Richard Dawkins on Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan and the Stoned Ape Theory (Part 5)

[@HowToAcademyMindset]

See more of Richard here: kzbin.info/aero/PLFIigLLitqDlT00WkmkFP_y626lLrUIdb

[@AFRoSHEENT3ARCMICHAEL69]

There's though that believe and those that know. Take a good look around. This is because we're tearing down the walls. Man has 2 nature's. A lower and a higher. You're in your lower where there's little to no imagination or creativity. Science has now become a religion that requires your blind faith and trust. You guys got it all twisted and it's because you're still in your lower nature. Why? Easier to control if you don't know who you are. I know. I know who we are. I've been to the center, the point of origin. The Luminous Epinoia of Sophia is real.

[@willmercury]

@@AFRoSHEENT3ARCMICHAEL69 Time to stop sniffing nail polish remover.

[@natepolidoro4565]

7:55 On Sam Harris 15:29 On Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan

[@Alarix246]

Too late. 🤣

[@JuanSoloUnoGuey]

Clutch 🙌

[@johntaylor4817]

Ty

[@joel2421]

thank you.

[@captainradio5894]

Thank fucking you

[@psyskeptic9979]

I love Peterson and Rogan, and I 100% agree with Dawkins here.

[@csam1981]

It's a mark of an intelligent man to be able to explain specialised subjects in a way those uneducated in the subject understand.

[@DrJohn-rl9zg]

There was an amusing story a few weeks ago about a bear in Turkey who was stoned on "mad honey" - several great videos.

[@pansepot1490]

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” Albert Einstein

[@loisavci3382]

@@pansepot1490 Great quote! Thank you.

[@kerryfry1857]

@@pansepot1490 Exactly right.

[@dans9206]

Dawkins has a British accent which understandably makes him more intellectually dominant than Peterson, Rogan or even Harris.....pish-tosh!

[@pacolli]

hahaha I love he called Joe Rogan a BLOGGER!

[@Ratnoseterry]

For anyone interested in any logical potential to the stoned ape theory, which isn't about pot or psychedelic plants but more specifically psilocybin. A study released in January 2021 found that giving pigs psilocybin caused genes in the frontal lobe to express themselves differently for a period of two weeks. These genes were related to immunology, but the ability to learn and speak language is primarily contained within the frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes. The possibility exists. It was nice he didn't totally dump the idea off the cliffs of dover.

[@maninashed9367]

Not just psilocin (from liberty caps or psilocybin mushrooms) but fly agaric (amanita muscaria) too. It's very hard to get across to some "scientists" that the scientific method doesn't work for psychology or the function of consciousness which is by definition subjective.

[@Reignor99]

When I was 17 (many years ago) I was tripping, and had an urge to call a random coworker and ask if he was ok. I barely knew him, had his number for shift changes, but called him at 3am anyways. We talked for 45 minutes and at the end he said "dude you're the wisest person I've ever met". That moment changed my view on 'drugs' I don't trip anymore because my family needs stability, but I'll never forget that.

[@CadreMental243]

@@Reignor99 you must secure your family's future enough that it does not require your active involvement. And when the kids are grown enough that they don't require your active monitoring, you should trip balls again 😌. Obviously the responsible and disciplined way is what makes a normal life possible but there are unquantifiable benefits from the randomness that life throws at us, which is as unique as our DNA.

[@devilsolution9781]

Cows and sheep eat psilocybin containing mushies each autumn, wouldnt they be a bit further along by now?

[@chemicalreagent120]

@@devilsolution9781 they spit them out, anyone who's been picking would of seen those that had been spat out that morning laying on the ground

[@redfoot2]

Where's the full interview? It's not in the Playlist

[@djfrank68]

A book title of Richard's that was left out is The Greatest Show On Earth. A very good read showing how all the fields of science converge to support the Theory of Evolution.

[@matthew13579]

"read people you may disagree with, because they may be right" what a great quote!

[@DrJohn-rl9zg]

As a young physical scientist starting to publish, my PhD advisor told me to write at the level understandable to the "average scientifically educated moron". He also made it clear that he expected both my MSc thesis and my dissertation to be as succinct as possible. A good lesson.

[@mackawy]

*write

[@junesnow5422]

lol

[@Poecilia1963]

I loved Stephen Jay Gould's books, years ago (I doubt he thought of his readers as morons though). The best science writing should delight as well as inform.

