Rationality during an epidemic of unreason - Steven Pinker
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 тра 2024
- Steven Pinker, an experimental cognitive scientist and professor of psychology at Harvard. He has been named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world today.
(Subscribe: bit.ly/C4_News_Subscribe)
He joins Krishnan to discuss his new book, ‘Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems scarce, Why It Matters’ which is billed as a user's guide to rationality during an epidemic of unreason.
-------
Watch more of our explainer series here - • Coronavirus Explained
Get more news at our site - www.channel4.com/news/
Follow us:
Facebook - / channel4news
Twitter - / channel4news
On a positive note, I like this facilitator's willingness to allow the guest to speak, uninterrupted, while smoothly stimulating the guest by plumbing the depths of what he says while preserving relevance to what is already being discussed. A rare gift. New Subscriber.
You can see why Pinker is one of the most influential people in the world; aware of his own flaws, and willing to own them, and as such, an example of the insights he champions.
Every word that comes out of his mouth is utilised… he is so eloquent and articulate…
He's said it before and it is his job but ok
Put my thoughts into one sentence, thanks!
Have you read his books? They're the best written books I can think of.
"The Tyranny Of Words" by Stuart Chase (1938)
'Used,' not 'utilised'! Either way I'm not sure if this is the word you want. Sorry sorry, please forgive me, I'm an audio transcriber who has watched too much Steven Pinker and nobody loves me :D
I've just read Rationality. What a masterpiece! This book should be in each and every school across Europe! And the world.
Rationality requires discipline, desire and knowledge (critical thinking) to think carefully. It’s an investment most people do not want to make. Being rational also requires that one consider all outcomes - which is the exact opposite from motivated reasoning which is innate in all of us. Hopefully more people will be interested.
Unfortunately many people simply don't have the brainpower to learn logic and understand various fallacies. A conclusion I have sadly come to, over the years.
In the beginning was the Word, hence "The Tyranny Of Words" by Stuart Chase (1938)
I attended Harvard on scholarship. I would not go back. Harvard trains people to lie for money.
@@scottmcloughlin4371 here is where rationality should help. So, a university teach people to lie. So all the staff must be complicit because they are all part of the University. All these thousands of employees somehow whole heartedly teach and support this without having an enforced policy and no one ever deviates from it. So, as they teach you to lie, they either have to lie to you, so that you don't know you lied to, or they teach you the "truth" but tell you to lie about it. Since the latter is not true (not all teachers have told all students to lie about the truth they have just learned), it implies the students are not clever enough to know they are lied to (all the time), or all of them are also complicit (knowing they are lied to but all decide to say nothing). Or is this your interpretation, which might mean you have not learned much there. So is it the university or you? What is more probable?
@@fritsgerms3565 Why are you babbling? Are you high on drugs? Are you drunk? On psych meds? Harvard profs lie for money. That's not disputed. That's in the historical record. Stop babbling. Where did you go to college? Babble about your own college.
Thank goodness there are intelligent thinkers in these times. If only more people would listen to thinkers like him, or be given the opportunity and the inclination to do so.
If most of the people on the planet could think like you and listen to people like him, this world would be so positively different, we wouldn't even recognize it.
Excellent- exactly the right prescription to the many ‘catastrophes’ reported today.
Extraordinary! We need more interviews like this.
This is the problem. Some already know it, but too few.
Look up David Bohm
Hello! Krishnan Thank you for your wonderful podcasts. :)
Might add Krishnan has;
A) Obviously read and understood the book,
B) Can put himself in the shoes of another to understand why rationally, others may reject the effort required to be 'rational' which also includes the lack of reward of the emotional instant hit response ( also confirming another hit if in a confirming group), ie unsubstantiated opinion within a group.
C) To ask seemingly simple questions often gets to the root of a concern, even though annoyingly the answer maybe and often is, complex.
D) Thank god/universe for Channel 4!
I think the biggest problem, however, with people deploying logic is simply that it "hurts". the most fundamental logic is to develop ideas that insulate one from the pain of reality, in whatever form that may be given their situation
Completely agree.. humans by design, look for the most energy efficient outcome, We're All lazy in some for or another.. Looking at the state of society these past 5years, l realise that ppl WANT to be told how to think, what to do, how to behave. The ones that discover how to do what the masses want is the one that ends up owning the world.
