Steven Pinker Meets Richard Dawkins | On Reason and Rationality

[@HowToAcademyMindset]

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

[@mkhosono1741]

Didn't they already meet at Epstein's parties?

[@waggishsagacity7947]

Steven Pinker makes me happy, despairing, sad, and hopeful all at the same time. Here's why: Happy to have heard him and to have understood 45% of what he had said (my fault); Despairing: Because try as I might, I could not possibly repeat or explain more than 15% of what this brilliant Human explained with such ease and poignancy; Sad: Because his arguments destroy or, at least shake, many of our thinking systems, processes, and habits of rationalizing our world; Hopeful: Because what he says and explains so well today, may one day influence our current world, and make us better human beings living in a much better world. Like Richard Dawkins, I am in awe of Steven Pinker. Thanks to both of you, Gentlemen.

[@aconsideredopinion7529]

Admitting that you know nothing is the first step to enlightenment…

[@andrewthomas695]

The good news is, if you accept your psychology then you can begin to mitigate your worst instincts. The brilliance of being human means you have the capacity to use your executive function to at least reduce our tendencies towards less than virtuous behaviour.

[@TomHawk640]

Beg to differ. True, his theory that "progress" (in his sense of the word) is REAL is plausible. Humans on the whole live longer, are healthier, are more "free," than they were say 200 years ago. But WHY? Pinker's thesis: it's the battle of IDEAS. Science and logic win out, and so TRUTH prevails in the long run. My quibble: IDEAS alone don't explain "progress" (in the above sense). MATERIAL factors appear to be more determinative. IE competition between great powers (USSR vs USA; France vs England), between alternative economic systems (Feudalism vs Capitalism; Capitalism vs Socialism; etc). Competition yields efficiencies, of which scientific, social, political and ideological advances are a part. Historical evidence suggest IDEAS, in short, presuppose MATERIAL changes in the lives of humans. "Progress"? The thesis is susceptible to the fatal(?) criticism that scientific advances have given us Nukes, and Nukes (biological weapons, equally) can END progress in about 2-3 hours (based on recent Pentagon estimates).

[@Stillpoint23]

Well, and thoughtfully, if not graciously said! Thank you for saying what may have been difficult for me to say without going off on some weird tangent! Be well and Happy!

[@felipeschneider1978]

i like his work so much and admire his personality do much that i went see him at harvard, far away from where im from (south of brazil), and he kindly talked to me for a while.

[@lloyddarbon5034]

Such an amazing time we live in, where I can just click a button and listen to these two talk, for free, from my sofa, while munching chocolate.

[@furiousinsects6386]

Hello! 😂💜

[@musicclasstube220]

So true ❤

[@Intimatycal]

oh yes, while the whole world is falling apart

[@lloyddarbon5034]

@@Intimatycal 😭

[@eve_l]

@@Intimatycal but to be fair, can you name a time in human history where the world was not falling apart?

[@lovetownsend]

These guys make me feel not alone in the way I am as a person. They are inspiring, and not in some cheesy way, they really are inspiring.

[@normanthrelfall2646]

I am here to help! Mount St Helen’s erupted on the 18th May 1980 The dating method Dr Austin used at Mount St Helen's was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope or ‘variety’ of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 g of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only 0.5 g was left. Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. Unfortunately, before that can be done, we need to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ was present in the rock when it formed. In most situations we don’t know since we didn’t measure it, so we need to make an assumption-a guess. It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. We also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40 has leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, we do not know, so we need to make an assumption. It is routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. How can you know that? It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an ‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often millions of years. The Mount St Helen's lava dome gives us the opportunity to check these assumptions, because we know it formed just a handful of years ago, between 1980 and 1986. The dating test In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out. The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA-a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helen's and was only 10 years old for good reasons. What do we see? First, that they are wrong in their results. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Different samples of the same rock also disagreed with each other. From the same rock!!! It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth’s history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helen's is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there-we know! “How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown ages in the invented geologic column?” This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating. All dating methods used by evolutionists are subject to contamination and limitation because we live in an open system Radioisotope-dating methods are used on igneous rocks-those formed from molten rock material. Dacite fits this bill.” Fossil-bearing sedimentary rock” cannot be directly dated radioisotopically. Second, and most importantly, we know exactly when the lava dome formed. This is one of the rare instances in which we can ask the question, ‘Were you there?’ we can answer, ’Yes, we were!’

[@epo1980]

You are not alone.

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Darwinian Evolutionary Religion does not belong in the science classroom as it is a contested ideology, it is far from being a fact of science. We should stand up against things we consider to be harmful and troublesome to the health of a nation. Darwinian religion taught as a fact to students is a back door to promoting alsorts of immoral behaviour! It encourages perverse sexual orientations which have always been around throughout the centuries. It sears the consciences of many concerning right and wrong. It promote theft, gambling, adultery, lying, violence and murder etc. If there is no God to answer too for our words and actions, why bother to behave! Sin takes peace away from the earth and replaces it with anarchy, chaos and confusion. When sin gets out of control then curfews will be imposed upon the populace. The nations of the world have rejected the loving words of Jesus to their own detriment. Jesus said love God with all of your heart, [and God is a spirit which you cannot see, but you can get to a place where you feel his power and presence in the temple of your body] and love your neighbour as your self. What is there not to understand? And what is there not to love about Jesus? All the denominations we have today are not the Lord's will, they bring confusion to those who are seeking to know Jesus and understand his teachings. Every idle word spoken by preachers that does not line up with the teachings of Jesus shall be condemned on the day of judgment. Just as many of the Pharisees and Sadducees shall be condemned as they would not adhere to the loving commandments of Jesus. Many refused to repent after the death are resurrection of Jesus. An angel descended from heaven whose countenance was like lightening and for fear of him the Roman soldiers fled the scene and some of them reported back and told the Sanhedrin what had really happened. They gave them large summons of money to the soldiers in order for them to tell a lie, saying his disciples came by night and stole his body away. They said to the soldiers, if what really happened comes to Pilates ears, we will persuade him and secure you. Suppression of the truth still goes on today regarding the insurmountable evidence against evolution. At all costs, they must suppress, ignore and disregard all evidences against evolution, they must protect the sacred cow of their religion. Jesus predicted all this during his ministry right up to the end of this present age.

[@MsStarWarsGirl]

Two of the most influential minds of the oast 50 years sitting together and talking, all on YT for us to watch. WOW!

[@wendyandrew3707]

I always end up with a smile on my face after listening to Steven Pinker.

[@jmarty1000]

"Selfish Genes don't create selfish people any more that blueprints result in blue buildings", is one of my favorite Steven Pinker quotes. My favorite one is: "The Mind is what the Brain does".