[@DrJohn-rl9zg]

@@Poecilia1963 Sue, I could write a book about this. Keep in mind that when I was in grad school books like "the idiots guide to calculus" or "theoretical physics for dummies" were being published. The most intelligent amongst us realize that while a few centuries ago it was indeed possible to have knowledge of most everything known to our tribe, but that we have reached a point where even the most educated person is a moron wrt the sum total knowledge of all of mankind. Indeed, I will assess someone's intelligence by how willing they are to admit how stupid they are. I had my choice of universities and advisors. I chose not the most prestigious school, but made my decision because my advisor (during interviews) would tell me who to best find the answers to my questions or how best to find a solution, rather than try to impress me with his knowledge. I totally agree with you that for the popular press "the best science writing should delight as well as inform". That is indeed an art. I was referring more to publications in acedemic journals. All too often so- called scholars try to impress by using as many buzzwords or as much jargon as possible. This often leads to so-called scholarly publications which are nearly impossible to understand. As I recall Noem Chomsky has a video on KZbin about postmodernism where he critiques the dialogue as being being almost unintelligible. An interesting thought: many years ago I had a date with a first grade teacher. She spoke of her kids love of science and their curiosity. And I think of how so many parents are concerned about raising their children in a manner so as to not stifle their creativity. Perhaps they would be better off trying not to stifle their curiosity. You will forgive me if my writing is not up to par. I am camped in the desert in the middle of a multi year bicycle tour, and writing on my cell phone. BTW, the last person I would ask if I had a flat tire is someone with a doctorate. Fortunately I learned how to change a tire before I went to college!

[@babyroo555]

That's bad advice

[@brucegelman5582]

Feynmans mantra was if you cannot explain your ideas and concepts to a young child you the scientist dont fully grasp what your talking about.Beautiful thought.

[@N8_R]

So basically if Joe Rogan gets stoned enough he'll eventually evolve into Jordan Peterson.

[@arminiuscherusci4410]

JP has brain damage, hence the constant crying and emotional problems, due to his benzodiazepine abuse and the coma afterwards, tho fortunately he is really doing better and has still the same intellectual capabilities prior the treatment. JP is so popular because he can really feel the pain of many people, being it mentally, physically, emotionally etc. Therefore he is a great person and additionally has a connection to all of us separately

[@granudisimo]

@@arminiuscherusci4410 Peterson is famous because he lies about lobsters to justify hierarchies with permanent underclasses, and because lying about transgender laws with a veneer of fake intellectual prestige, gets all the far right clicks. He's also famous for selling basic common sense advise under a performatively masculine selling point, because regular self help without chaos dragons only appeals to women and so called soy boys. Give me a break, he's a fascist charlatan, selling appeals to authorities of the past, based in pseudo science and half quoted studies, and to the cult of success and power. The only people he's ever helped are the lucky ones who consumed his content and didn't follow through, cope me a cry river or sumn' I dunno, that guy is a dangerous weirdo and his unironical defenders are either blind, mislead, or dangerous weirdo perverts like him, your pick.

[@Platinum1812]

@@arminiuscherusci4410 when you say abuse it suggests he used the drug outside of medical treatment prescribed by a doctor. I haven't seen any evidence for this idea if that is what you meant

[@chinaskibukowski7747]

Abusing drugs can absolutely be done in line with a doctors treatment. Peterson literally had to be placed into a medically induced coma to stop abusing benzo's. I remember seeing him on a KZbin video (Probably around 2018) saying he was originally prescribed 0.5 milligrams (Which is fairly high sedating dose) and worked his way up to 4 milligrams per day which is a shockingly high dose. 8 times higher than when he first starting using them. He was taking them for 2 years when generally they're for short term use, think in terms of weeks because of how powerful they are and how highly addictive they are. Something like 0.5 milligrams of Klonopin is equal to roughly 10 milligrams of Valium. It's an insanely powerful drug.

[@N8_R]

How many weed muffins must I eat tho?

[@Betterthantelly]

Thank God for Dawkins

[@ashishpawar5567]

😂

[@MichaelKingsfordGray]

An anonymous religious cretin! How unusual.

[@Betterthantelly]

@@MichaelKingsfordGray an extremely rude insulting moron. How unusual.

[@kym-bid-bidstrup3623]

What a piece of work is Dawkins.

[@flamechick6]

Terence McKenna rest in peace. He initially came up with Stoned ape theory. Died in 2000 of brain cancer he was in his early 50s

[@louisehaley5105]

4:13-“Intelligence is sexy, intelligence is attractive “ TRUE !

[@Banana_Split_Cream_Buns]

Nah... I'm attracted to dumb people. I'm also dumb myself so it werks four tha booth erv arse.

[@StoutProper]

Good to know and nice to hear

[@cgrass4035]

From the way things appear these days, I don’t think it’s the intelligent people reproducing though unfortunately.

[@moesypittounikos]

Terence McKenna meant the theory as a jest. Since then the theory has put running shoes on and it asked in seriousness. Even Noam Chomsky was asked about the stoned ape theory! He was baffled.

[@patrickalber7038]

One of the great minds of your time.

[@soulcells]

That's funny

[@thaneoflions975]

BOOOOORRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIINNNNGGG Much needed: time stamps of the topics discussed so viewers can skip to what they’re interested in

[@magicology]

It’s really more of hypothesis than a theory, according to Dennis McKenna

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

I'm sorry this was so short: I love Richard Dawkins! Thanks for posting.

