree in evolutionary biology?
@@chriscanavanii9064 regardless of whether it's real or not (it *definitely* is, I've seen it happening), my point is that Weinstein doesn't even understand what scientists are claiming about evolution. How could one even hope to have a productive conversation when one of the parties doesn't even understand the topic of conversation?
"Why is there more species by the equator than the poles?"
Oh, I don't know, Bret, it couldn't possibly be because it's fucking cold, has no sunlight for 6 months and nothing grows in solid ice....
When this aired, was the first time my opinion of Bret's academic abilities declined and no longer cared about his commentary. And watching him now is just sad.
Why is Dawkins wasting his time?
Richard is a fan of "settled science", especially if he can lay claim to have settled it! And Brett questions the narrative when he sees discrepancies. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out who has your best interests in mind
Spot on
Brett just likes the limelight and he's never contributed anything to anything
Why isn't Bret debating Debunkthefunk?
I think we have very different definitions on “struggles”. That’s not what happened during this interview and even in the moment
Bret Weinstein went into bat for Terrence Howard.. enough said.
I hate the Weinsteins, but that never happened.
@@wr7662 Yes it did. Watch the Rogan podcast.
@@xanthromera You watch it.
Both smarter than you
@@xanthromera that was ERIC!
It's not mathematical representation, it's mathematical modelling. The model gives insight which is used to craft future questions. These questions are then tested experimentally. Where the model fails to reflect experimental results, the model is improved. Is Weinstein claiming that a sphere, absent of other forces, can't balance on a razor? Pointing out a flaw in a model, i.e., Newton's Law of Cooling asymptotically approaching equilibrium, does not justify throwing out mathematical modelling. Weinstein also doesn't provide an alternative. Science is just our best guess at the truth and mathematical modelling is one of many tools used to approach the truth. Weinstein and his brother are just so very irritating with how they abuse information to sow discontent.
Don't hurt yourself, it's not that deep. Weinstein was fired in 2018 and hasn't worked a day in science since.
He speaks (naievely or deliberately?) of ideal models, not models of things in the real world. In other words, in the absence of any forces other than gravity, the model will demonstrate a sphere will balance on a razor. When you then add in real world conditions, the model is then able to demonstrate the probability of achieving that balance conditions.
Do we know for certain that male peacocks with big beautiful feathers are more vulnerable to predation or is that an assumption?
This is the right question to ask.
And the answer necessarily has to be _empirical._
I don't know answer to that one, but . . . here is just one _possible_ resolution to the issue:
Perhaps the adult male, with its outstanding plumage, acts as a decoy to predators, and then the struggling, yet still strong, and healthy male, has to make a getaway that diverts much attention from the truly vulnerable younger members of the species, and their mothers.
In this way, a predator might be successful at taking down the male, and also might not be, but there is a trade-off where the younger ones have still benefited by having much more time to hide and/or escape from predation.
The net result could conceivably be a high attrition rate amoung the oldest males, and low attrition rate amoung the youngest males, and a significantly enhanced prospect of all the younger members for survival to sexual maturity, as well as their mothers.
Could I be wrong? Of course I could be wrong, but it still makes sense to empirically investigate actual populations for the mathematically likely age distribution of male mortality, baby mortality and female mortality.
@@pauligrossinoz Thanks for the reply. Maybe. Have we considered the possibility that a tiger does NOT want a mouthful of tough feathers?
@@heatfield4243 - I'm sure we both considered that, and I'm also sure that no tiger wants just the feathers, but if it ends up with just feathers after trying to kill the peacock, then the peacock just barely survived.
Do you disagree?
Under my hypothesis, the full, undamaged plumage of the peacock indicates to the female that the wearer has been a successful decoy in the past, and will likely act that way again to protect her and any of their potential offspring.
Wouldn't you agree that's quite possible?
You can test it out by strapping a really big tail to your back and try running with it. Compare the time that you got with and without the feather and see if it makes a difference 🙂
@@pauligrossinoz I am not disagreeing, however, I don't know what a female peacock has in mind. I thought the feathers were supposed to reflect virility regardless of decoy duty.