[@cluckycluck3053]

I wonder why Steven wanted the shameless advertising of his book on the table. Can we just have an intellectual debate without shameless promotion?

[@martinstephens4633]

@@cluckycluck3053 It makes him money I think

[@monicsperryn8497]

How does he explain dr Lorber's work on students who had no brains who functioned normally? They must surely have had minds to be at all functional.

[@infinto1]

It's just wizardry of words devoid of real meaning

[@boliusabol822]

well just call it gene then. we already have a word gene.

[@PhilosophicalTrials]

I’m glad I managed to (nervously) ask Steven Pinker a question at 1:05:30

[@oldtimer7635]

Well done. : )

[@JaviEngineer]

If that was you, awesome fucking question. I feel he veered a bit from answering that, thinking you were more concerned with answers of humanity as opposed to answers of General mammals/great apes (sugar, fat consumption) which can explain human diet. You were getting at if there might be an evolution due to sexual&natural selection that occurs in the next 1000 years where Future Evo Psychs will begin to see how sexual selection, in this world, might be the defining aspects that change the population. Does that sound about right or am I off the mark?

[@PhilosophicalTrials]

@@JaviEngineer Yes, I was more concerned with some foundational questions about the field of evolutionary psychology: asking for the reasons behind the tenet that our modern 21st century skulls host stone-age minds and also asking whether he sees a point in the future where evolutionary psychologists will need to reconsider their doctrines (because our cognition evolved at that future point in such a way that looking at the pressures of the pleistocene is not the way to go).

[@adambamford956]

Didn’t sound nervous at all, really interesting question!

[@halnineooo136]

I think you're overlooking the effect of the technological driven evolution which is having a much faster and greater effect than the cultural driven one. We're already cybernetic organisms and that trend is strengthening rapidly. In two or three decades very probably the emerging brain to computer interfaces will interconnect humans and blur the frontier of individuality. Pharmacology and nanotechnology are already reshaping our biology much faster than natural environmental and sexual selection.

[@Scarletpimpanel73]

Dawkins: "We should all be both surely?". Pinker: "We should all be both, yes". Thus a thousand years of philosophic argument was resolved ...

[@Scarletpimpanel73]

@@cindymendozarobles5730 "Sorry."!,.

[@neoepicurean3772]

I'm studying peer disagreement at the moment, and this conversation was rather useful. Thanks!

[@kumar2ji]

Very intellectually stimulating! We are complex human beings but knowledge has limits and they are deadly if not acknowledged.

[@maxxwellbeing9449]

I’m here for Dawkins.. I just love listening this man speak about anything.

[@sallehandrews6976]

3:12..typical dumb ignorant arrogant the prophet of atheism richard dorkins. University teaches science whch is physical and madrasha teaches METAphysical. When are these dumb atheists going to learn smthing

[@maxxwellbeing9449]

@@sallehandrews6976 When…? As soon as you provide verifiable evidence that confirms the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. That will never happen my friend. Would you like to know why, because God, does NOT exist.

[@garymelnyk7910]

@@maxxwellbeing9449 So a single person has a right to say something doesn’t exist. You’re like Putin…….saying Ukraine doesn’t exist!

[@maxxwellbeing9449]

@@garymelnyk7910 Every person has the right to say what every they like as long as it doesn’t incite violence …it’s call free speech. Regarding Ukraine…the difference is that the existence of the Ukraine can be verified, the evidence is there that it exists…there is no evidence that can confirm that God exists. You’re free to believe in him if you like. I simply don’t believe that he does. There is no rational, verifiable, undeniable evidence that a God….or any Gods from any religion that is credible enough to prove that a God actually exists…therefore, I don’t believe in any of them. If a God actually did exist, he would have the power to enter the minds of every “single” person on earth and say…”I am God, I exist, follow me” then there would be no doubt…I don’t know why anyone would ever follow such an impossible being that has never revealed himself to all of humanity, it doesn’t make sense to me, unfortunately all there is is doubt. There is no God. Be well.

[@ABloodyEyeFull]

Me 2, Dawkins is truly the voice of reason!

[@MehtalicA]

Two of my most favorite erudite intellectuals

[@sloaiza81]

low standards

[@OldDocThedan]

Pinker is one of the rare writers that I’ve actually purchased the books of although usually since it’s hard to take enough in on one reading. And I’ve fallen down more than one KZbin rabbit hole of videos that include him. But lord oh mighty is he used to lecturing. Surely there’s a word for an academic that is used to conveying info in long drawn out lectures. Sometimes hard for me to stay with, so a second watch/listen helps. And though this is a complaint- I love this stuff.

[@WilliamBarker]

Like Noam Chomsky zzzzzzz

[@jmarty1000]

@@WilliamBarker Chomsky doesn't really ever explain anything. He makes statements of opinion as if they are fact. Whereas Pinker is excellent at explaining what, why and how, and even provides counterexamples, before showing why they don't work. Pinker is >10 times better than Chomsky.

[@WilliamBarker]

@@jmarty1000 I bought the language instinct but got bogged down early on. I may have to revisit it. I like Chomsky's "opinions", but can't listen to him for two continuous minutes (much as I don't like Jordan Peterson's, although he is entertaining), . Pinker is as you say always in lecture mode.

[@ThePiePig]

very fair comment, I read this at the start of the video, and I’m now listening to Pinker explaining the political bias example, could’ve been 20 seconds as it was when I read it in the book, but he completely lost me with the 10minute+ explanation

[@Lokikosmik]

Seeing Dawkins as my hero nowadays somehow made me sad, he's aging more and more each day.

[@zainic]

At a time ... Dawkins wasn't treated by ppl like now....ppl thought he was an slightly educated guy when he was at his young age....cz only fewer ppl had to get the intellect points Later and now ppl have really changed a lot realising what a Dawkins mean in this universe...i think he is one of the guys that made changes in English ppls views...look at the stats of homophobes, pseudo science then and now

[@paxanimi3896]

Aren’t we all aging?

[@pinball1970]

Lucky we still have him, he seems to have recovered ok from the stroke.

[@eddie1975utube]

His books, debates, lecturers, ideas and memes will be around and continue to influence the minds of thinkers young and old long after we are all gone. But, yes, he will be missed.

[@louisehaley5105]

At least his mind is still so sharp. One only has to see his incredible itinerary this year, traveling around Britain and Europe, and now the USA. And next year our Professor will be off to Australia and New Zealand. Exhausting for someone of any age let alone an octogenarian.

[@bradsillasen1972]

Despite his profound achievements and vast knowledge, Dawkins remains the humble interviewer, asking questions as if he is simply a listener freshly acquainted with the material. That is admirable! :)

[@Smokey66s]

Any time I see one of his pals I can’t help think of the great Christopher Hitchens😔missed more than ever in these unprecedented “tangled” times.