Oh I do like this man and his thinking AND his ability to articulate understandably, his thoughts and ideas.
If rationality is the use of knowledge to achieve a goal, the main problem of irrationality is lack of knowledge. Therefore, the chaos we’re facing is the result of poor education and critical thinking. The masses are overwhelmingly trashed with misinformation and disinformation created by media outlets, fed by governments and private sectors to manipulate. Lack of critical thinking is also presented in highly educated people who also produce irrationality. Myths, beliefs, conspiracies are there to fill the gap from obscure information and inability to analysis.
Studies on the results from 'The 1,000 Gnome Project' can lead to differing conclusions.
In 'A New History of the Human Race', Dr Nathaniel Jeanson adds historical events to the data and discusses the movement of humanity around the world over the past 200 or so generations.
He is arguing from a Christian perspective - but I found it challenging non the less!
I find he puts rather too much faith in 'free speech' and a 'free press'. . . in a typically American manner. There you go - that's his irrational belief :-)
I think deep down the conflict driving the current strife is material. It would be nice to think reason can save the human race, but there will still be conflict even if everyone agrees on the same "facts"... especially when scarcity is imposed. All the BS being spread certainly doesn't help, but I no longer think it is the actual root.
Professor Emeritus Daniel Robinson, Philosophy and Psychology, Georgetown and Oxford, said in a lecture on healthcare, “If your healthcare is embedded with finance and politics, let the buyer beware.”
What an absolutely delightful listen. There's a lot to be learned from this man.
More of this please.
Pinker is smart writ large. Read his book the Blank Slate more than once and it’s excellent, a real classic in my view. I can see why he didn’t really throw in with Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris and the more feisty atheists, he’s just too much of nice guy though you can bet they would love to have him. Great interview thanks for posting it.
You should read "The Tyranny Of Words" - Stuart Chase (1938)
Rationality means two things: 1. under the same conditions you make the same decision, and 2. in the short run the conditions are the same. (Practical rationality)
Most behaviour is rational just not fully understood, it is short sighted to prescribe human behavior as irrational too quickly and broadly, better to try and understand the seemingly unexplainable. 'Always in an epidemic of unreason' means just as much as we are never in one, we just don't understand our decisions.
I dislike Krishnan’s interview style but I’ll bear it for the gift of Pinker’s clarity, attitude, and knowledge.
Excellent interview, thank you. I'm itching to read this book now.
Man, I feel so smart after watching this interview
I have often used Logic, as a synonym of Rationality. Great explanation, happy to learn something new. thank you for this brilliant interview. 👏
Which means you are mistaken and ought to study more. Logic is a tool with many applications. As Pinker tells us in this video.
You got the gist. He focused on deductive logic (formal) as logic (defined within math). But there is inductive logic as well (informal). So logic is broader than mentioned here. The "great courses" offers several courses by master teachers on this topic.
Words are used loosely everyday, so it's logical not to assume a precise academic meaning unless amongst logicians at work.
But rationality is a quality implying reason or according to logic, while logic is reasoning according to strict principles of validity.
So one is a noun the other an adjective and cannot be used correctly as synonyms.
@@fritsgerms3565 Inductive logic is formal to, it's used for reasoning based on evidence without certainty.
Scientific experiments rely on this method of reasoning, making deductions from sample measurements within estimated error tolerances.
@@RobBCactive I think this is way too nuanced for the comment section and adds little to the gist. Inductive and informal is mostly linked by the complexity of inductive logic and that what it infers is beyond its data. The last 2 decades there has been advancements with inference and causation, in terms of developing a language for it. But most of inductive inference is not formal. Being formal or not, says nothing about it usability.
Bayesian logic is a formal structured branch of logic in conjunction with probabilities. Btw, I am a fan of Professor Pinker, and greatly appreciate his timely contribution to Rationality & Epistemology.
Literally the voice of reason. Thank you.
Of logic.
