The venue only allowed an "archival level" video to be produced. Sorry for the low quality. JOIN US IN NYC ON JUNE 1st for ALEX O'CONNOR vs DINESH D'SOUZA on "IS THE BIBLE TRUE?" Tickets available here: www.pang-burn.com/tickets

This is my favorite discussion with Richard Dawkins yet! even though he is uncomfortable talking about some of the topics

Mathematical models. "I have two problems" he says. And they cam be summed up as 'not enough information' and 'too much information'. Dawkins is absolutely correct to say that the solution is 'better models' and not to abandon math.

Bravo on organizing this discussion!! Looking forward to more!

I´m a big fan of Richard but why would nationalism not be (at least partially) explainable through biology? Nationalist is extended tribalism and later one is a biologically evolved feature. It´s a pity to see Richard getting so impatient about ideas he disagree on. Bret seems to have a point about the extended phenotype/Memmes, too.

Wife: You don't love me! Me: I'm familiar with the fallacy.

I would have really liked a cultural anthropologist joining this conversation, especially in the final stage

This is a lesson in logic and wisdom brought to us by Dawkins.

Amazing! I'd love to see a another if yalls can make it happen

I think Dawkins is actually right here about trying to find a Darwinian explanation of these social/political issues. It’s like trying to describe the ingredients of a cake in terms of the chemistry of the paper & ink on which the ingredients were written.

Good talk. I watched for Dawkins and admit I was expecting to disagree strongly with Weinstein, but I have to admit that was a thought provoking exchange and he makes some very good points on some very interesting topics. I'd like to see more respectful exchanges like this in future. Another point for Pangburn as a good channel to get good content through.

And when you separate memes/ mythology from humans, they fail to replicate the same way if the ponds dried up for the beavers.

Would love to see Weinstein have a chat with Sheldrake.

Richard and Bret, regarding the topic of plumage of male vs female birds, I'm quite surprised that you overlooked a significant component of the theory of evolution. Evolution never stops. So I posit that peafowl are still evolving and their current genes may be merely a step with flamboyance is an interim trait that is probably not sufficiently a threat to contued robustness of their species to warrant focused change. Of course genetic changes are random but I'm sure you understand my point. Best regards, David By the way: MİT class of 1961.

Thoroughly enjoyed this and lots covered. I think we were getting to some very key things from which id love to hear more from both of them. I really respected Richard Dawkins saying how answers in certain realms were likely best discussed in other domains. We were getting into how religion fits with all of this. Im curious how Richard Dawkins uses the word 'delusion' for example (a psychiatric term) in his book The God delusion but yet Psychiatrists dont agree with this nor have changed anything from his book. Im not sure about his approach to religion and just seeing it as pathology is at all helpful and i think thats what we were getting into. So great we get to watch stuff like this. I learned stuff from both of them. More please:)

This is wonderful and I feel I understand all of what they are saying. Well done

Brett would not accept that he was formulating a non-Darwinian question and kinda demanding a Darwinian answer. Richard told him about three times and Brett would not move on. Overall, much better than the Peterson / Dawkins conversation.

The answer to Brett’s question about why big answers in Biology have not been answered is partly because the funding structures today have been politically motivated with professorship being given to people for representation purposes and giving platform to people who help industrialization of biology rather than those who pursue knowledge not position.

24:20 this quote is insane, idk how people can be so smart yet so radical with such takes

anyone who is against using math clearly cannot do math. math is simply a language so to say that math is not speaking is simply stunning coming from an educated person.

What exactly does Dawkins mean when he describes some of Weinstein's views as "not helpful". It sounds to me ike he is saying they may be true but are still not acceptable for moral reasons. Is Dawkins a closet priest?

Felt like I was watching the Golden Globe awards when the audience applauded following Bret’s mention of eradicating genocide.

Even the most esoteric debates can become quite contentious.

In considering the Peacock issue, could it be plausible that the female observes the male peacock's feathers and contemplates, "Perhaps these feathers serve as a deterrent to predators"? Consequently, longevity genes could be transmitted to male offspring. The notion of a "little advantage" presupposes a broad array of Male Peacock genes available for selection, whereas in reality, only the most robust genes persist. Thus, the dismissal of female vigilance as having no value does not apply.

I respect Richard Dawkins at the point when he says the answers belong in a different domain.

The reason for that stagnation in science is Dawkin’s answer for its reason, “perhaps we got it right”. You dont even get science “right” (at least only once, and we aren’t nearly there), you simply get less wrong with each new discovery.