[@JasonPilley]

Yes if only Hitchens were here to tell us who to bomb.

[@Smokey66s]

@@JasonPilley no, we are way beyond bombing, we are to the point of developing a criteria for culling of humans for the greater good.

[@Smokey66s]

@JasonPilley “Reply” “Edit” “Delete” ? Was it “Hitchens” the mad bomber? ?

[@Jonsimste1]

Thanks!

[@willmpet]

I love Steven Pinker! A hard thing for a man to say, but I am continually amazed by his intelligence. Here, he talks about David Hume-who I’ve come to respect greatly! I was fortunate enough to study under the great Don Martindale, who in his “Nature and Types of Sociological Theory” reduced theories down from 72 to just 7. His favorite theorist was David Hume! I began to take Hume seriously because of him and I have profited mightily from that!

[@johnodee100]

Pinker is special; a gentleman to boot. Always responds to emails.

[@atoms-to-atoms]

I have to go to work..but cant stop watching this!

[@jackkomisar458]

The first questioner sounds like Sam Harris. The "Sidney Morgenbesser story" that Dawkins mentioned at the end is probably this one, as described by Wikipedia, "According to one anecdote, when J. L. Austin claimed that, although a double negative often implies a positive meaning (e.g., 'he is not unlike his sister'), there is no language in which a double positive implies a negative, Morgenbesser retorted: 'Yeah, yeah.' "

[@CraigTalbert]

Re: 57:16 - excellent question and response

[@Castorp-wn7dh]

Pinker - great mind, great hair and most of all great cowboy boots.

[@ctt59]

When was this discussion published? Thanks

[@veronicacurlette5929]

An excellent talk. The comment section of this video so far is an excellent example of the topic discussed. The irony of showing one's lack of critical thinking skills after listening to how lacking human beings are in critical thinking skills is astounding, to say the least.

[@sorinal1234]

Thank you for sharing your opinions with us. I found the talk rather moronic but now I'm going to listen to it again and more attentively so. Again, thank you.

[@dfwherbie8814]

Pinker also used that critical thinking when he helped Jeffrey Epstein get released from prison

[@petneb]

Regarding the gun control, it might be that some people might find that it would have been a good idea if the general population were armed when Hitler got into power to prevent the catastrophy. Things are generally/always more complicated than any survey can reflect.

[@firvantavan2793]

@@sorinal1234 What did you find moronic about it?

[@MMG-q1v]

@@petneb somewhat simplistic, I think. Consider the possibility that people who feel they must own guns and who are inclined to use a gun rather than rational argument in a political situation are very likely to have a fascist orientation.

[@mrpopo8298]

Steven's shoes are pretty stylish.

[@appmathphys2465]

I read "The Selfish Gene" when it first came out and loved it. I was stunned when all my biology major colleagues in graduate school were highly dismissive of the book. I asked them why, and they could not be bothered to answer. Maybe some one here can tell me; what is it that is so controversial, so offensive, to conventional biologists about Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene"? I cannot understand it. Can you possibly explain it in a way I could understand?

[@tonsetz]

Are these "conventional biologists" admirers of the words of Jesus Christ?

[@appmathphys2465]

@@tonsetz No. And this was YEARS before Dawkins began his atheism campaigns. It was based on science or approach or something. I do not get it. I am not a biologist so....I can't tell you.

[@unicyclist97]

It's still one of the most influential science books in the world. I've only met one person who criticised it and has actually read some of it, and she only made it to page 10 before freaking out about how it "didn't praise god enough".

[@endoalley680]

Genes are people too.

[@gibbogle9486]

Apparently some biologists don't like putting all the emphasis on genes and down-playing the importance of other levels, up to populations. I don't fully understand the objections, but the basic objection seems to be that it oversimplifies the biology - as this writer (whose opinion I found online) says, it is too reductionist. (I think The Selfish Gene is a great book.) "The ultra-reductionist thesis of the book is very hard to justify. There are selfish genes and selfish genetic elements, but they are nowhere near as widespread as Dawkins made them out to be in the book. Reducing natural selection as a force that acts only on the genome and saying that organisms are merely "vehicles" is, quite simply, wrong. Evolution can, and does, act on all levels, from the gene all the way up to the species, with the bulk of it happening at the individual level, since it's the individual that survives and reproduces, not the gene. There's also the terrible implication that natural selection is an all-powerful force, a viewpoint we nowadays call ultra-Darwinism, and it's also pretty bad, throwing away what we know from population biology and, well, evolutionary biology (natural selection is one of many processes that makes up evolution; sometimes it's very powerful, sometimes it doesn't play any role). My main criticism, in light of this bad biology, is that it was marketed towards a general audience that would take it as true on authority, when in fact it was an outline of Dawkins's own particular view of evolution and not representative at all of broad consensus. It's not fair to either the general public who are getting misinformed by it, and to other working biologists who have to spend a noticeable amount of time debunking the sillier aspects of it."

[@arthurtfm]

When and where was this event?

[@TBT.Stories]

I like this two man a lot for diferent reasons, i am glad this conversations are starting to happen again, and i am glad Dawkins is recovered. I have to say, the volume is really not enough... I have full volume on my headphones and phone. That's a shame. Otherwise, thanks!