'Thinking Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman (the Nobel winning behavioral economist) to add to this concerning 'gut feeling/ fight or flight' v slow rational thought.
Loved the book. It changed the way I looked at the world. But there has been some controversies (about some claims in the book). It does not change the gist of the book, but it might be something to be aware of.
@@fritsgerms3565 All books are written by fellow humans, as I am one I understand your comment...Damn cognitive biases!
@@grantbeerling4396 I cannot wait to read the first book a non-human writes for humans.
I have noticed that thinking about being rational encourages me to pay attention to what I say and write, yet of course I do and say many irrational things. Humbly I suggest rationality is not easy but the rewards of approaching mastery are significant. It is like any discipline I suppose.
You should read about meta cognition. Interesting stuff.
After you listen to someone like Steven Pinker and realize how smart he is , it's understandable why he doesn't go into politics !
Logic requires us to identify assumptions or unstated premises. It also requires us to ascertain whether arguments are sound or based on true or plausible premises.
As a non native speaker of English-language, Steven Pinker is best English teacher.
failing ones lack or education, reason and logic, just fall back on intellectual honesty. If you are comfortable challenging your own ideas, you will be more through and honest when challenging others. You have to actually bare the brunt of difficult realisations and changes to ones own worldview, which could be very personal. Which many people are reluctant to do.
It all depends if you care about your beliefs being objectively true of course. Some people are more likely to believe that which is familiar or comforting. Even worse some people confuse that which is comforting to be the same as that which is true.
Pinker is a superb communicator. Krishnan, likewise, is a great interviewer: probing, interested and a great sense of humour.
So elegant!
Brilliant thinker that Mr. Pinker
Excellent in every way!
I read one of the books, Enlightenment Now, that Pinker refers to here but doesn't name, and it helped fundamentally change my outlook on the world. The truth is, as he says, "World gets progressively better over 200 years" doesn't sell many newspapers, but just about every metric you can think of (and my goodness does he provide a lot of them) shows this. I totally recommend.
I'll be buying this book and seeing if its any good.
A mostly interesting interview, I felt we could have grilled Steven a bit more, he was asked about things right leaning people can object to, like climate change, but not about things left leaning people object to, like there being only 2 genders. I also think Channel 4 could have been braver, Steven really nails some arguments about the power of media to mis-inform, we could have explored that more, perhaps considered our rights for free speech and free publication, and how they compare with our responsibilities. There was also scope to debate what happens when institutions conflict with each other that was glossed over. Still, I should say that Steven was given a fair hearing and a chance to air his views, I just think the questions could have been a bit more critical and deep.
Assessing the motives and basic beliefs of those providing information or advice is key.
Though even assessing whether what is said IS true or not runs a close second.
Looking for honest people with integrity to listen to, whilst also checking these providers of information, haven't mistakenly failed to understand the truth.
Then comes a VERY controversial assessment stage... some believe that regardless of CURRENT facts and reality, one's faith provides long term hopes/future realities; towards which we can work - it then settles down to merely being a challenge how to do so!
Very enlightening, thank you. I have 'The Better Angels of our Nature' on the go at the moment - I dip in and out of it. Our violence towards animals and the natural world interests me. I wonder if this has got worse or better? I am hoping, it's better, but it's hard to know this for sure, as increasing numbers of people must have a collective impact, right?
“Modern” humans have been around roughly 300,000 years, and it took all that time until 1850 for the global population to reach 1 billion people. Then all of a sudden in just the last 150 years the population has jumped to over 7 billion.
It’s definitely worse - just in terms of animals killed to eat. 3 trillion PER YEAR now. More animals die in 4 weeks than humans have died in our entire history.
@@24eu Most of them through monocropping agriculture (not grazing -- so don't take us down the path of lab-created meat!). (Indeed, veganism is a wonderful source of irrationality, starting with soil erosion through lack of animals' contribution to soil enrichment; agriculture with non-renewable fossil materials/chemicals killing critters (just smaller ones), poisoning insects and is damaging and stripping the soil).
I couldn't put The Better Angels of Our Nature down. I read it in May and early June, 2015. And, we are better off if you consider that we're about 23 times less likely to die a violent death today compared with Medieval times as a good thing.