The really interesting debate would be with David Sloan Wilson.

Here, we are giving opinions grounded in our belief systems whilst science exists and continues to reveal the wonders of creation.

Is it possibly time to use a new camera for Pangburn, as in, at least 1080p?

At this point I don't see why we're even having debates about this. If the theory of evolution isn't true then the entire scientific process would be so fundamentally flawed that basically every other theory and scientific fact would be too. To the extent that we couldn't have modern medicine, communications, Internet, the oil industry, chemistry etc etc. Some people just have a fundamental "feeling" that they want their life to mean more than just the material. They cannot accept that's all there is. They want to feel special.

Weinstein's introduction can be interpreted as "I am going to say some idiotic things and I claim the right to say them."

The psychosis of evolution leads to eugenics. Bret alluded to this.

Public intellectuals have as primary role to say things people will understand. Bret, as well as his brother Eric, is trying to loose people in rethoric to appear smarter than he is.

I have the utmost respect for Dawkins, and I have nothing of the sort for Weinstein. Dawkins concentrates on genes, Weinstein talks about memes (also defined by Dawkins) and doesn't know the difference. Weinstein's phenotype will not survive into the future.

Well , a big problem regarding stagnation is that a large part of current research doesn't support the main tenets of the theory without an enormous amount of ommissions and some bias speculations.

Both are educated highly but Dawkins is on another level.

I’d suggest to not use a venue that doesn’t allow professional video being taken anymore.. especially not for such a great debate

We do share a common ancestor with fish. In fact, we share common ancestors with ALL life! Mushrooms, alfalfa sprouts, flies, birds, and yes, apes (we are also apes). Educate yourself.

To disagree one does not have to be disagreeable, by diminishing others to secure a supposedly winning point only serves to prevent an open minded examination of a valid path to achieving a shared reality/truth. Kind regards Tim

50:17 plus this practice prevents parricide. It's match with the idea of inverting material legacy if you look at it through long term pattern recognition.

It doesn't seem obvious why there's more species around the equator? Is sunlight not crucial to biology?

Weinstein thinks he is way smarter than he actually is...at times I think Dawkins wanted to say he was full of shit!

thank god we have intellects like these

Oooo... got very chilly there at 30mins...

Classic: I believe this was one of my first introductions to Bret Weinstein. During this debate Bret included religion itself as what Dawkins called "the extended phenotype." So many divisions since the covid debacle, but I wound up sticking with Bret. Thanks.

I don't like the unwillingness of Dawkins to engage in the social discussion with evolutionary terms. I know that it feel wrong because it has been used in the past to falsely reason about human existenz and stuff like that. But I think it's important to acknowledge that everything we do is tied to our biology. I think that Dawkins is a proponent of the moral landscape. If that is true than he should have no problem acknowledging the importants of our biology in everything we do while also arguing that that changes nothing about how we interact and see each other. It could also be that I just fundamentally disagree with Dawkins in what way Darwinsm is linked to social behavior and human interaction but I don't believe that because I would think that he would acknowledge that humans were and still are influenced by evolution and therefore Darwinsm. Edit: I hate this attitute of Dawkins that we are above Evolution. We aren't... Yes we ourselves can increase our lifespans because we have technology that allows us to do it dispite our genes not changing that much. But I'd argue that that is just Evolution in another way. It's not our environment adapting us but us themselfes that adapts us. It's still nature adapting us because we are not seperate from it. Nature is reality. Not something abstract outside of human existenz.

33:00 what I appreciate about Dawkins is that he recognizes a charlatan when he sees one

4:26 Things like (Manganese & Boron) which dramatically increase mutation rates, are far more water soluble in warmer temperatures. Fewer lifeform species survive near the poles.

Richard just wants solid answers to pressing questions through science and Bret just wants to be an internet sensation through smug verbosity and cringe.

Dawkins' suggestion that social/political issues are outside the scope of Darwinism, started to sound suspiciously like he subconsciously believes in the divinity of humans 😁 Great conversation.

My opinion at the end of debate is that science and culture/politics can’t be divided. While Dawkins may wish his idea are not taken as distinct they are built on the world he was brought into; they on on the end of they are. His attack on religion may on religion may be the result on his individual Darwinian effect has affected him. His ideas do not represent reality, but rather represent his genetic disposition. This is weak in so far as they ignore Darwin as is theory focused on species rather than on genes.