Peacock feathers are large and tough, and may discourage eating. So the next time, the predator may look elsewhere. When I was growing up, we slaughtered and cleaned chickens for food. Removing the feathers was the absolute worst part.
It's actually pretty fascinating subject if you think about it. We selectively breed dogs for a myriad of reasons. One could argue that female birds are doing the same thing. Allowing the breeding of only birds of their choosing. The kicker is that some scientists would call that natural selection but might not call dog breeding "natural" selection. Something to think about.
I’m certainly not a biologist but could many of these behaviours essentially be vestigial? I.e. have served a genuine purpose many generations ago, even in an earlier species and now be largely useless but also largely harmless?
Yup, like having a big strong physique. We don’t really need it in the modern day, but the preference for it is still there.
Some dumb questions by Weinstein in the beginning. I couldn't go further.
In other words you didn't actually hear Brets argument. Funny enough Bret is correct.
@@thomaspetersen2214 Nope.
It’s amazing how many people are bothered by someone that’s expressing their point of view.
Only when it's stupid and this person is held up as an intellectual. We are supposed to be bothered by that. It's called scrutiny of their position. You just want people to be able to say whatever and not be challenged?
Good ole Crystein. You’re not stupid the system is just bullying you
Winestain
Come on both of you, WHINEstein is RIGHT THERE! 🤣🤣@@Costa_Conn
When you resort to name-calling you know you have no real arguments
@@adamsmith307 when all you can do is quote mine you also don’t have a counter argument.
That being said this dude already has been proven to be a fraud especially with Prof Dave’s latest video shedding his lack of integrity and showcasing the fraud he is so what do we do? raise the exact same points as him? Not needed as he’ll just dismiss and ignore because of his followers find out he full of crap he won’t be able to pawn himself off as some sort of science Jesus.
The Weinsteins have no interest in any science that proves them wrong. The basis of their arguments is that my argument is scientifically correct we just have to dismiss all the science that argues otherwise.
Calling him stupid was less so name calling as it was making a valid observation. His points have already been disproven but he continues to regurgitate them and pretend they haven’t. Stupid behaviour IMO.
Real scientist put beliefs or dogma aside to better understand the world around them by basing their conclusions off overwhelming evidence. Weinstein doesn’t do this with any of his theories
Weinstein brothers are just clout farming by offering pseudoscience to those that don’t understand the topics enough to prove them wrong until a paper comes out from more intelligent members of the scientific community proving them wrong which they’ll never address EVEN when pressed on the matter. They have 0 interest in good faith arguments much like creationists do.
However I will grant you crystein is name calling but I’ll sign my name to that one aswell as the name is a reflection on how he behaves when his hypothesis or “theories” get dunked on. Similar to what Terrance howard did with his 1x1=2 garbage. The only difference is they don’t randomly throw in words like aether and crystallization.
He has no counter other than the system is rigged when in reality he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
@@adamsmith307 when all you can do is quote mine you also don’t have a counter argument.
That being said this dude already has been proven to be a fraud especially with Prof Dave’s latest video shedding his lack of integrity and showcasing the fraud he is so what do we do? raise the exact same points as him? Not needed as he’ll just dismiss and ignore because of his followers find out he full of crap he won’t be able to pawn himself off as some sort of science Jesus.
The Weinsteins have no interest in any science that proves them wrong. The basis of their arguments is that my argument is scientifically correct we just have to dismiss all the science that argues otherwise.
Calling him stupid was less so name calling as it was making a valid observation. His points have already been disproven but he continues to regurgitate them and pretend they haven’t. Stupid behaviour IMO.
Real scientist put beliefs or dogma aside to better understand the world around them by basing their conclusions off overwhelming evidence. Weinstein doesn’t do this with any of his theories
Weinstein brothers are just clout farming by offering pseudoscience to those that don’t understand the topics enough to prove them wrong until a paper comes out from more intelligent members of the scientific community proving them wrong which they’ll never address EVEN when pressed on the matter. They have 0 interest in good faith arguments much like creationists do.