The strongest counterargument to that book's primary claim is the fact that animal torment at the hands of humans is today more widespread than it has ever been, meaning the positivity which Pinker radiates is specist. So yes, you've noticed the book's main flaw and perhaps Pinker's main philosophical error.
We need to address critical thinking skills in our schools. Drop religious education and teach rationality and logic instead. The world will become a better place.
We need to drop alot of things in schools.. My grandson came home telling us about lgbt... Wheres the logic in that..
@@hayleydryden8358 I don't see the logic in that either. Your grandson would probably be better off not telling you as the upset it causes you has no real benefit.
@@hayleydryden8358 Part of the blame has to be accepted by your and previous generations whose religious and other beliefs have suppressed, repressed, at worst brutalized at best ignored people of different orientations, skin colors, social strata and beliefs. *That's* why your grandson has to tell *you* about LGBTQ. He himself probably doesn't need it because (hopefully he already) sees those folks simply as people who are his classmates who deserve to be treated decently like anybody else.
We seems to forget that the first 5 years of teaching occurs in homes, not schools. These five years are called formative years. Learning, observation, and deduction then move into structured learning via the educational system. As we have witnessed, some religions do not find value in teaching women, or gear learning to the idea of some god granting the right to tell adherents how to dress, what they can and cannot eat or when and with whom to break bread or what will be taught as a matter of truth or even who their leaders will be per birthright or god anointed power. Anyone not complying is a heretic and heretics will be punished by death. ( either literally or figuratively). And it is not just religious ideology, but the social and cultural environment to which a child has no control. Resistance or questioning that structure may put one in conflict with the hierarchy of power within these structures. What is to be taught in schools is determined by said hierarchy of power. If said power breaks any of these covenants, they are given an “ out” from earthly or eternal punishment via the confessional, prayers or class structures. These heretics to those teachings are publicly shamed, exiled or stoned as a warning to others not to question said authority. Fear is the objective and no system in home, school or institutions is capable of undoing this indoctrination. It is a fact that we have been divided into class, ethnicity, geography , religion, servants and the served, wealth and power structures out of individual controls.
Didn't you hear his definition of logic? The main aim of logic is that conclusions follow premises, ignoring other knowledge. Logic itself is secondary. It and rationality as he said can be deployed in narrow self-interest. Where do the premises come from?
Rationality is one aspect of a good social system , laws and government policies.
The fundamental issue is the proper ends to which such a system is directed. Rationality cannot answer that. Normative moral questions require a different approach. What is good for us? For example, do we need a maximum amount of material goods or what aspects of health care should be provided by the state?
Enjoyed this interview,especially regarding the religious points he made.
The world is great for Pinker and his buddies.
Like Epstein?
@@Laurence80386 exactly
Ivory Tower
This is 🐂 💩
Steven Pinker is a rare example of someone whose communication skills match his extraordinary intellect. He is able to communicate advanced and sometimes controversial concepts in an easy going way that's never condescending or confrontational, even when he is answering stupid questions.
Off topic (my apologies in advance) but as Steven ages he looks increasingly like the lovely elder-artist, Carole King. Not a bad look given that Ms King brings a sharp, balanced eye to her lyrics.
Most of us, living in a dense social frame, decided at some point(im a very racional way) to put rationality aside an go with the tribe that better satisfy our limited needs as an individual human being. That's the true. A human being in need uses very little rationality when it conflicts with urgence or peer approval. So... you will always have a sort of rationality deficit... because you're a human trying to make a living.
I don't think we are in an epidemic of unreason. I think what we are seeing, thanks to social media, more people spouting off radical, dumb ideas. These people had no voice before. Also, there is so much more stress today that more people are angry.
I am currently reading Enlightenment Now and find it empowering as well as enlightening.
There are a lot of quotable facts in there.
Surely the word ratio is key to understanding rationality. To be rational we have to have a clear understanding of the relative numbers.
These guys have started with their own answer on climate change and vaccines. Let's be rational. How many people that have been infected with COVID got reinfected? What are some things that we can do that would have a greater impact on the human race other than climate change. We can't measure it properly now. How can we measure the impact?
