RICHARD DAWKINS vs BRET WEINSTEIN for the FIRST TIME EVER! EVOLUTION, BIOLOGY, SCIENCE! 

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

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

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.

Both are educated highly but Dawkins is on another level.

I didn’t find Bret’s arguments very convincing. He seemed to be looking for a reason to disagree at every step .

Bret sounds like a black comedian doing a hack impression of a white guy

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

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

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

Was this filmed with a tin can?

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.

My hat's off for "Sir Richard Dawkins. " You have evolved the patience of a "God" 😉

Dawkins is right that we need to approach complex psychosocial phenomena from an interdisciplinary perspective. There's no need to find the biological determinants of psychological phenomena, and we don't even have a good grasp of the relationship between the brain and complex thought, let alone genes and thoughts. Right now everything is correlational and dependent on the type of multi-parameter statistical models that Weinstein doesn't like. It makes more sense to ground the approach in psychology and sociology, while recognizing that human behavior was shaped by an evolutionary history.

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.

Damn, Bert just getting educated here.

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.

Huge fan of both these guys, and from what I'm hearing, we all still have a lot to learn from Dawkins, including Weinstein.

if you havent watched the love letters to richard dawkins videos, dont go another day without them. he reads emails that he gets from religious fanatics. its the best

I keep noting that people seem defensive, rambling almost apologetic at times around Richard Dawkins. Silence speaks for him. A rare gift indeed.

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

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

Wow, Weinstein says a lot of words but says almost nothing. Just a bunch of word salad. Sometimes I feel sorry that Dawkins has to deal with this crap. If you have to say 500 words to say one point, you fail.

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

Dawkins face on the thumbnail perfectly captures my feelings toward Weinstein

No one can step to Richard Dawkins as a biologist. Bow down Brett. Stay in your lane playboy.😎👊

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.

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

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.

Richard is spot on as usual.

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.

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.

Why do we bother with Bret Weinstein again?

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

Which basement did you find bret Weinstein in? He’s had such a fall from grace, what an embarrassment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Am I the only one who thought that the resolution to the peacock problem is simple? Weinstein said that there is a huge cost that needs to be accounted for, but that cost doesn’t need to be accounted for at all. Evolution, natural selection, and sexual selection are not without error and species go extinct all the time. The idea that female peacocks have to take into account the effects of their mating decision 5 generations down the road is ludicrous. They see a pretty tail, they think it makes the male look strong or beautiful or whatever, and they mate with them. What was once a useful indicator to the females as to males that were strong or fit and had good genes, becomes exaggerated to the point of impracticality regarding survival. However, as long as it doesn’t have an immediate negative impact on their survivability, why would you expect any individual female peacock to take that into account? Individual biological organisms are bad at taking externalities and downstream effects of their actions into account. We see this all the time with corporations that seek short term profits that not only harm the planet, but even harm the company’s ability to make long term profits. Short term incentives are overvalued compared to long term ones, especially by animals and humans at earlier stages of developments, because the distant future is uncertain, but rewards in the near future are much more real and comprehensible. If humans are bad at this, why would we expect animals to be any better at it? What begins as a useful indicator for health/survival morphs into something maladaptive. We see this nowadays with humans and sugary or fatty foods. What was once a great impulse to eat food that could help store calories and nutrition, is now maladaptive and causing an obesity epidemic due to our easy access to food in the modern era. Likewise with the peacocks, what was once an indicator of genetic fitness has now become maladaptive.

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.

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.

I believe everyone would agree that Prof. Dawkins' talking is clearer and more succinct than Bret! I mean Bret talks a lot saying little, which is not the case with Richard.

2018? This looks like its recorded in 1976.

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!

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

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.

Wow incredible intellectual discrepancy at display here! Smart and clear Dawkins, twisted and dishonest Weinstein. How quickly he ran away from beaver ponds to Catholics after Dawkins explained his error was so telling:) Bret is not interested in truth, only self promotion. Yet he made it so far with this attitude!