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Dr. E. Stanton Maxey says the etchings on the ICA Stones are close-ups of heart surgery showing blood vessels, arteries and the heart accurately drawn. The patient is lying on a kind of operating table, showing tubes feeding him through infusions. A new heart is being introduced. We see ancient physicians closing the arteries and closing the chest. Dr. Stanton Maxey, Fellow of the American College of Surgeon’s says in the pictures of stone carvings depicting heart surgery, the detail is clear-seven blood vessels coming from the heart are faithfully copied. The whole thing looks like a cardiac operation, and the surgeons seem to be using techniques that fit with our modern knowledge end of quote. There are those who have tried to discredit the ICA Stones because of the incredible technological, medical and paleontological depictions that predate modern scientific knowledge. It is obvious these ancient civilizations were quite advanced. Remember these are the same Indians that engraved dinosaurs on the very same andesite stones with absolute accuracy. These stones with surgical depictions are also covered with patina and varnish which form a type of glaze running into all the grooves and there are also microorganisms on these stones due to biological processes, this can only form with age. You think that peasants carved these stones with such accuracy depicting surgical operations. In your dreams and desperations! The Moche, who in Inhabited the Northern coast of Peru from 50 A.D. to 800 A.D. frequently depicted on their pottery vases, the results of surgical operations, or even the operation itself. Super sharp scalpels of obsidian and surgical instruments of bronze were used for operations. Forceps were utilized and tourniquets. The patients were bandaged with gauze and cotton as a frequent practice. How do we know this? because these have been found in tombs. The Peruvian Indians took out tumours and performed complicated brain surgeries. The ancient doctors even performed trephination surgeries by drilling, scraping, sawing or cutting with sharp obsidian, bronze or copper instruments. When the mummies were excavated from the tombs, it was found that many of the skulls had a disc inserted in order to cover the openings, either with shell, metal and even gold plates. Richard G. Wilkinson says, such a success ratio was far better than that achieved by European surgeons of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which may account for their refusal to accept the existence of prehistoric trephination. My comment: There is nothing prehistoric about it at all. These things occurred a few thousand years ago. R.L. Moodie, the great paleopathologist, summed up the findings in his study of ancient Peruvian surgery: I believe it to be correct to state that no primitive or ancient race of people anywhere in the world had developed such a field of surgical knowledge as had the Pre-Columbian Peruvians. Their surgical attempts are truly amazing and include amputations, excisions, trephining, bandaging, bone transplants, cauterizations and other less evident procedures end of quote. My comment: The mummies of so-called prehistoric doctors were found surrounded by their professional equipment. In these tombs were also found at times trophy heads of dinosaurs along with stones having dinosaurs engraved on them. Remember these are not forgeries, freshly carved yesterday for sale to the tourists.

[@JJ-fr2ki]

16:12 great example of motivated reasoning. From Keith Stanovitch. However, knowledge of the study does inoculate. One has to seek out alternative arguments and learn to fight against it.

[@lizgichora6472]

Thank you both for inspiring us to Think and Reason Professor Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins.

[@MichaelKingsfordGray]

"us"?

[@JJ-fr2ki]

32:31 Error. It was Ramsey the philosopher NOT Bayes that took a formula published in one paragraph in 1740s and turned it into a theory of rationality and credence.

[@Iambecome]

Two brilliant men. Bravo!

[@fabioschneider5970]

Love it ! ! ! (Thank you so much for sharing )

[@sallehandrews6976]

3:12..typical dumb ignorant arrogant the prophet of atheism richard dorkins. University teaches science whch is physical and madrasha teaches METAphysical. When are these dumb atheists going to learn smthing

[@normanthrelfall2646]

Let have some truth for a change! Dinosaur Revelations of the ICA Stones Examination of the ICA Stones in Peru revealed their authenticity. Dr. Andres Zhurov a Russian with a PhD in Andean Archaeology from Moscow State University and Don Frazier, a computer technological expert from San Jose California joined the team. Dr. Ricardo Jochamowitz the Director of the Cabrera Museum association agreed to an examination of the ICA Stones. Marcel Rosas of Nazca Peru, a sceptic of the stones also agreed to participate with other skeptics and debunkers. They negotiated a test that all sides felt was fair and reasonable. Each person would randomly select five stones, each with dinosaurs carved on them from the museum and so by the end of the day we had analysed forty stones in total. The skeptics selected any stones they thought were fakes and believers selected stones that they liked for examination. Neutral people could also select stones at random. Dr. Dennis Swift used a portable USB digital microscope used in forensic laboratories and police crime labs. This is a high tech piece of equipment. It magnifies from 10x to 200x. To give an illustration of its power, it magnifies a human hair until it looks like a giant redwood tree. The microscope is connected to a laptop in order to take photographs and digital images which can be compiled on a Camcorder. All the information gained from the ICA Stones was analysed in detail. This microscope proved the authenticity and antiquity of the ICA Stones on the 8th April 2004. All sides agreed that the tests were scientific, accurate and fair, thus there were no skeptics left in the room at the end of the day. A charge often made by evolutionists is that the Cabrera Collection of stones was carved by rotatory power tools etc. These leave tell -tale signs behind them in the stone, such as contoured grooves, chips, flakes, cracks and pieces of metal, all would be recognize under this forensic microscope, but there were none. These stones are “andesite” in nature and under examination the stones are covered with patina which illustrates age and this when right into all the grooves of the carvings related to the dinosaurs displaying antiquity. This natural forming patina has been found on other Pre-Columbian burial archaeological artifacts. There is an accumulation of patina and varnish from biological sources being produced from algae or bacteria. If these stones had been carved by rotary power tools they would have cut through this ancient patina and it would be evident, for all to see under microscope. Lichen colonies had been identified being found in the carved grooves; that take hundreds of years to grow, particularly in the Nazca desert burial chambers. Laboratory tests proved that these Lichen colonies belonged to the Xanthoparnelia variety. These stones alone prove that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans only a few thousand years ago and that they did not die out 65 million years ago. Forget about radio metric dating etc. We have scientific proof that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans not so long ago. Take all evolutionary dating methods with a pinch of salt for rocks and fossils they are not worth the time of day. The whole ideal geologic column is fake news, it is a false image of where man originated from, and for those who recognise this, it has come crashing down to the ground like the chaff of the summer threshing floor and chaff does not hang about but gets blown away by the wind.

[@marcusaurelius9123]

​@@sallehandrews6976dumb atheists vs dumb sky fairy believers. Which sounds dumber?😊

[@HarrySingh-bm3eg]

Great minds indeed and an apt topic...

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

5:00 Tinbergen. Also relevant here is the book Dawkins wrote The Extendedly Phenotype.

[@sylviaowega3839]

What Stephen Pinker is correct about being exposed to social media, with us being exposed to both, mainstream and radicalized media. I used to be an ultra conservative having been raised by a conservative father and reading conservative hard copy papers, but have become much more liberal having been exposed to all sorts of different opinions on Twitter, and other forms of social media platforms.

[@phillip3495]

What is interesting here is that I seem to have had the same experience but from the opposite origin, to the opposite destination. Began as the progressive activist, militant style atheist with the mindset that science and religion were rightly dichotomized. I was eventually in later life accidentally exposed to what is considered the opposite to my favorite Marxian ideas, which had been summarily dismissed without examination before. I found myself being exposed more and more to libertarian type theory, and began to purposefully expose myself to conservatism which I realized was different, and found that the points being made were actually rational, and not so easily dismissed as previously had been thought. I also concluded that religion and science in many cases end up with the same conclusions on deeper examination for non-mystical reasons. I think that this path we’ve taken to become more well rounded, should be the goal as opposed to factionalism.

[@cochoseable]

Funny how these stories go. I was raised marxist-ish by a mostly radical chic family, with an irrational passion for the revolutionary ethos, all this mainly through "curated" press, a carefully controlled litterary environment and peer pressure. Social media has done more to de-radicalise me than anything else - mainly by revealing echo-chambers for what they are and making them stand out, and introducing me to new thinkers, Pinker being one of them.