I think this is often a blurred issue, some of the human traits such as suicide are less prevalent in the wider animal kingdom, more often than not suicidal thoughts are present in persons who feel for one reason or another that they don't belong within society. I don't think there is a genetic marker for Suicide, this is the complex psychology of the human condition and it is why we ponder and philosiphise on why we are here. Evolution is essentially a force that we don't consciously participate in, but we have it done to us.

Whenever I see Bret on equal footing with celebrated scientists I have to remind myself that America is the only place where the milk rises to the top.

Weinstein doesn’t really understand models, which is worrying. A model is tested against reality which gives us the boundaries of its validity. Attempting to apply the model outside of these boundaries is a mistake on the part of the user, not a fault of the model. Models improve as we learn more.

Question how about the work of David Berlinski, David Gelernter, and Stephen Meyer. Which proofed with computer science coding that life from a single cell organism into complex structures is impossible with the amount time given. Further evidence shows using computer models using dna genes mutation models that as well. They agree on small scale evolution but the evidence shows not all life came from a single cell organism through genetic mutations.

At risk of wading in controversial waters we might propose a couple of researchable questions to generate a “new” theories related to the biology of homosexuality: specifically to provide a framework for why right handed males with more older brothers have higher rates of homosexuality. One question might be “What is the relationship between a father’s declining testosterone rate and/or the mother’s reduced sexual attractive phenotypical traits as they age and the development of more feminine traits in younger boys with large families of brothers?” And “What is the relationship between homosexual play in male youths (which often occurs in males who often go onto develop heterosexuality) and the comparative rate of homosexual play in a male youths with more older brothers?

Bret Weinstein reminds me of when Chomsky talks about intellectual charlatans. I can only imagine Weinstein trying to explain tying your shoes to a 5 year old.

This is not a "meeting of great minds", as Bret is nowhere near the level of Dawkins, and I'm not sure why he even deserves to be given such a debate. There are much more deserving biologists from the US that should be debating Dawkins instead. AFAIK Weinstein's rise in popularity is mostly due to having controversial culture war political opinions, and not due to any work in biology.

I'll take this opposite to pay my respects to Dan Dennett whom we just lost. Richard and Him are among my heroes. He's gonna be missed.

the problem with the internet summed up in one episode....a guy with one peer-reviewed publications (and few citations) and a lot of misinformed BS to his name, is given a platform to debate an actual leading scholar in multiple fields of inquiry who has authored hundreds of peer-reviewed journal publications and scores of books , and who's work has been cited hundreds of thousands of times.

I feel like Bret is just on a mission to argue with Richard or to catch him in an “aha!“ Moment or something. Just doesn’t seem very genuinely interested in the conversation. When you watch Richard, he stares intently at Bret, listening to his every word. Sorry Bret, you’re not smarter than Big Dick Dawkins.

Weinstein is not very well published on this kind of thing. I only saw a handful of journal articles with an extemely poor H index that would not get you a position at any university these days. I guess there is a role for just teaching, but you keep sharper with publication and research and it show I think

If we live within a fractal, that has some force on us, call it whatever you want, whatever is expanding this whole thing or whatever. Maybe that is where science and what is called spiritually can combine

Wow. I’m a huge fan and follower of Dawkins and I’ve never seen him appear to be so intellectually challenged. Fascinating.

When I try to get them to admit that they believe in the garden with the magic tree, the tower of babble, the exodus, the man living inside the giant fish, and the 600 year old man and the great flood, they never want to admit to believing it 😅

Brett only wants a mathematical model that explains why Elon blocked him on Twitter 😂💀

It's interesting how we understand the word "mutation". Biological mutations, mutations of genes are accidental, obviously, nobody plans these mutations for some aim. Whereas memes, understood as information in the form of ideas, are often changed deliberately, with some purpose planned for them.

13:30 because it's selecting for the ability of the female's eyes to finally distinguish different colors, sizes & textures. Thus the female with the best eyesight selects the most colorful male improving the eyesight of the female posterity. lol

Is it just me or was that the most uncomfortable conversation I’ve ever heard? I almost started sweating.

It blows my mind when people say evolution is ridiculous, while they believe in talking snakes and man created from a golem spell. But Yeeaaah evolution is the crazy idea. Its like astrologist telling astronomers that they are dumb, and not seeing the irony

Resources come here! Where ye came from? From thy Footstool! Well said!

Anxiety inducing layout with how close the top image is to their heads lol.