[@tonysienzant6717]

He doesn't even know what 'stoned ape theory' is. Yeah, he's brilliant !

[@markcredit6086]

yes RD a man for the poorly educated

[@yj9032]

@@tonysienzant6717 stoned ape theory is BS. Why should he know.

[@Great_WOK_Must_Be_Done]

Wow. That was an interesting and telling anecdote about Jordan Peterson. It explains a lot about Peterson's tendency toward fantastical and magical thinking.

[@hydrolito]

I would advise avoiding LSD.

[@rediculousman]

The IEEE Community would benefit immensely from people writing papers in a more basic language. Everyone gets so excited about trying to sound fancy and smart.

[@listrahtes]

Its really only the phony ones trying to impress with fancy words and convoluted sentences. I guess you can impress some first semesters with that. Never met a real expert in his field prone to do that. They were all able to condense complex topics into easy to digest sentences. Its kind of a lithmus test for someone really having understood something from its core. If he is able to explain it to a child. Thats what Karl Popper always said.

[@williamwilson6499]

Nice to hear he found Jordan Peterson to be lacking. I’ve never understood why he is popular as he just throws out the lamest advice and observations…but then that’s Joe Rogan also.

[@AvanToor]

My theory: bananas and their potassium

[@Solebote]

Please don`t get old RD!

[@jamesconboy1491]

Masterful advice to get out of the echo chamber.

[@JohnDoe-qu5wy]

When you hear someone refering to JP as “Someone called Jordan Peterson”, and JR as “...that blogger who is well known...Joe...Joe Rogan”, you know who is the boss. Reminds me the time Kesha tried to hug her “colleague” Jerry Seinfeld, and Jerry denied and had to be told later who Kesha is, and closed with “Well, I wish her the best”.

[@alexforget]

It show smallness of the mind, arrogance, nothing else.

[@JohnDoe-qu5wy]

@@alexforget Not really. There is no ill intent from Dawkins, it just shows that JP and JR are not even in his thoughts as an intellectual (and rightly so, when you compare for example a book written by Dawkins to one written by JP). They simply have nothing to teach him on evolution, biology, and university education in general. I would expect the same reaction from Rogan if suddenly Dawkins tries to school him on MMA, or from JP if Dawkins tries to school him on how to dodge legitimate questions by saying "I don't like how the question is framed" or "We can't take the bible literally, we need t be more sophisticated than that".. Indeed, the story told by Dawkins about the two snakes-DNA connection established by JP shows how tiresome must be for him to even discuss such non sense. I remember when Dawkins did JR podcast, JR was trying to float the idea of "what if" a DMT trip might make your mind abandon your body. Once again, Dawkins had to act like the adult in the room and tell him that it is obviously all within your brain, no astral travel involved. With Seinfeld, he genuinely didn't even know who Keisha is (and if Keisha was a true fan, she would know that Jerry is not a huger). What are they supposed to do? Pretend like they know them, and like they've helped shaping their thought and/or comedy routines?

[@lucmanzoni6265]

@@alexforget Dawkins is a petty individual who has made a career by pretending to know more than anyone else in the world, past or present. He's quite pitiful. You can feel his arrogance mixed with envy from afar...

[@lucmanzoni6265]

No boss, just someone who made an ass of himself. He should get a good dose of humility and remember old good Socrates and his "For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..." which is the basis of the human scientific thirst for knowledge.

[@JohnDoe-qu5wy]

@@lucmanzoni6265 OK. I'll send him the memo: next time, he must pretend to know, remember, consult, and respect JR and JP opinions. Even the double snake theory. Because of Socrates and humility. Got it.

[@erebus_chaosson]

Richard Dawkings 2022 - "that blogger Joe Rogan"

[@etothez9898]

I haven’t watched the video yet, but the title is one of the most Joe Rogan things ever haha

[@darth_dub_]

It's a waste of time

[@mcdonnellpadraic]

I forgot how funny he is.

[@edithcunningham5713]

Couldn't understand what the questionner was saying in first question.

[@pinchermartyn3959]

I thought writing in gobbledegook by scientists and lawyers etc was a way of keeping the riffraff out and enhance themselves.

[@kintrap5376]

Was that Noam Chomsky asking the final question?

[@TheCommono]

Ghostbusters: Who you gonna call? Joe Rogan: How about "call a crackhead"?

[@flamechick6]

Everyone has time for a DMT trip once in their life. It's 20 minutes in and out

[@piehound]

Not an atheist here. But i absolutely agree with Professor Dawkins about the fact many good folks believe or disbelieve something NOT based on evidence. Rather they choose to believe or disbelieve based on whether or not it fits into their particular bubble. @ about 7:05. BTW i too am guilty of that. But some beliefs are easier to test with evidence than others. And i have a definite system of hierarchy of importance of beliefs. Some beliefs are more important to test than others. And so the less important beliefs ( or misconceptions ) may remain untested for a very long time. Why ???? Because the less important misconceptions don't matter that much. A good example for ME is the truth or untruth of macro - evolution. It really seems not to matter to me whether evolution is true or not. Other than to take sides with ( or not take sides with ) those who preach evolution. BTW i just love the part where Dr. Dawkins pokes fun at the laws permitting homosexuality and cannabis. The bible states *IF A MAN LIE WITH ANOTHER MAN HE MUST BE STONED.* And he may be poking fun at the bible. In this context i don't care either way. The result is just way too funny . . . a real scream.