[@jaxwhyland]

Don't use Twitter as a means of hearing opposition. The Twitter narrative is just as radical as the white supremacist right, if not more, and more intense and violent. Talk to those in your community, your neighbours, local governance, community leaders like churches and social groups. You'll get a far better indicator of what people actually think. The opinions you see online are the most radical and extreme views that can gain the most impulsive attention. They DO NOT represent what regular people think. Stay away

[@endoalley680]

I was raised by Kennedy Democrats. They would be considered conservative(ish) these days. Pro MLK style racial equality. But not really questioning the normal ethics and norms of the time, nor free market principles, nor work ethic.

[@Astarkiller]

That’s so antidotal that comes from an emotional position he’s talking about rational thought and rational assessment. I was more liberal and become more conservative cause they have logic and facts on their side not feeling and dumb ideas so logic wins in the end. He’s talking about if ur thinking like him or Unbiased ppl. Pinker is pretty based he’s more independent if anything. Knows big government is bad and institutions are made up of flawed ppl like any group and he sees how indoctrinate they are with left wing polarization, it’s never the other way. 🤔

[@keithjones9546]

Steven Pinker is so 🔥 and correct in a number of ways.

[@FredHosea]

Like most discussions of the human future, the focus on defining "human nature" ignores the profoundly different nature of governments and corporations, which are inherently semi-human, if not un-human or anti-human in many cases. Over time, such historical institutions behave at best as semi-human entities, but with powers, jurisdictions and misrepresentations of human interests that extend far beyond what individuals can ever embody or contemplate. The cumulative effect of organizationally-mediated intelligence, values, and decisions results in collectively less-than-moral-intelligent outcomes that seem increasingly likely to overwhelm the captive billions.

[@ad12bc34]

So what about the effect of such organisationally-mediated intelligence on the moral “freedom” of the individual human agent? It might be “rational” to yield to it, but “moral” not to. Here is where rationality and morality stand opposite each other. It would be interesting to hear about the merit of being irrational in the name of being moral. Maybe ‘Moral Courage’ may aspire to be considered as a special kind of ultra-rationality / enlightenment?

[@jmarty1000]

You seem to suggest that one of the more extreme ways to politically organize society is preferable: Anarchy or Totalitarianism. I prefer that powers be dispersed among the people of societies, that we have institutions and the rule of law to protect the vulnerable, protect property rights, free markets, intellectual property, and that give voice to anyone concerned, that debate the tradeoffs, that compromise for the sake of progress. I'm no "Pangloss", but I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you appear to be. If you haven't read "Enlightenment Now", then perhaps you should.

[@ad12bc34]

@@jmarty1000 In theory your preference (the distribution of powers among people and societies) is admirable, enlightened and I would personally even go farther and call it the "right" way of organizing human collective coexistence. But what about reality - a question which strikes another subtle note pertaining to the discussion between those two pillars of enlightenment, namely the position that any thesis/claim worthy of its name should be supported with solid evidence? A very sad and depressing (but also thought inspiring) fact in the current global political (or socio-economic) reality is that the pervasive corporate organization and domination of human society (organizationally-mediated intelligence of the corporate type) not only strips individuals from a substantial part of their freedom, but much more crucially - incentivizes them to [choose to] act in ways which they themselves would otherwise deem immoral or "unfortunate". Maybe that was not part of the original rationale of promoting the evolvement of the institution of the corporation, but it certainly is an unequivocal consequence or feature of that evolvement, and it should not be swept aside in serious discussions of rationality and enlightenment. You refer to the protection of the vulnerable, of property rights, of free markets and intellectual property - wouldn't you agree that the organization of today's societies under the direct and latent domination of giant corporations - contrary to its dubious and hypocritic rhetoric - actually writes-off the vulnerable (in China and Africa, but also in the heart of the US and Europe), circumvents and denies property and intellectual rights and actually deflects them to already established centers of wealth and power, and heavily distorts the "freedom" of markets altogether? I was not advocating anarchy, let alone totalitarianism, but upholding the point that a comprehensive discussion of human rationality should also take heed of what the commentator to whom I responded called "organizationally-mediated intelligence", and my comment was aimed at further elaborating on its hazardous effect on the freedom of the individual, which is, in my view, an important component and a condition of exercising rationality in ones life.

[@willmercury]

@Trinity, Rockschool, RGT GUITAR Empathy is overrated; read Paul Bloom.

[@isaac1572]

Every psychopathic CEO can abstain from morals and simply advocate for the financial benefit of the shareholders. The board voted that it was economically prudent. "That environmental or human disaster is not my fault, My responsibility is to the share holders".

[@tekerjnudli1355]

In which one of his books does Pinker describe the “medical diagnoses problem”? Here at 36:00, i probably did not catch it right, but i seem to hear that he says that the probability (=population percentage) is 1% and later that it is 0,1%…? I know this is not real data just want to get the idea/formula.

[@jasoncollin9949]

20:00 historical context matters? Of course, it does! Thank you, Steven!

[@cs1983]

It would be really useful to have the date of the event in the title or at least in the description.

[@jasonferguson6354]

Wonderful conversation from two of the brightest minds on the planet.. too bad the sound engineer was asleep at the wheel .

[@choncho101]

Woooooooow!!! My two academic heroes!!! Thank you!! Thank you!! Thank you!!!

[@fullmatthew]

Good talk but strange title to the video -- Dawkins and Pinker have definitely met each other before and know each other well.

[@ComixJoint]

The word "meet" doesn't necessarily mean meeting for the first time. I could say to my sister, "I'll meet you for lunch." The title simply means Dawkins is meeting Pinker for a talk. It could be the 20th time they've met and you can still correctly use the term "meets."

[@dentonfender6492]

Google ads are toooooooooooooooooo loud! They blast you out of your chair! Either lower the audio on ads, or raise the audio on programing to match.

[@anthonybrett]

Steven's boots are kickass!

[@Webfra14]

I guess they are, but I hope they don't!😉

[@Jr-qo4ls]

While in the process of freeing myself from the belief system I had been involuntarily indoctrinated into, I had become despondent realizing the harm religion was doing to the world and thought I was alone in my thinking. Then I learned of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and my sanity returned.

[@jx8599]

Two great thinkers.

[@DexterDexter123]

two people who can talk about complex things without leaving anyone behind. what a skill. .

[@OneEmanation]

Refreshing to hear pinker recognise our ‘use’ of farm animals, to put it lightly, as an under appreciated moral stain of our generation.

[@JN-wr9he]

Oh dear

[@architechofreality]

Veganism is the future. It is worth jumping on board now. Those who have no concern for other sentient beings are, fundamentally, flawed in the empathy department. Those who do not care about animals and nature generally, are not people to trust.