However I will grant you crystein is name calling but I’ll sign my name to that one aswell as the name is a reflection on how he behaves when his hypothesis or “theories” get dunked on. Similar to what Terrance howard did with his 1x1=2 garbage. The only difference is they don’t randomly throw in words like aether and crystallization.
He has no counter other than the system is rigged when in reality he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
This is why multiple signals evolve. One signal gets fixed and then another one evolves. A Large tail is not only large, but then colourful, then it has eyes, and then is is irridescent, etc.
When does all that attention gets you killed and your genes are replaced by ones generating gray-brown tails?
"I'm here to discredit Richard Dawkins by saying he does not agree with me because he has bad temper"
He's got a bad temper, and he's wrong. A double whammy
"Why is this question still unanswered? Science nowadays gets no answers recently"
"That question was answered 60 years ago"
"Okay, but there's this tiny part that I don't understand about it"
"That was answered recently"
"That doesn't count because it uses maths"
Bret thinks he knows everything. So when he doesn’t understand something, he thinks that it must be wrong.
@@captainlockes2344 like flat earth people and people who believe the moon is self illuminating
Both Weinststeins have fallen to classic blunder of arrogant smart people. Thinking that because they are smart they know or can figure out anything instantly. They can cow and impress until they face a real expert (as seen here).
They are not smart and they somehow show up on these "discussions" as if they are somehow equals. They are absolutely not equals, they are mediocre at best, this is why Dawkins had to explain everything for Bret when he should have left it up to Bret to dig his own hole with the word salad bullshit then call him out on it.
They are not smart. They learnt to speak in over complicated way using a lot of scientific terms. Pretending they are experts in all the fields they are touching. And if you ask them direct question about anything they say they will change the subject.
People are either really smart at one thing, or they know only a little about everything. Thinking that they’re smart about everything is just asking for trouble.
So they make the same blunder as most of the commenters here.
Bret is a boor.
There are people out there worshiping dawkins...think about that for a sec..oof
Anyone noticed we were often told red heads would become very much rarer and rarer yet there seems to be a huge increase in our ginger friends and the younger red heads are substantially better looking?
That’s what you get for talking to him. Look up Eric’s history.
1:00 crikey, even while he is saying i can see he must be short sighted to think dawkins "has solved all the major issues with evolution". and i only have an art degree. where does that come from?
"I don't trust math models because some of them have too many variables."
"Over-fitting" is a big problem, so yeah, he's right being skeptical. What am I missing here?
Shit in equals shit out, and if variable input is wrongly assumed to play a larger role then what they actually play, the model certainly can be decieving
I still dont know what Bret Weinstein is critisiing? The use of mathematics in research?
That and the "The science is settled" phenomenon.
This Weinstein man is quite arrogant. He doesn't seem very intelligent either.
If there is a creator it is not all powerful - UNDENIABLE FACT
i'm a guy who likes girls with freckles and white skin, for which there can be no "fitness" justification.
to dismiss the "mystical" as unscientific, is in truth a presupposition that the mystical does not exist, which is in itself unscientific.
The dismissal of the mystical isn't due to a presupposition that it doesn't exist, nor is it a dismissal. "Mystical" solutions are merely considered weak as they explain an unknown subject of study by invoking a second unknown, thereby illuminating nothing and merely kicking the can down the road a little.
Having a well-defined reason for some phenomenon, take for example the mass and distance causing gravitational force, allows you to make predictions and prove the theory wrong, in our example we can calculate celestial trajectories and note the positions of the planets with telescopes to verify/correct our theory.
Mystical answers don't allow this and so you can't test whether you're right or wrong and therefore don't make progress. At least not until you dispense with the bullshit explanation.
Also no one wants to know about your preference for freckles or white skin, use a less exhibitionistic example next time you try to make a point on the internet.
Pale skin with freckles shows a propensity to absorb vitamin D in cloudy northern climates. People with black skin in these environments tend to suffer from vitamin D deficiency which can cause immune system problems, to name just one of many.