That's the journalist who made Robert Downey Jr. out of an interview, right?
"Community as a whole could be more rational than any of its members" @27:24 To me, this is the most lucid and juicy talk I've heard from Pinker. The handful of other talks I've seen seem too erudite and difficult to follow or even a little incoherent, but maybe that's just me not getting it.
Indeed.
Just brought his book of the back of this. Brilliant.
It would help not to call conclusions 'beliefs'. Words matter. Interesting conversation though. Thanks.
Cathy Newman should read his book before her next interview.
These interviews are so much better than the rubbish broadcast by the BBC and even Channel 4 News when trying to catch people out.
believing as many true things,, and as few false ones as we can ,, and consequently using the most reliable methods to evidance our beliefs,, reallity is objective what would be left without man it is not subjective and about what we think or imagine..
disagree with Pinker's assertion that something can be logical but not rational. if a logical result is not rational, then the premises were insufficient/incorrect in some way.
Steven Pinker, please speak with Roger Hallam or Rupert Read.
Thanks.
I got the problem given at 6:40 right immediately. Where's my professorship?
Your next problem.... Reduction of your ego.
Re: conspiracy theories - the problem isn't necessarily that more people believe in them, but that more people are exposed to them, and therefore either worn down or emboldened by them.
A much bigger problem is governments using "conspiracy theories" to shut down speech they don't want to get out.
Look at lab leak, hunters laptop, bidens dementia, etc etc etc...
What impact do flat earth or moon landing didn't happen, even cia did 9/11 really have on society.. as good as none! But the censorship changed an election.
I guess u can argue that the Russia hoax helped swing the election.. but thats bcoz government entitys and the big media groups gave their stamp of truth to it. If it was just democrats on yt or Twitter claiming it, it would not really have an impact.
So individuals should have freedom of speech.. but government and institutions claiming to be news should be held to truth and punished,legally, if they stray from it.
I think one of the reasons that Hedges holds Pinker in such disdain is Pinker's willingness to remain at the superficial levels of some matters he discusses. Case in point is his statement that we need conservatives who will put forth a logical thought process and acknowledge factual findings regarding matters like vaccinations, climate change, poverty, entrenched histories regarding race, gender, sexual stratifications, etc, when, those so-called conservatives who have public platforms are, just like most liberals, pandering to a constituency - be it in a townhall meeting, or a local coffee shop. Someone once said that the most arduous task is to convince someone whose livelihood depends on _not_ understanding something, to understand it. I think most of us can fully apprehend the implications of that statement. Pinker side-steps certain realities with astounding ease by remaining in the calmer, sub-surface waters. I think were we to meet, I would probably like him well enough, but I doubt that by meeting's end the sentiment would be reciprocated.
Pinker is certainly a rational and intelligent thinker who regrettably presupposes rationality as a sort of end in itself - the goal toward which we should all aspire. His stated intention is to improve our institutions and ultimately better humanity. What he doesn't state is his ethical foundation - what his version of a better humanity is based on. Unfortunately, pure reason falls short in attempting to address that problem.
Why should one random clump of cells (Pinker) - since humankind is just a collection of cosmic accidents produced by an apathetic impersonal universe - be able to define meaning, morality and purpose to the rest of the world that is likewise composed of the same clump of cells (perhaps arranged in a superficially different sequence)? To get to a better world we must necessarily be able to delineate what it means to be “better”. This implies that an objective moral standard must exist against which progress must be measured.
Rationality is the naked emperor in Pinker’s world. It alone, to the exclusion of other considerations, proves insufficient as the means to get us to the better society which requires questions to answers that only a much more broadly conceived worldview can answer.
As an aside: Pinker strawmans faith as irrational belief. Faith does eschew rationality, it simply doesn’t rest exclusively on it because, as I’ve just explained, it is inadequate.
Excellent. I Liked the way he took journalism down. Just look at the BBC reporting of the pandemic,
that's not really what he said.
he was actually talking about you making things up in your head XD
Buggering Boys Club
@@thedude9014 Hello Mary 🤡
Yes. We are living in an age of Unreason.