[@ronfroehlich4697]

I never understand how people think that evolution is somehow proof that there is no God. If someone really believes in God, then why wouldn't they believe that God is responsible for evolution?

[@tonyduncan9852]

ANY 'belief' is a liability, and will *_always_* filter and/or obscure objective truth. 'Hierarchical' belief may possibly block out all light from your eyes.

[@williamdavidwallace3904]

Mathematicians seem to pride themselves on writing up their findings in totally impenetrable style. "The sweep the path behind them."

[@maxwang2537]

Don’t you think the title and thumbnail are misleading?

[@dreaminpsyche984]

Yes and I'm afraid Dr Dawkins, who is brilliant and witty, is also more and more arrogant towards people who try to think out of the box. Hard science is precious and I don't like bigotry, but it's not such a wild idea to think that psychedelics may have played a role in the rapid evolution of the human brain, abstract thinking and civilisations. I wouldn't dose Richard Dawkins against his will, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be so despondent if he had experienced a psychedelic trip.

[@maxwang2537]

@@dreaminpsyche984 I agree. Richard is a brilliant scholar. I read a couple of his books and really enjoyed. He’s particularly good at writing to a degree that I desperately try to emulate him to effectively communicate complex ideas in writing. I don’t think he’s a great orator-perhaps he was when he was younger? I often, if not always, feel embarrassed when he easily gets frustrated, if not angry, when hearing different views. I feel particularly bad for his open attitude of ridiculing people with religious beliefs which I think he only categorically disagrees but clearly unable to refute definitively with science and logic- we know there are things beyond the power of science to prove or disprove. I’m ignorant about the role of psychedelics in the evolution of human brain.

[@dreaminpsyche984]

@@maxwang2537 Absolutely. To quote Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (Hamlet I.5:159-167). And for a hilarious "crash course" about the Stoned Ape theory, see comedian Bill Hicks mimicking a homo erectus eating magic shrooms and the consequences of such a meal: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mp6lY3yhnMt6bKM . The whole show if very funny, by the way.

[@NoWay1969]

"and I told him that was bullshit." This is why I will always respect Richard Dawkins. I won't accept what he says without question, but I'll always respect his candor. (BTW, "bullshit" pretty much sums up everything that I've ever heard Peterson say).

[@ericeric5903]

I believe in God / Creation … but I like listening to Mr. Dawkins. It’s important to keep the dialogue going. There really is no contradiction between science and spirituality and that will become more apparent as time goes by. Let’s get past the extremes of irrational “belief” on both sides …

[@wotsitalabowt]

If you believe in God / Creation you aren't interested in evidence-based knowledge as the two are incompatible. What science has is what has been seen, tested and evidenced, which will probably be superseded, adapted or even cancelled by further data. So that's quite different to what you believe in. Unless that is, you can say that God/creation is your best theory to date, but it can be superseded. Say that your God / Creation theory may well be disproved in the future and yes, the contradiction is gone and you are talking like someone who understands science. Otherwise no.

[@lawrence1318]

@@wotsitalabowt You don't understand. Spiritual evidence is different to physical evidence.

[@noname-fx6qf]

Mayhaps the apple wasn't the phobidden fruit it was the psilocybin mushroom.

[@johnreuter4916]

The Apple was probably fermented. Ever seen drunk bears? I have. They were eating fermented Apples and they were wasted.

[@cpu554]

As an undergrad I've read other peoples masters theses and my eyes used to glaze over. Knowing how to write simply and succinctly is an art that needs to be practiced. Reminds me of the scene where Rodney Dangerfield judges a term paper by it's weight. I donno,feels like a B to me.

[@travelsouthafrica5048]

If someone can't explain something in a language a child can understand , it means they themselves do not understand it take for instance the thick books written by many people in the clergy that you cannot understand even if you read it ten times along come CS Lewis and writes a small book " Mere Christianity" and almost every atheists that picks it up converts because Lewis understood his subject and how people think , he ignored the dogma and cut right o the bone , which is what most people want 200 pages of facts vs 1000 pages of opinions upon opinions

[@redpillreich4263]

If we were walking around stoned in our evolutionary history we would been eazy prey for predators.

[@ReflectiveRobot]

People didn't have to be literally stoned for the idea behind the hypothesis to work. A little psilocybin opens the mind allowing connections within the brain that wouldn't have otherwise happened. Novel ideas could have been sparked on how to hunt and evade predators. Repeated exposure may have accelerated our evolved brains.

[@redpillreich4263]

@@ReflectiveRobot Did these types of plantas or fungus exist in ice age Europe?