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

It is no coincidence that the places with the most flamboyant males are where there is little to no predation. The benefit of having a proxy for fitness like dancing must outweigh whatever the cost is. That cost is much lower for males as well, since even if most of the males were eaten because of their feathers, you only need a few to survive to impregnate a host of females, which might be why these males tend to not assist with the raising of chicks.

What is this Weinstein talking about?

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.

The really interesting debate would be with David Sloan Wilson.

The mathematical models are correct enough if you understand mathematics. A sphere balancing on a razor is sitting on an unstable fixed point in the space.

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

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?

Good to see the Weinstein's word salad hubris directly addressed. Now debate Wilson.

How can I listen to this if the video is not crystal clear???

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

When Dawkins feels that he is losing the ground during a debate he starts talking about "running out of time" 😂

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

He always says I don’t think we auto go down that path when he’s stuck!

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

Bret Wienstien is mental. There are too many big words. No sense whatsoever. Richard, @you are the best!

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.

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

Weinstein really loves the sound of his own voice

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.

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

Dawkins: an atheist who believes in objective morality, moral facts, morality is universal. a True morality. How? He believes “Evil” is a universal moral fact. Naturalism: it’s a fact that human society invents moral codes for itself. It’s a fact that morality, moral codes, are relative to the culture in question. It’s also a fact that what is evil in one culture can be a moral obligation in another - AKA Cultural Moral Relativism. It takes as much faith to believe in universal moral obligations, that Universal Human Rights is true, as it does to believe in a god.

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

Wow even Richard Dawkings thinks Bret is stupid

Beaver Pond building is something that is passed on from observation from generation to generation. They do it because they saw their parents do it not because it is genetic.? Perhaps …?

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

Dawkins AND Weinstein. Not vs. The thumbnail design is bizarre. It’s as if the person managing this RU-vid channel wanted it to seem like these two were in some sort of intense unfriendly disagreement..

Let's all take a moment to remember where Dawkins stood on things when the madness swept over the world in 2020. He's never apologized. Even now, he stands with the Authoritarians over the people.

What's the science of me disliking Bret's nasal voice?

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

It took me 1hour and 5 minutes to realise Richard wasn’t talking about internet memes and looked up what a meme is according to Dawkins

Anti vax Weinstein on Biology 🤣

If someone didn't know who these people were they would think this was filmed in 1984 with a cheap VHS camcorder.

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.

A great discussion. I genuinely like Bret Weinstein and follow his Channel but I also greatly admire Richard Dawkins. This is an important discussion. I follow the arguments about cultural application of evolution theory but feel we must not get carried away with it. I think there might be a middle ground worth identifying.

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.

The genes which help function in the past will be appropriated into whatever world we end up in. I imagine genes allow for some expressions to happen before others, and how this relates to adult moral development would be a wonderful meld of different scientific fields

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

36:39 I think Dawkins is making the mistaken assumption that if something is explainable through evolutionary terms then it somehow justifies that behaviour which does not. Humans are a special kind of preacher in that we can self reflect and choose or at least attempt to choose what kind of behaviours we wish to, do and which we will take actions to avoid.

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:)

I hope everyone goes away from this and reads at least one Dawkins book: they are all brilliant, life-enhancing, beautifully written, and they will stand the test of time. (Unlike anything said by any of these waffling pretenders.)

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

Is it just me or is Weinstein talking eugenics 2.0? VERY UNCOMFORTABLE

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

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?

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

Terrible video quality along with an annoying graphic at the top of the screen.

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.

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

The Nazarene - the ALPHA AND OMEGA - is the only Truth. The King of kings and HIStory His Bible - is the only way to explain ALL that matters for the individual soul and his reason for existence and potential journey Home into the eternity of the New Earth following the personal trial of this fallen world. Wake uo and learn your place before it's too late.

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.

Is this the same video from 5 years ago just posted again?