[@ijumaaproductions]

so? morals don't apply to diet.

[@OneEmanation]

@@JN-wr9he explain yourself sir

[@missano3856]

​@@ijumaaproductionsDepends on how hungry you are.

[@armin_nemo]

Was that Harari at the end?

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

51:57 “…and the idea left standing would be the true one.” Slight risk of the Tu Quoque fallacy here, that ‘you’re wrong, therefore I’m right’. I don’t think it applies though because the point is that the hypothesis closest to the truth is the one that has survived most attempt to refute it

[@SantiagoLopez-zb2eb]

Fair observation. If you are interested in a more formal presentation of this notion of truth, consider reading (if you haven't) Charles Pierce's work, where truth is presented as the convergence of thought, should rational thought spread through an infinite time. There, this idea of "last standing notions" is more clear.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

@@SantiagoLopez-zb2eb interesting! Thanks for the reference, will check it out. So, his notion of truth is collective rational thought going on forever?

[@justinludeman8424]

Indeed, falsifiability is key. And thanks for the recommended reading Santiago.

[@SantiagoLopez-zb2eb]

@@EmperorsNewWardrobe More or less so, yes. Are you familiar with the concept of limit in mathematics? It's basically a formalization of what occurs to a dependent variable if an independent variable tends towards infinity. If when an independent variable grows indefinitely the dependent variable approaches some definite value, we say it converges. Pearson's position on truth is somewhat analogous to this: truth is that to which rational thought would converge if it could vary infinitely in time. Notice that this is of a radical fallibilism: we are never certain to have obtained truth. We are only certain we move towards it.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

@@SantiagoLopez-zb2eb interesting. I wasn’t aware of that limit idea from maths. One thought that strikes me is why we don’t simply say ‘knowledge’ instead of ‘truth’, and only keep the word ‘true’, an adjective, an as anchoring reference when justifying claims as reflective of reality. Of course, the better justified a claim, the more it qualifies as knowledge

[@rhyskendall4479]

What date was this recorded?

[@thomasdelaney4898]

Looking forward to watching this! I'd love to see a conversation between Richard Dawkins and Iain McGilchrist in the future. Probably best to stay away from the origins of language if Pinker is around as well!

[@sallehandrews6976]

3:12..typical dumb ignorant arrogant the prophet of atheism richard dorkins. University teaches science whch is physical and madrasha teaches METAphysical. When are these dumb atheists going to learn smthing

[@micheleploeser7720]

Stephen knows so much more about so many things than so many other people and extremely wise perspective on the human element on this planet but I think his most learned characteristic is his hair I am a child of the 60s

[@john_mckinney]

This guy’s hair needs scientific explanation on it’s own.

[@tomlennart2422]

hahahaha

[@GetCaught]

Why all the great talks have low quality audio? Anyone else turned the volume way up and then blasted by the ads !? 😢

[@venkataponnaganti]

Two great minds!

[@fishgangstaytps2691]

Two cogs slightly larger than average

[@garymelnyk7910]

Put them in the presence of Dr Tom Sowell and you might change your mind!

[@Feefa99]

@@garymelnyk7910 Sowell is bootlicker of neoliberalism

[@impCaesarAvg]

@@garymelnyk7910 Yes. Then we'd see Dawkins and Pinker not as giants but as supergiants.

[@garymelnyk7910]

@@impCaesarAvg And like giants, wherever they tread, they break lots of things.

[@wh5254]

An interesting conversation and a great book. It was perhaps a bit sterile with no conservative perspective which could give a more meaningful framework to understand many of Pinker's observations. Jonathan Haidt has done well to understand this aspect better.

[@suewiley07]

21:10 Pinker is optimistic to think we might have living descendants. Not gonna happen unless we turn things around very quickly.

[@laurencesiegel9362]

Try to think about this *rationally*. There are 8 billion human beings. For us to not have living descendants, every one of them would have to die before they reproduce. This is not going to happen. Even the greatest imaginable catastrophe, except a massive asteroid impact, would leave 3 billion survivors.

[@BulentBasaran]

On the question about how to get to more rational thought and behavior, the "ambient culture" a child finds herself seems to be crucial. When we don't feel safe, we apparently tend towards conservative politics. There are studies that show that the self-perception of how safe young children feel correlates with their political orientation later on in life. Feeling safer, they take on progressive and social politics. Otherwise, they are more likely to turn conservative. Similarly, in any relationship, if we want reason to play a strong role, we need to feel mutually safe. Let us remember that next time we are tempted to get into a political argument with the "other" side. And as such, we prioritize getting to a feeling of a mutually safe-space before we get our intellects to engage on a complex social problem like immigrants or abortion or economics of income inequality, etc.

[@stormhawk3319]

Richard Dawkins himself says that he only felt in awe of a total genius and that was Steven Pinker.

[@bucksfan77]

Kinda pathetic

[@hurley3000gt]

Source?

[@JJ-fr2ki]

40:31 I’d say of signal detection that d’ is a very good measure that combines false positive and false negative rates or what in medicine is called sensitivity and specificity. Pinker here is adding cost/nenefit terms, which are value based, but there are ways to generate the cost benefit terms from empirical data and social cost. Also, Tversky and Kahneman wrote an excellent monograph of medical error, which I’ve read but have yet to meet a physician who has read it!!!

[@ricodelavega4511]

fascinating discussion, at least the first 12 min. I got a notification on my smartphone that the 2nd series of a show I like has been released, so I must be off for some mindless entertainment.

[@MatthewHB87]

I’m pretty sure the last questioner was Yuval Noah Harari. I saw him on Bill Maher, and the voice sounds identical. Not to mention, the intellect and concision with which the question was asked.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

"Hasn't Peterson become a twat?" "Tell me about it. "

[@uforagain]

I did not hear this in the video

[@donaldedward4951]

This is maddening. Two of my favorite people and I cannot hear. How nice; the commercials are perfectly audible. Grrr!👹

[@NoahZeus]

Good format.

[@kpopmember1233]

yay SELFISH GENES RICHARD DAWKINS AND STEVEN PINKER!!!

[@williamwhitten7820]

*Pinker wears his biases on his sleeve as all arrogant 'self obsorbed scholars' do.*

[@Wildrover82]

No.

[@williamwhitten7820]

@@Wildrover82* "No" what?*

[@Wildrover82]

@@williamwhitten7820no. I think your bias against Steven Pinker leads you to believe he wears his biases on his sleeve...

[@williamwhitten7820]

@@Wildrover82 *Well I don't give a damn what you think pal.*

[@Wildrover82]

@@williamwhitten7820 you just asked me what I meant. Now you're telling me you don't care what I think. Funny.