[@joetothejoe]

Title of this vid should be "Richard Dawkins answering some interesting questions, plus a bit at the end about Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan and the Stoned Ape Theory" Also, does it not seem arrogant to suggest that scientists should "dumb-down" their dissertations? Any specialist field, whether it's science, welding, gardening, music or quantum physics has esoteric nuance, which in order for it to be translated across other disciplines has to be expressed in general terms.

[@L_Martin]

I think there's a difference between dumbing down your ideas, and being able to articulate your ideas clearly in a way a layman would be able to grasp. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Einstein

[@HumanLiberty]

Joe is right; that is in fact the problem with Richard.

[@trancient]

There is no problem; it’s your delusion

[@jhibbitt2896]

i thought he was friends with both peterson and rogan. do they hate each other now?

[@donelmore2540]

Just attended a lecture by Dr. Jordan Peterson just a few days ago. He is a very wise man and helps many improve their lives.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

1:23. Reading those kinds of papers is going to get harder. More details, more precision, about more and more arcane questions---the specialist in one area being lost in other specialty areas. Scintillating, if you are up to it.

[@patman142]

science is meant to be unambiguous so the language can be cold but this ensures there is less scope for misunderstanding but that's where science journalists come in to make it more palatable

[@shipaskof8371]

Lol

[@patman142]

@@shipaskof8371 what an articulate reply 👏

[@patman142]

@@shipaskof8371 I see you changed your handle name from Michelle Ryan - bit embarrassed?

[@librulcunspirisy]

Thanks

[@randomhuman2084]

The movie "Out of the cradle" said theres a theory that the human brain started developing so fast when we started to eat more meat so less energy was used for digestion and meat having a lot more nutrients than our previous foods

[@StoutProper]

That’s ax movie. Far more likely the practice of making and using tools and language and strategies and cooperation to hunt animals would have developed the human brain

[@leewright1]

one doesn't necessarily exclude the other. often it's multiple factors that lead to "sudden" changes.

[@Find-Your-Bliss-]

No.

[@SuicideVan]

@@Find-Your-Bliss- yes. Veganism is WEF cult shit. Meat is the healthiest thing you can eat for a reason.

[@theproblemmustbeinyourpant5910]

@@leewright1 Nutrients from the development of cooking gave us the template of a bigger brain, and psilocybin acted as the designer, bringing out syntax for language, empathy which aides social dependency and overall encouraging abstract thought that could of led to more advanced tool use. (or so I say)

[@shainedupuis2649]

The first time I legitimately tripped out on mushrooms made me REALLY believe the possibility of this theory.

[@MichaelKingsfordGray]

Fool.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

It made me believe it had something to do with the evolution of consciousness, that’s for sure…

[@iankamau222]

my physiotherapist inflicts pain.. some pain is created for diagnostic and healing purposes

[@robertpirsig5011]

I would really like a conversation between Noam Chomsky and Dawkins. I think both have more common ground than people realise.

[@corbielentertainment]

I think not, I like Chomsky but he is a language specialist, and he's not particularly good as social science, a bit over simplistic.

[@stevepacker7737]

I was struck by Richard's comment that he goes to people who dissent from his perspective to be challenged and learn, which is one of the essentials for any seeker after truth. I am fundamentally an artist but with a great interest in (sometimes almost love for) for that other great twin of human achievement which is, of course, science. Richard is the most articulate of all those I've read in his area of expertise . I've always read him(and listened) with appreciation but, at the same time, have found myself in complete disagreement with his conclusions. To quote Richard verbatim in this interview: 'The only way that we can know anything about the real world, is evidence'. I have no disagreement with that sentence apart from two words, namely 'real' and 'evidence'. Richard is making an assumption that reality actually exists, and that it can only be discovered using the tools of 'Baconian Empiricism'.Well! For me as an artist, the existence of an objective reality is questionable, so I have to ask, is Richard at risk of replacing Science (which arose in the same Judeo/ Christian world as Bacon's) with another 'God' who provides us with explanations, albeit not quite so comforting? To come to evidence, Richard has recourse to the kind of evidence that gives us modern medicine and other instruments of scientific endeavour which,( when properly used) give succour to inevitable human suffering. Of course, being human, having knowledge of the 'real world' also gives us the capacity to inflict yet more suffering using science and there is the possibilty just nowadays of the 'tactical use' of nuclear weapons.' So, is there any ultimate objectifity? No. Says Me.But there is the possibility of growing awareness and increase in knowledge, in spite of our limitations. To finish this little opinion piece ,Richard (who's now looking as frail as I am) has, in my opinion, never been able to fully appreciate that there are other ways to knowledge than current scientific understandings (and maybe troubingly for him, science itself is now 'itself' entering a period of questioning and self doubt). There are other, equally valid and universal ways of knowing about 'reality', apart from science. I don't think that Richard has knowingly created a new belief system, but it is rife in the world at the moment.The underlying conviction being that 'science' has captured 'reality' and with it a belief in blind 'evolution'.Everything goes! It certainly didn't for Darwin personally, as far as I know. Social media, which neither Richard or myself had any cogniscance of when we were growing up (and I'm using it right now) is forcing a new kind of evolution way, beyond our genes. and 'God' help us. p.s the hook for getting me to watch this particular piece was idea that there would be some kind of intelligent commentary on Jordan Peterson who I respect in equal measure with Richard Dawkins. Give me links to proper commentaries and debates please.