Or...maybe it's just an in-group preference, which means your mate may be more acceptable to members of your own tribe, meaning your offspring will be more likely to survive in your particular tribal group.
Pale skin tends to be preferred across cultural, racial and geographoc groups. It's probably a status signal, as somebody with pale skin is less likely to say, work the fields. Mating with a higher status mate can increase the status and the fitness of your offspring.
I could go on.
@@bbainter7880 you could, but you greatly underestimate me, and more importantly what you have just revealed about yourself
btw i'm 61 years old and nothing you just said is new to me..
You underestimate the powah of the old side of the force
There is an orchid that both looks like and smells like a female bee in heat, attracting male bees and thus pollinating itself. To imagine a world in which such a thing could happen through accidental mutations is magical thinking.
I have another story: There is an omnipotent being that deliberately gave his most prized creation dodgy eyesight. A faulty build with the construction of the human eye apparatus.
He also made a creature with eyes that were constructed perfectly, without that flaw.
Now, to believe that that omnipotent being cares all that much about humans clearly is wishful thinking. It's not a human God, it's an octopus God!
@gernwind9262 who said anything about God, you silly person. Try to let your mind advance a bit outside of the highschool debate level that you seem impressed with in yourself.
@@DejanOfRadic Are you talking to yourself? What's a highschool?
@@gernwind9262 it's that place that you got expelled from for smelling your own farts in homeroom
"I'm going to make spurious claims that I can then refute so I look like I know what I'm talking about" -Bret Weinstein
I wish I could ask Dr Dawkins the following Q: why in all other animals, male and female species are aligned on whether the male species should be monogamous or polygamous, but humans are an exception?
Are you asking why in other species, the male and the female "agree" on whether the males should be monogamous? Could you give an example?
1. Are humans and exception by biological means or cultural? Or even an exception at all?
2. While there are many monogamous pairing in the non human world there is also a vast variety of polygamy partners where it's male centric or female centric or neither.
Humans aren't the exception. A monogamous species, like a particular bird for example, may appear to "mate for life" - which means that they stick together and jointly raise offspring, but a high percentage of the males are actually raising babies from another male. Females of many species will stick with a "good provider" male, while going after a different one for his genes.
@@Fahrenheit4051 Yes. Eursian beavers, Coppery titi monkeys, and black vultures are examples of monogamous animals. A male Coppery monkey wants to be monogamous as much as their female and never dreams to be like a gorilla with many female companions! On the other hand, female gorillas or lions shoo their male companion away to mate with other females and are not full of rage and jealousy if that happens. Why humans are the only species amongst in the animal kingdom where the females want a man of their dream for life, but many men like to fool around with many women. Of course, my question is strictly from the evolutionary point of view and not moral.
Let me elaborate: in the animal kingdom, Coppery titi monkeys or coyotes are monogamous. That means the male Coppery titi monkey doesn’t dream to be like a gorilla with many female companions. On the other hand, female gorillas or lions shoo their male partner away to mate with other females without being filled with rage and jealousy. Humans are the only species that are not compatible in this. Why? Of course, my question is from the scientific and evolutionary point of view and not moral.
This to me, reveals how much of an intlectual lightweight Dawkins truly is.
Dawkins didnt struggle for a second what the hell
I don’t know how Richerd keeps a straight face through all this. Bret has the smart person aesthetic and cadence, but that’s about it.
Weinstein ain't Einstein
Imagine getting one of the greatest intellectuals alive to do a public speaking performance with you, and your main argument is “progress not fast enough, progress not in straight line, math not finished, therefore math bad, brrr….”
Imagine the same only your arguments are: huge number of unsolved mysteries, the things you call progress do not bridge the gaps only provide more holes to be filled, the math done until now is very little and has almost none of the "proof-power" it has in other similar fields ...say in medicine or psychology, therefore since mathematics is OK it means your theory is crap ...
Dawkins looks reeeeeally bad!
Math is an abstraction from nature, but just because its possible in math doesn't mean that nature is going follow what works in math. There's more to nature than math, its a layer for understanding nature not its totality.
“Professing to be wise, they became fools.”