[@symmetrie_bruch]

now that´s how you do an introduction, no meandering waffling about themselves, no "here are some people who need no intrduction" and then going on for 10 minutes listing their credentials that everybody interested is already aware of anyway. short and succinct and to the point 👍

[@chad206]

I wonder if the "my side bias" is equally present in societies with multiple political parties or if the employment and effects of this bias are amplified by a 2-party system.

[@justinludeman8424]

I was wondering precisely this too. I'm Australian, here/the USA/UK are all well within my cultural sphere of influence, and I can't help but feel ideological adherence to party politics is a learned behaviour, having its roots in class (in the broadest sense of the word) and family political proclivities. The more I delve into politics the more I see the political diammetric as a mirage, and a deliberate one at that. The emergence of influential far-left and far-right ideologies further muddies the waters in an increasingly globalist society... To my mind, a centrist view appeals all the more - as much as I question doctrinal cherry picking. I mean by this - what would be better than voting for portfolio positions in government (ministers only) opposed to the prevailing 2 party reality which is further complicated with balance of power politics associated with the multiple minor parties and independent ministers/senators in lower and upper houses? I'm trying to read some scholarly works to better inform myself but I'm still scratching my chin... You've raised an excellent point chadrandom. Edit - would a portfolio-based political system where individuals counter conventional partisan politics be able to achieve effective outcomes for a voting populace and simultaneously maintain any cohesiveness as a governing body? Currently, I see such a disconnect and dissatisfaction between the citizenry and their political democratic machines; this is most evident presently when one considers the alarming frequency of prime minister turnover within elected terms of government for example. Clearly, the parties themselves are increasingly fractured...

[@michaelshuey1614]

That’s a daft question. Would four parties reduce bias? Would twenty parties eliminate it? How about each constituent represent their own party, would bias be eliminated then? Unbelievable. Aren’t you embarrassed by your lack of logic in framing your question?

[@myself2noone]

It doesn't stop being "my side" because there are 20 sides.

[@chad206]

@@myself2noone Agreed. However, when an issue is politically polarized into only having two sides, as is the norm in the US' two party system, then the effect of the my side bias is a clear "us vs them" framework. It is conceivable that in a 10 party system my side on issue A could be in agreement with parties 1 through 5, yet my side on issue B could be in agreement with parties 3 through 7, and on issue C my side could be in agreement with parties 6 through 10. In such a circumstance, it's concievable that the perceived difference between each party would be smaller because one might agree on some issues and disagree on some issues with each of the other parties. Further, in a multi-party system, winning elections may require compromising on issues to build coalitions with other parties. In such a political culture, it's concievable that the my side bias may have a somewhat lessened effect on the discourse of the population than in a 2-party system where one only has Montagues and Capulets to choose from. I don't see much nuanced multi-sided discussion around contentious issues in the US, such as abortion, gun rights, immigration, etc. It seems feasible to me that the my side bias contributes to polarizing people's positions toward extremes in a 2-party system where there is very little space for agreement with one's opponent or disagreement with one's allies.

[@justinludeman8424]

One need only read some American scholarship on the state of American politics for example to realise just how broken their two party system is, and we can see the distinctive ugliness of Red vs Blue bias on a daily basis. We see footage of either side interviewed on the streets and many are sheep, only some are articulate, and most are polarised by geographical lines reminiscent of some long past war and arms paranoia... the cognitive disconnections in America are astonishing, the social engineering profound... the elite have you at loggerheads over a two party line, have resurrected racism and gender issues with intersectionality/CRT/trans hysteria - you are the most controlled and readily manipulated nation on earth, and your overlords simply tug strings of race, gender, abortion, class, religion, and guns to set the puppets atwitchin'... It's and not a daft question at all; perhaps those who might question it are getting their nationalist feathers ruffled or simply don't understand the implications of your question? It sure reads that way to me. Some interesting and revealing works include: Works by Thomas Sowell, Noam Chomsky, Thomas Piketty, & Jonathon Haidt: The righteous mind, why good people are divided by politics and religion, is particularly interesting.

[@kevindhillon886]

What a treat this is ❤

[@ponternal]

Its easy to be an athiest if you are an edgy teen. For him to be old and near death and still stick to his beliefs he has my respect

[@donthesitatebegin9283]

Not everybody is a trembling coward, living in fear of a fictional Supernatural Sky-God. I'll bet Dawkins remains steadfast.

[@Tretas.]

@@donthesitatebegin9283Unfortunately, just like it kept happening to the late Hitchens, as an octogenarian Dawkins will begin to get hounded by theists to renounce his views as his physical and mental health invariably deteriorates away and fear/sadness might arise. These people prey on the feeble thus we cannot guarantee that Dawkins will remain such for much longer -- and Dawkins has many Christian friends. Will he be like Voltaire, which when pestered on his deathbed by a priest to renounce the devil he replied _"This is no time to start making enemies."_ Hitchens passed away young with his full mental faculties in order so he told them to F off. We'll see.

[@ProfessorHarney]

“As a trained master historian and a PhD student in the scientific discipline of Psychology, I attest with many others that the natural sciences and the periodic table of elements can’t tell you anything about the function of a state, light, love, or time! The elements of sciences are limited to everything outside of consciousness. Given the fact that we are epiphenomena, this indicates that we need to use our reason and the social sciences to formulate an adequate philosophy in order to formalize a metaphysical ethics (one that is both pragmatic for ourselves, our planet and other species and one which also corresponds to said reality).” - C. H.

[@Ax18NY]

Two of the biggest gatekeepers around. Chomsky is another one.

[@robertburke2246]

Gatekeepers of what?

[@woodygilson3465]

Now, don't we all feel as illuminated as Prof Dawkins' hair for having watched?

[@morbidmanmusic]

No

[@jonathanrosser5200]

Nietzsche, the greatest atheist, would have had a field day with these two.

[@rumblefishes]

Great conversation. Quite the ending.

[@roberthuismans3533]

Looks like all that MSNBC, WaPo and NYT has really worked it's wonders on this crowd. Preach more to me about my side bais daddy!

[@Nostrahomos]

Very interesting, I have long believed that the very most important thing in every single conscious being is the self, the Εγω, this is what gets the various biases, the "mine" bias being one of the most powerful. This is fortunately tempered by our innate altruism and empathy, something that is also a product of our evolution, and as the late, great Hitch pointed out, "we would not have survived as a species without it".

[@sallehandrews6976]

3:12..typical dumb ignorant arrogant the prophet of atheism richard dorkins. University teaches science whch is physical and madrasha teaches METAphysical. When are these dumb atheists going to learn smthing

[@krileayn]

Lost soul meets lost soul. YAWN !