[@C.D.J.Burton]

3:49 What are your thoughts on the bible?

[@ThePeterWilliam]

So how do you make your judgement from the evidence if the evidence is hidden or made inaccessible. Like with the pandemic and all the sleight of hand committed by the gatekeepers?

[@timothywootton5331]

You do more research.

[@trancient]

Those dang gateskeepers keeping poor Peter in the dark. He still can’t see.

[@MikeSadlerAU]

Sometimes, the reason there's no evidence available, is because there's no evidence availble.

[@nevillepeck7470]

The Question about Morals, was it side stepped ? Trodden on ? Why was the Question Avoided? To me and millions of Others, if Morals work for the Benefit of All with Good outcomes, is that not Truth? Should not Science also be interested in principals ,Laws, and Mathematics ? Wouldn't Wars be Avoided, Hate, envy, Religious and Political Division?

[@fredwild2166]

Dawkins is a brilliant and charming man. I hope he will be recognized and praised for being the first person to call our that intellectual fraud and petulant bully scold Jordan Peterson!

[@markcredit6086]

you could not be more wrong Dawkins is a dummy for dummies

[@fredwild2166]

@@markcredit6086 You're obviously one of Peterson's mezmerized cult followers and have been taken in by his mad-man-egoist blather!

[@arawiri]

I like the beaten to death and comes back after 3 days non stoned ape theory

[@oftin_wong]

I had this very criticism of science writing while I was writing papers To be fair we were taught how to be better science educators in this exact way but it didn't translate further into the paper writing process. I got bored with it

[@michaelwolf8690]

Think sociology and Psychology do a much better job at proving morality than religious or hyperbolic argument, certainly better than politic.

[@marypowers9478]

A country of uneducated aunties were angry, until it was explained to them

[@GUITARLEGEND956]

Love to see Dawkins have a road to Damascus experience. I was once like him until the power of the holy spirit descended upon me. A peace that surpasses all understanding .

[@ericeric5903]

I sense he and most of humanity soon will …

[@MichaelKingsfordGray]

Delusional cretin.

[@darongardner4294]

Lewis Carroll Alison in wonderland.

[@christophercole8877]

Someone tell Alexander Dugan that he is not entitled to his own truth. He still doesn’t understand that.

[@bijness2000]

Dawkins will be known as the next Segan

[@grandmasterhiram]

It's called Emperor's new clothes, or something like that. Like... I've never tried cannabis, right? Never ever??? Like I don't possess a penis, right?? Nope. It's the other guys whom are bad, I'm the good guy here. I'm the good guy.

[@oo88oo]

The stoned ape theory: 13:40

[@sirwillsirwill]

Hero

[@Volkmannx]

Sharp 'n' funny 😆👍

[@anthonyharty1732]

Dawkins is right when he says believe in the EVIDENCE, if I was to say I can jump up and down 20 times in 2 seconds you need to see me do it, you need for me to give you the EVIDENCE that that is true. The truth is I can’t do that, I lied.

[@jimmyboy2]

What is evidence? Some things are obvious. Many things cannot be measured. What is quantum mechanics?

[@patman142]

@@jimmyboy2 the fact that you have typed that message and posted it here is evidence that you understand English, that you can type and you know how to use an electronic device. No doubt there is more we can infer

[@chrisgraham2904]

What is the point of forming, or building a belief, if you do not have a foundation of evidence to build it upon? If you don't yet have a solid foundation to build upon, then don't build it. Whether your building a house, or a belief, the same rules apply. To build a house on an unstable foundation is folly.

[@markcredit6086]

@@jimmyboy2 yes and has none ....sorry

[@dennisvradenburg3241]

No mention of Terrence McKenna in the title? Good thing you thought to include Joe Rogan... . ..

[@Celtic_Iron]

Dawkins can be very close minded and arrogant but I still enjoy his point of view. As someone agnostic leaning towards belief, he's actually helped me to drop some of the contradictions associated with organised religion and improve my spirituality. He's a good man overall and his motives are pure.

[@markdraine3571]

Agreed.. I'm someone that believes if fairies in the garden ..Dawkins said that he cannot disprove that there is not a God; however , he also cannot disprove that there are fairies underneath the garden .. I'm gonna believe in the thing that seems improbable to atheists , but like you, I really like Dawkins. He's maybe arrogant, but he's always respectful and affable , as well as extremely interesting .