I love these interviews, but this is the 2nd one not directly addressing the social media algorithms that exacerbated "fake news". I simply don't know how you can have this discussion without that. (They touched upon it at end)
Dealing with people, if they are not being logical, might reduce the impact of oneself choosing logic as a tool to interact with them!
Commitment and communication might be more relevant foci.
Folks like Pinker basically serve capitalism and the oppression which goes such loyalty. Basically he believes in a future which has been long cancelled. None of his bright fantasies, written in his books, ever came true... well for a few thousand white men at best. Pinker's brand of RATIONALITY applies to less than 5% people on earth. End of Story.
But that's about persuasion, how do you decide what to advocate?
If you are someone interested in solving real problems, then weighing up the available evidence and drawing rational inferences, testing hypotheses and then making a good case is the rational way.
When people choose hype, make ever changing promises, ignore all criticism, lie and act dishonestly the results cause harm as they fail the test of reality.
@@AudioPervert1 what future are u talking about? Have u even looked at the nr of ppl that have been taken out of poverty by capitalism the last 100 yrs? Or even the 30 yrs since fall of communism.
I'd like to know how he uses logic and rationality in his intimate relationships.
logically? you listen, apply logic later. listen now. you can't go wrong if you actually listen
Saw that photo.
Why it matters ?
Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in the process is logic-and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of [evasion], the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.
The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action. It means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one’s power and to the constant, active expansion of one’s perception, i.e., of one’s knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one’s own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one’s goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one’s convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought-as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, as one’s fullest capacity permits. It means one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one’s convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)-that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)-that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects-that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one’s own purposes and motives-that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one’s knowledge-and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life.
-Ayn Rand
Pinker makes me think of a new version of the Seventeenth Century philosopher Leibniz, only Leibniz as an atheist and not a believer. According to Leibniz, if God is perfectly good, this must be the best of all possible worlds. According to Pinker, collective human rationality works to keep making the world a better place. He then backs up his arguments with impressive statistics. He is right about the statistical trends: there is less violence overall, poverty has declined overall, people are healthier and live longer, life for many is better, although not for all. The problem with his statistically based optimism is this: at some point now or in the future any or all of these trends could reverse. I think it's pretty certain they will. The catch is, we don't really know when. It could be a year from now, or one hundred years from now. All past civilizations have reached their peaks and then declined. I think we have reached our peak, and started to decline. The evidence is all around us: Trump's election in 2016, Jan. 6, 2021, Brexit, the global rise of authoritarian regimes. The United States is no longer a beacon of democracy but more a great power on the precipice of self-destruction. This is like a green light for autocracies like China, Russia, and Iran to go ahead and wreak havoc. Yes, right now, things are getting better - that is, until they aren't.
We are certainly at the precipice of great change, due to various rapidly advancing technologies and the results of our environmental impact. Kurtzweil would say we’re at the knee of the curve of the AI singularity. We’ll see. I think we’ve already let the cat out of the bag. There’s no going back to the way things were in the 2nd half of the 20th century, so if we’re using that as our model of an ideal functioning society, in that sense civilization has already collapsed.
@@MusicAutomation The 2016 election of Trump and the disastrous American response to the Covid epidemic, to me, are the most solid evidence that since the most powerful nation on earth is in decline, this entire civilization is in decline. Technology cannot save us. There are historical cases of people who forgot the use of technologies their ancestors had developed.
All good points. I’ve been thinking along the same lines myself. This whole Trump fiasco is pretty unnerving but just because the US looks to be on the fast track towards some sort of implosion, we can’t count them out. They’ve come back from the brink before. We can only hope I guess.
A brilliant man.
Logic, rationality, structure, organization, statistics, sounds like T2 killing machine
How does ‘rationality’ tell you what questions and goals are even worth asking or pursuing in the first place?
I'm going to use "epidemic of unreason" in future conversation.
Reason is not automatic, those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.
Honestly I envy the irrational, I could use a comforting myth rn
@@KK-lg8uz That makes no sense but ok
@@Lincoln_Bio Think your core belief system, your unconsciousness, cultural myths, the collective unconscious, etc, etc, etc.