[@krileayn]

@@user-fx6tp3gs8s No brain watches too many videos of lost soul. Try Roger Scruton or Jordan Peterson for big brain grow :)

[@bobbygros]

Can you elaborate? Are you just referring to their atheism?

[@krileayn]

@@bobbygros Mostly yes but also their Scientism

[@bobbygros]

@@krileayn well for a start if it wasn’t for their science you wouldn’t be watching this.. you’d be reading the bible in candlelight if you were lucky, but probably more something like digging up potatoes or rotting in a ditch somewhere!

[@krileayn]

@@bobbygros "Their Science" ? The Catholic Church built the first universities, the first scientists were mostly priests and monks. If not for Christians you wouldn't be able to reply and show your ignorance for all to see. At least research a bit of history instead of just swallowing nonsense people feed you. Good luck

[@johns.7297]

We probably wouldn 't want to know? I'd think the jury system should be subject to an experimental trial.

[@theorisoe3630]

Can you really call these two scientists? Are they not really theorists?

[@psycho6542]

Yes, they both have probly spent more time researching then you ever will complaining

[@missano3856]

Pinker was a working scientist prior to his role as a public intellectual. I don't really know about Dawkins.

[@dankrull9616]

8 adds in the first 12 minutes. Classy.

[@tagjohnson3246]

Having a high esteem for Pinker, I am saddened that, in a discussion about goals and rationality, he finds it illustrative to display such a predicatively uninformed/misinformed and badly mistaken understanding of Putin's motivation regarding the current Russian military actions against the Ukraine regime and Russia's stand against NATO and the US.

[@TheDavveponken]

Why do you hold Pinker in high esteem? He does that sort of thing all the time. It's kind of his gimmick.

[@BUSeixas11]

What do you mean? Are you suggesting the desire for glory and power is not Putin’s motivation?

[@flyingfig12]

I want to hear what these two men have to say but the volume is too low

[@jamesdean6660]

Both of them were on the Lolita Express But I bet there was no harm in that. Anyone saying there was, wasn't there, so they should hold tongue. Leave these guys alone.

[@fishgangstaytps2691]

Absolutely they should. These are two free thinkers who merely express the ideas they came to in their heads all on their own without any connection to anybody or anything that employed large scale blackmail operations... How dare you suggest anything of the kind!😂

[@holadonkey]

if it was wrong for Billy Bob , the Trumpster , Prince Andrews and Alan Dershowitz it's also wrong for these two clowns .

[@rouzah9419]

The thumbnail of this vid has a typo

[@fishgangstaytps2691]

How are these two narrow minded agitators supposed to come even within light years of the Truth?

[@panjandrum.conundrum]

Truth is all that concerns them, actually.

[@scotttrageser5710]

I'm curious, why do you think they are narrow minded?

[@fishgangstaytps2691]

@@scotttrageser5710 They are both champions of a very narrow conception of what is (or even can be) 'true'. Plus, I strongly suspect they are quite unfree in what they do and say.

[@scotttrageser5710]

@@fishgangstaytps2691 I can't comment on how free or unfree they are, only they can. But isn't truth intrinsically narrow? There is only 1 "truth" for any question and while that truth can incorporate a multiplicity of factors, it's still relatively narrow

[@fishgangstaytps2691]

@@scotttrageser5710 Well, truth itself, yeah. But I'm talking about concepts of truth, not truth itself. E.g. a materialist believes that reality is only matter. Thus, every true statement about reality has to be a statement about only matter. That's what I consider a narrow concept of truth. And I can't comment about their freedom either, of course. It's just a suspicion. But I am a suspicious person by nature, I have to admit. P.S.: I'm actually not sure I believe there is only 1 truth per question... I think I believe that actually the question you ask changes reality (and not only in that you have asked a question). But it might change reality only for you... I think I would be agnostic on that. Sorry for being vague. But thanks for asking anyway :)

[@HermesNautico]

43: 34 - "If you imagine having two juries -independently listening to the same evidence- and then disappearing into jury room and then coming back, how many times, would you bet they will come back with the same verdict?"

[@hohaia01]

For a rationalist, Pinker isn't very rational when it comes to Putin

[@machtnichtsseimann]

Neither is Sam Harris when it comes to Trump.

[@marcusaurelius9123]

Putin is a tyrant. How many people has he has murdered? How did he get Ukraine so wrong?

[@irinagarciacotes2139]

Some one know we’re is the study about having a weight poring of que are more closed to the “true”???

[@garypowell1540]

The blind leading the blind.

[@John-qo9hw]

@Vlasko60 you forgot Jesus

[@trolley2327]

Go simp to Peterson 😄

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

You described Hebrew fiction believers perfectly.

[@troyevitt2437]

Dawkins is chatting with Thomas Hayden Church in "Ned & Stacy".

[@redeemedbychrist239]

These guys are very mediocre philosophers

[@spankduncan1114]

They're scientists.

[@missano3856]

Who would be a good one?

[@davidede7778]

The voice of the first question asker sounded vaguely familiar and I thought to myself, “How funny would it be if Sam Harris was just casually chilling in the audience and goes up to ask a question.”

[@dfwherbie8814]

Oh look! Two of Jeffrey Epstein’s closest friends..

[@panjandrum.conundrum]

What orifice did you pull this from?

[@dfwherbie8814]

@@panjandrum.conundrum wait a second? Lol you never heard that Pinker and Epstein were friends? I was exaggerating with Dawkins, he only flew on Epstein’s plane once on the way to a TED talk or something like that 🤢. But Pinker and Epstein were close (Pinker denies but the evidence is out there. You can actually look this up). Pinker also lended his expertise as a linguistic expert to provide Alan Dershowitz a defense against a human sex trafficking law that ultimately resulted in Epstein being released from jail (the first time he was arrested. Also, Dershowitz was Epstein’s attorney). So Pinker directly helped, and was the cause for why Epstein got released from prison. It’s disgusting. The man of “reason,” wave flager of the “enlightenment,” and “progress.” A man who surrounds himself with rich elites, including folks who commit horrible crimes.

[@Dr.IanPlect]

gimp

[@dfwherbie8814]

@@Dr.IanPlect you’re defending a man who met Jeffrey Epstein get released from prison ? Oh, how “enlightened” of you lol

[@marcusaurelius9123]

Guilt by association? You need to learn how to think logically & not publicize your flaws in thinking.

[@kaloarepo288]

If Stephen Pinker had lived in the 18th century he would not have needed to acquire a wig as he seems to sport a natural one!

[@davidwilkie9551]

Well I've got nothing to say, I'd rather just listen to people who know what they are talking about, it's getting harder to find reasonable rationality of this quality.