[@markcredit6086]

No he is not a good man he knows this is a math and chemistry problem. he is a zoologist and nowhere able to understand the problem. He has no evidence at all. Its sad. I was in his camp for 20 years before i became educated. Like everything else very complicated.But worth the journey ..........

[@livondiramerian6999]

Our knowledge is minuscule compared to the knowledge of the universe so scientist could only give partial truth not absolute truth. We better focus on making people think because thinking produces the greatest powers of human beings.

[@matthewvicendese1896]

For anyone interested in misleading graphs or statistics I recommend reading criticism of Pinker. I don't recommend reading him for any actual information though

[@Mike_Lennox]

7:55 in regard to Sam Harris In reality, you can only get an ought from an is. An ought from and ought is a conception of the mind that is dissociated from actual experience. And ought from an ought is a delusion and an intellectualization. You are born into human being. Human being comes with already neurochemical reactions that produce sensations, emotional reactions, data, feedback, and interpretations that are fundamental to survival and homeostasis and that are not consciously chosen. All of that internal processing is a realm of "is" not "ought". A human child only becomes the perspectives of an adult through developing their emotional capacity to focus conscious attention on their internal data and feedback, and then to integrate, reality test, weigh, and consolidate the meanings from internal feedback and data. And to do so without defaulting to being run by unconscious emotional entities fighting for their "oughts" and reasons predicated on introjection, codependency, abuse, and neglect from the caretakers in their past.

[@investfluent4143]

I love Jordan Peterson!

[@mathew3267]

When are the aliens returning to harvest their crops?

[@DavidPysnik]

Misleading title as none of the title items are mentioned until the very end and there is virtually no discussion on said items. Dawkins has never heard of the Stoned Ape Theory, mentions a passing comical anecdote in regards to Peterson, and the anecdote ends with Peterson on Rogan’s show with nothing said about Rogan himself.

[@DanFedMusic]

He's not a progressive thinker, that's why he always seems really angry and comes off as really arrogant. Jordan Peterson dwarfs him intellectually.

[@SkinnyGreekGod]

Which of his views would you like him to progress on?

[@DanFedMusic]

What we don't know is infinite, all of us should not just know that, or say that because we think it sounds humble but actually understand that.

[@briankgruber]

hahahahahahahahahahahna Absurd. And let's be honest, you know nothing about the profound contributions Richard Dawkins has made to the world, Comparing him to intel fanboy celeb Jordan P is hilarious.

[@DanFedMusic]

Please list his profound contributions and not a subjective perception of his contributions.

[@briankgruber]

@@DanFedMusic If you have to ask, the conversation is futile. Plus, you believe Jordan Peterson should be taken seriously, so there's that.

[@tikaanipippin]

The seaside ape evolved fast because the subjective time moves fast when dependent on wave interval, daily tides and lunar tides as well as seasons. Years, as well as minutes were important to these people, having a constant horizon against which the cosmos constantly moved and returned to. By contrast, imagine pre-exodus, inland African man, as portrayed in the earliest books of the Bible. Time moved only as fast as the moon, since daily changes were imperceptible, as the daylength and temperature changed little in the tropics, but the moon changed slightly from day to day throughout the month, giving us weeks from quarter to quarter until the cycle repeated. The oldest calendars were based on monthly cycles. You can see this in biblical writings, in Genesis, people apparently lived incredibly long lives, only becoming credible, in physiological terms, when divided by ~13 (approximately the number of lunar months in a year) to convert their lunar monthly time reckoning to years. Thus Lamech, Father of Noah, lived to 777 (777/13=~60), or 60 years. Lamech was 182 (182/13=~14) when Noah was born (why mention it at all, unless it was remarkable, since Lamech was very young to be a father, not very old? (Bar Mitzvah, Jewish manhood is celebrated at 13 years old)). This reckoning puts Methuselah at a respectable 75 years old, Noah at 73, fathering his boys by the age of 38, and Adam, the granddaddy of then all at a mere 72. By the time the Israelites had experienced coastal life, and moved to the north, out of Africa, their calendar changed to an annual version. Later in the Old Testament, in Psalms, we hear :"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years," so old age is expected to normally claim us at 70-80 years. This is still reasonable today, although some societies struggle to attain this due to poor health, and others exceed it by several decades.

[@MichelGmusic]

Inflicting pain IS bad unless you're a masochist, don't get the geezer's point at 9:00.

[@L.I.T.H.I.U.M]

Communicating philosophy to Dawkins is impossible, he himself uses words such as "logic" & "reason" and his basis for logic isn't "human wellbeing" as it's a fool's errand, so he's smuggling all the moral axioms and making them his basis of rationality. Rationality defined as use of knowledge to attain a goal. He's constantly, irrationally and frustratingly failing to explain why the goal is morality, and now he's mocking Harris for something he himself has been doing subconsciously for decades and still hasn't made the process conscious enough. Peterson pushed him on this in their interview, and it went over his head. Why is there an ethic in science? Why do we prioritize our focus on facts that decrease human suffering when there're infinitely many? He's too dumb to be taken seriously in subjects other than biology, in which he's one of the best of all time.