@@bernardlesperance742 I am aware of the concept, I literally expressed a semi-ironic longing for the comfort of those things.
@@KK-lg8uz Apparently my original comment was, however.
@@KK-lg8uz Oh so I should be MORE depressed? What fucking brilliant advice, thanks genius.
To be reasonable and rational, we need to understand how the universe works. This brings me to my favourite YT video, the way we think the universe works is the way we behave. There are two choices:
1) There is an infinite number of matter and anti-matter universes
2) There is only one matter universe created by a deity
as no one can prove 1 or 2 , your statement must be false. there's no halfway rational reason to believe either one
@@kantraxoikol6914 your right, our instruments can never detect the very big (multiverse) or the very small (quantum mechanics).
This is why scientists are trying to work on a theory of everything to reconcile the two.
This has nothing to do with rationality or how we think about our lives.
@@kantraxoikol6914 "no one can prove 1 or 2" - I agree. Our instruments can never detect the very big (multiverse) or the very small (quantum mechanics). Just because our instruments can never detect them, and never will be able to, doesn't mean they are not there.
@@firstal3799 "how we think the universe works is how we behave" - LaRouchePac
Many want to fantasize there is only 1 big bang, created by a made-up deity, with a made-up heaven, then pigs, ducks and sheep go there, so we have something to eat.
I'm Irish. I would be considered politically and socially to range from the center to the left of European politics. That would most likely make me extremely progressive across the board by American standards. While personally I believe that Conservatives do have a core ideology (what we already are familiar with is what is best - admittedly a simplification) and usually I would favor alternatives to Conservative policies, I do have to point out a very unpleasant reality. The majority of citizens either do not care, or are not willing to find out, what is actually happening in the world. Most people really only care about paying less in taxes and being able to go on about their lives with as little trouble (and even inconvenience) as possible. It's a very ugly truth about us. And the realities of the world are complex. It takes a lot of time and effort to try to get an accurate picture of what is happening and why and what could be done about it. And we are all flawed and limited beyond certain areas of experience and knowledge. That means that collectively our votes and support of policies can be problematic, leading to serious long term consequences. I'm for both democracy and personal responsibility to at least try to reduce the impact of our own and collective shortcomings. And Conservatism is going to have to be part of the public debate, even if just to provide a different perspective to gauge politics by.
I agree for the most part, but I dont think its all laziness and apathy for others. its
For me its just gotten to the point where there are so many people on the planet with hundreds of millions voicing their opinions and vying for your attention on so many issues that you coukd spend every waking moment looking into both sides of such a large myriad of global issues that you'll just have no time to live a life.
We didnt evolve to know what billions of people are doing and want, its just too much.
I appreciate Steven's nuanced approach and subtle hints regarding a priesthood of climate science.
The question is not so much as 'how to argue with a racist' but how to argue with someone (a much more numerous bunch in the West in charge of key sectors) how to argue with someone who believes there are racists everywhere or perceives, that anyone who would argue this point, is a racist?
19 25 , " started thinking " 😆😆😆😆😆😆
Channel 4 has been peddling irrationality for decades with its extreme politics.
The gender pay gap myth is a very good example of an emotionally driven irrational belief.
So is atheism.
@@patrickkparrker413 atheism purports that there is no evidence for a God. It is not emotionally driven, it's certainly rational and it's not a belief system. Your comment appears to be drivel. What are you talking about??!
@@patrickkparrker413: Troll.
Media, marketing and government make people irrational. So they can also make people rational if that was their agenda
While China, out of economic necessity has been building coal-fired power plants, it is important to note that they are the only nation that has bothered to develop Thorium reactors and, as a point of fact is only moments away from bringing them online. Obfuscatory narratives are pivotal contributors to the current state of global disorientation in which we find ourselves engulfed. While something might be technically true, motivations and intentions matter.