Richard knows his lane but Bret is unfortunately wrapped in hubris much like his brother. The bubble he lives in with Heather has cause myopia.

I love Brett like a family member.

Was this before or after Bret Weinstein completely lost his mind over covid?

Dawkins is satisfied by his understanding of the universe. Brett is not satisfied. Brett is a more sophisticated scientific thinker and a more sophisticated religious thinker. At a deep enough level the scientific and religious become the same discussion and the dogmatic ones always reveal themselves by being dismissive of an idea without contending with it. Dawkins is the more dogmatic of the two.

Admittedly, the concept of evolution seems fantastical to lay persons like myself, but creationism seems even more so. Someone should ask creationists what they think the so-called acts of "creation" looked like? Did the first two of each species of animal just suddenly appear out of thin air?

What about this "it is not helpful to think about this" argument? How can you simply ignore this? Why shouldnt we at least find out if the points are relevant to look at or maybe even true?

The idea of having an intellectual debate with people who believe in magic! Religion is the main reason we lost 1000 years of human progress after the fall of th Roman Empire!

What is this Weinstein talking about?

Damn! How have I not seen this??!! Prediction: Richard educated Bret. Bret rejects evidence...

Religuous folk: "Evolution is fake! Humans do what we do because God designed everyone!" Meanwhile, Evolutionists: "Lets ask some really uncomfortable questions and see if we can solve actual problems with humanity".

I’ve listened to this multiple times and at first thought it was so obvious that Bret was more progressive but now understand that this is not Darwinism

If you can't answer a question year after year, it's very likely you're asking the wrong question.

Why does anyone take Brett Weinstein seriously, especially after he's revealed himself in recent years at how poorly he reasons.

Hmmm, Bret veers into linguistics first language acquisition territory, a well understood territory, and overlays an evolutionary "purpose" to why children can be native speakers in two languages.

I came here because a netflix documentary that insult my inteligence and Commons sence

There’s nothing wrong with nationalism.

Dawking attributes many human atrocities to religion but will not discuss Darwinisms negative effects on humanity.

Z28.310 Dawkins missed on the 19. That is an understatement.

Ngl Richard Rorty would put an end to the shenanigans of both participants

Man, what happened to Brett in the last few years. It's so sad. I just heard him making a point about an huge number of Chinese looking people crossing the border. Does he realize that by making such conspiratorial claims, he is triggering that same tribal mechanism in one group of people vs another group, that was responsible for genocide in WW2 and most other conflicts. He was saying something like "hordes of male Chinese citizens of military age are marching across US borders". What kind of effect will that have on the local population? How will they act against these immigrants? Could that be abused in a violent way? Something happened to him during COVID and he completely lost it. The guy who speaks here would never say something like that. Or would he? I would be curious to know if by 2024 he now supports that "cynical" individual who won the election in 2016?

I'm beginning to think that Weinstein doesn't understand darwinian evolution.

I wish you all could have used a decent video camera. Did you use an iPhone on a tripod?

About Genocide: It seems to me that biology, psychology and sociology are closely linked here. I assume that the urge to behave as a national impulse-driven person and therefore to support something like genocide can be explained by self-insecurity. A person's psychological stability begins in childhood, and as long as a child was brought up in stable circumstances, both biological parents were able to manage many years of upbringing at their own sacrifice, did not develop drug and other addictions, ate, slept and worked sensibly, invested in their couple relationship and other visible adult relationships, they gave the child everything it needed for self-security. This also requires several decades of economic security. Insofar as this is given, a person who has grown up under such circumstances is far less likely to allow himself to be induced to live out a national tribalism, because he has experienced enough familial tribalisation. However, economic insecurity, coupled with family insecurity, adds to individual insecurity and makes people susceptible to seeking protection from those who hold the strongest weapons. Which could mean accepting genocide,, without being the ones to actively kill but let the killing happen.

Dawkins diminished himself by sharing a stage with that joker.

Anti vax Weinstein on Biology 🤣

Thank you for continuing to think, Bret, & questioning doxa in order to learn. I so appreciate you not living by codes & believed commands, and instead by curiosity & inquiry. Clear demonstration of science (Bret) vs scientism/religion (Richard)

Catholics are eusocial. Nuns are drones! I'm amused. And yes, it's memetic or meme-level rather than genetic. And it's so refreshing to hear memes being discussed in proper context and meaning. It's such a fascinating concept and area of study. So much more than funny cat pictures.

why is he on the stage with that bret weinstein - different leagues