[@kipponi]

Everyone(almost) understand meanings. Like what effects new science findings have to us? Terminology is out of laymans life and they have to use it in their work. I read now quantum physics and there are lot of things I don't understand. I know its meaning.

[@rickgoranowski9428]

Nim Chimpsky used to roll his own joints. This goes to intent, planning and tool use.

[@StoutProper]

So did Noam Chomsky

[@okay5191]

‘Chimpsky’ - why is that so funny!? 😅 had to come back and like this (and comment)

[@Razzle_Dazzle-]

Who is this guy?

[@RasmusHem]

Write science papers in multiple ways. Do not stick to one text type.

[@Cola.Cube.]

"take yer mask off ya fool" Richard Dawkins lol

[@TheJohmac]

You would have a very difficult time making a scientifically credible claim that pain is bad. Dawkins is an intelligent man, by he is also very egotistical. His propensity to make passive aggressive comments to belittle people who disagree is quite remarkable and says alot about how far science can go to developing moral character.

[@lucmanzoni6265]

More than intelligent, I'd say he was sly.

[@TheJohmac]

@@lucmanzoni6265 Now there is a good example of my point. "more than intelligent" that's not really a thing. You could he is intelligent and... but the emphasis is an expression of an emotional bias. And although Dawkins claims to be purely scientific and fact driven, his own language betrays that claim.

[@lucmanzoni6265]

@@TheJohmac Misunderstanding here: I used "more than" in the sense of "rather than". Besides that, I agree with you.

[@TheJohmac]

@@lucmanzoni6265 Fair enough

[@philipprice171]

I find him quite a spiteful little man.

[@revo5197]

Evidence is NOT enough. Unless it is a religion.

[@eleanormarshall455]

Holy crap just misread that as Robin Incel. That word is clearly taking up too much space in my brain.

[@007lutherking]

Why the brain grew so quickly? My opinion. What part of the brain that grew quickly? It's obviously the neo cortex that distinguishes us from all the animals.. Now let's look at neo cortex and why it grew so quickly compared to basal ganglia which took millions of years and limbic system which maybe tool a few thousands of years. Brain regions can be thought of as logical circuits.. primitive circuits aren't that efficient.. but they get more efficient with evolution. So basal ganglia was least efficient.. limbic system was more efficient and the neo cortex is at least for now the most efficient. What does this information has to do with brain development? In my opinion relationship between brain formation and the thought process output and input of the brain is interconnected and inter related. Ie. Better neo cortex enables you to think accurately.. and thinking accurately helps you develop your neo cortex.. its a feedback mechanism and the corollary to this is also true.. bad arguments and use of cognitive biases and logical fallacies is destructive to brain and vice versa. Now let's try to connect the dots. Basal ganglia is essentially a brute force attack system and so it took it millions of years to develop.. Limbic system is pattern based mechanism.. better but still not entirely accurate and each time that mechanism discovered truth about the universe it became more.. a process that is still ongoing.. more for some than others. Neo cortex is amazing at figuring out the truth and at separating facts from false.. and with more truth and facts it went into the positive feedback look with itself and grew rapidly.. The outwardly manifestation of this is globalization and how much we've accomplished and how far we've managed to come withing like 500 years.. and we're now growing exponentially.. our brains are still evolving and Maybe there's a better logical circuitry which will transcend the current boss of logic ie Aristotelian thinking. If thats the case.. then it'll open up new doors.. that we don't have the capacity to comprehend at the moment.. just like how a rat doesn't understand the computers inner working. The big leap of evolution that distinguishes one generates from another by a margin so massive .. its completely incomprehensible.

[@tonyburton419]

Err....what? I mean - what? You are right in that what you have written is indeed a bit wacky & sheer wild unfounded incomprehensibility/supposition. .

[@007lutherking]

@@tonyburton419 People's minds aren't made for problems that large - Tyrion Lannister.

[@nigelliam153]

That was very detailed. I was unaware of the different logic systems in the different areas. I read a book, can't recall the title, about how evolution doesn't happen linearly but in fits and spurts and the spurts coincide with the weakening of the earths magnetic field during pole reversals. As we are heading into a pole reversal maybe we'll get the next upgrade!

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Cooking. Cooperation. Consciousness. Then add the brain stuff Clarence said above…

[@mattward5010]

12:11 stone age theory

[@billybussey]

sam harris has lost all credibility.

[@Occult_Gibbet]

I can't believe Dawkins has never read up on the Stoned Ape theory? Seriously, what the hell?

[@JonasWeezer]

Old Testament I think.

[@smartbart80]

15:22 Jordan Peterson reference

[@babyroo555]

I don't agree with Dawkins' response to the first question. Top scientists should carry on with their quests. There should be another batch of scientists under their level who's works should be to decipher, interpret and debate the top scientists' works. Don't dumb down top thinkers for the common people!!!