Rationality grew out of the development of written literacy, and in particular print culture, not Socrates or any other oral based environment or dynamic. Pinker always fails to recognize how the nature of the medium used within discourse profoundly influences concepts like 'rationalism' or linear thinking. For example the concept of 'logic' is a completely a 100 percent abstract/detached process, which did not exist prior to literacy. Pinker does not realize that he was raised and was educated through a very prominent literate, academic environment, but this is changing fast within our contemporary culture. This is why the concept of rationalism is being discussed so much now, bc it is being exposed due to its obsolescence.
Someone tell me why Channel 4 News is not covering the case of Julian Assange?
Cos it's not that important
@@Muzakman37 The US government has been attempting to extradite and prosecute a foreign national in direct contravention of their own first amendment.
Please explain why that's unimportant?
5:14. Prof. Pinker, if one accepted a multiple valued logic, one could commit oneself to degrees of falsity, and then be able to admit that one can indeed believe something whose falsity one is convinced of. It is not irrational believe something which is false up to a point, because it can be also partially true at the same time. You would also need a paraconsistent logic.
Rationality is carrying out a task to the best of your capability consulting another or information where possible grandeur is is to Target in to battle with no shield the outcome is not that good
33:13 what if debate was a sport of who won in getting closest to the truth?
Who decides what the truth is then? Exactly there lies the problem...
"Truth" is subjective, only facts are objective.
@@prince-solomon I don’t think truth is subjective (how would you say it is?), rather it’s an unreachable ideal that facts best represent. Who wins in getting closest to the truth would be a probabilistic conclusion that’s decided by the party that doesn’t commit fallacies AND whose epistemology seems most reliable. ‘Inconclusive’ may well be another category!
That is abstract philosophical definition. When someone says truth is subjective, it means in a social world.
2:18 That was odd
probably they cut out some weird mouth noises
Hi Mr Chuck Norris
His practical examples to explain his point were very confusing or maybe it's just me.
If D than 3, then correct answer is D and 7. My brain just exploded. 🥴
The problem as presented confuses us with its use of language, as we know a typical deck of (playing) cards has 52 cards and is printed uniquely, so expect 3 -> d if d -> 3.
This knowledge actually hinders interpreting the problem as a strict logic one
@RobBCactive The reason people get this wrong is that they think "if D then 3" means "D and 3 are always together". They fail to see that a 3 can have any letter on the obverse and the statement remains true. Once a person sees this they also recognize that any number other than 3 on the obverse of a card with a D falsifies the statement, hence turning over the 7 and finding a D falsifies the statement. There are tons of logical problems like this on the law school admission test.
@@mortygoldmacher Because of the problem presentation, the same problem phrased differently to invoke different knowledge is solved better as Pinker explained.
"Always together" is a result of assuming exclusivity and is the same as d->3 & 3->d where the inverse relationship holds.
Aside: Great tie, mister presenter.
Proof for truth
Let us prove that there exists at least one true statement. We will prove this with a proof by contradiction. So, for the sake of contradiction, let us supposed that the statement "there are no true statements." This we have a contradiction.
It really is too simple to need to explain, but it's simple enough. If the statement "there are no true statements" is true then that statement is true AND it is also true that there are no true statements. Thus, the contradiction of the statement "there is at least one true statement" implies that there is one true statement and there are no true statements.
No Unity.
Chaos Reigns Supreme.
Antithesis is in review. Programming can be obscene. There will be nothing remains to do. Or compete with.
Humanism (capital H) with its Humanist manifesto is the ultimate in rationality. The Humanist manifesto is basically a bible with humans as gods.
If I'm bouncing at a bar and someone is clearly under 21 I'll be fired for letting them in to begin with. If somehow they were there due to other factors outside my responsibility I would have to kick them out. Finding out what they're drinking wouldn't solve anything.
What’s your point Brendan? Not sure I understand.
@@Zenhumanist his example is analogous but the example itself is flawed. He does this again in a talk with Sam Harris. While making the valid point that things for humans have gotten better in the past century he uses the example of telephones. Stating that when phones first came out people were worried that they would be distractions from our families and other important things, and how that seemed to work itself out perfectly. His points are valid but his analogies need work.
Seems illogical to allow our present government to destroy Chanel 4 but maybe that’s just my bias.
"I'm shutting you down!"