This may be a case of more and less sophisticated versions of similar ideas, when I talk to left wing people about this it's all about rights and roles in society, it's only from right wing people that I ever hear that apparently trans ideology means not believing in biological sex but to me it just seems like a strawman
- opinion is more important than evidence Depends on what your goal is. If you want to attain knowledge about reality, then probably not. - we're all entitled to our opinions Yes, but not to our own "facts". The Right tends to be the ones who see any form of criticism as a threat to free speech. - everything is a social construct (even science) Physical reality is not a social construct. Our models and descriptions of it are. - scientists claim to be objective and to study evidence objectively and logically but actually they're pushing some kind of political agenda Good thing we have peer review and replication.
These audience members just don't understand that no one wants to hear the rambling of someone who came to listen. Get to your question quickly and stop wasting everyone's time.
@ronocko that's still technically gendered language but yes what they mean by that is biologically female traits. Like I prefer females as one of the requisites for my preference is having a child. That's not possible with a trans woman. Still a woman in gendered language but not my "type of woman".
That's why he's pushing for honestly evaluating what other people have to say. If people keep discussing the meaning of words, that hinders the discussion of ideas.
@@FlipjevanTiel You cant discuss ideas until you've discussed the meaning of words. I have to know what you mean by certain words so that I know what ideas youre trying to convey and to hold you to some consistency so that you dont try to pull some kind of linguistic switch mid conversation and then assert a false conclusion.
@@ronocko Sure you can, it just takes a lot more words, before you understand each other. However, It helps a lot if both parties agree on the meaning of words. That's why several philosophers start the discussion by coordinating various terms, before they start the discussion. However, if they disagree on specific terms, the discussion doesn't necessarily end there or get stuck on those terms. People can always find other words, that they do agree on, to communicate an idea. If people want to discuss eg socialism, it would be impossible to discuss anything, before they explained what it means to them, because the meaning differs so much, from person to person. If any other discussion about socialism required agreement on what the term socialism means, that would be the only discussion among socialists. And believe me, it isn't.
Opinions are, in fact, physical brain states in the physical minds of physical human beings. Depending on what you're studying, they are, in fact, evidence... if of nothing else but themselves.
@@josefschiltz2192 I think maybe they meant more the left wings perceived defense of islam, coining the term islamophobia for anyone critical of Islam and its spread into western politics and society, the irony being that the authoritarian nature of Islam and its adherents is anthithetical to the very people who are happy to open the doors to them whereas the somewhat religious, puritan right that dont want them will be happy to have womens rights removed, the murder of homosexuals and science denialism taught in schools.
A better statement would be that the left is pro-islam. Look at university campus protests proudly supporting Hamas, look at “gays for Palestine” protestors, and certainly since GW Bush’s “war on terror” campaign in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, where the right saw a battle against islam and the left then sought to differentiate themselves by supporting islam while ignoring the violence especially towards women and LGBT. This led to the false notion that to be against islam was to be racist so to be a good lefty one must be pro-islam, which then one could add to the “anti-racist” political and identitarian ideologies.
Speaking of science. Most people are unaware of the FULL name of Darwin’s; Origin of Species. The name of the book is: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” That is the name of his book!…
Has Richard always been this tediously obstinate? It's like he literally refuses to recognize that trans liberationists are just as self-righteously dedicated to scientific materialism as he is.
The full name of Charle’s Darwin book: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” … This is the name of his book. How is this “good”?
*"This says 9 comments but i only see 3, so within 27 minutes 6 comments are removed..!?!"* ... It's getting worse and happening to a lot of channels. UA-cam has done nothing to fix it.
I disagree with both fellows here on much but am in total sympathy with what they are saying of the attack on science . Remember first they came for and laughed at metaphysics (AIRY FAIRY ETC) ...many thought it was great fun and no one objected much ....but last of all they are perhaps coming for these guys ....sound familiar to anyone ...who will object now ?
The extremes of both sides are anti-science. You have the flat-earth creationists on one end, then the men can magically become women on the other side. Both are absolutely insane.
What an utterly stupid comment. The transgendered have existed as long as humanity. Same with homosexuality, which is seen throughout the animal kingdom.
@@cookiescraftscatsit seems you didn’t actually read the comment. He said nothing about homosexuality or transgenderism. He made a perfectly accurate claim that men cannot become women. That’s a biological fact.
This is true but do u agree that they are the loud minority that can be silenced by the more intelligent more rational and or logical majority if they only speak up and not allow the extreme ends to get their way by playing the game by their rules
Charles Darwin knew almost nothing, if not nothing, about genetic. And this is the man people choose to trust for modern day interpretations of science. WOW!
Of course not. Science has progressed so much since Darwin, but all the discoveries since then have failed to contradict Darwin's basic principle. People, nor science, trust that Darwin was correct. In fact, everyone has tried for decades to disprove him, and failed. Modern genetics on its own confirms evolution.
@ No. with genetics, DNA; he didn’t have the understanding; such as the variety in the finches. Just look at the title of one of his books: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
“The World According to Darwin.” Walter Veith, a German, South African, scientist and lecturer. He was an “aggressive atheist.” ua-cam.com/video/leeS3I_jNGo/v-deo.html
"It's not like language was handed down from a god." Dillahunty 11 mins. Are you sure? No-one knows how language evolved. It's quite remarkable when you think about it. In the beginning was the word.
No one knows how language evolved? Really? If that's the case, maybe it's because it's so obvious that noone has ever invested time into studying it, but I doubt that's the case anyway. Far more likely you're just saying things. Ever hear of dialects? Add time, and poof, separate languages. Same way speciation happens. I know people in my city that barely speak the same language now. My guess is you're so captured by religion you've become blind to things obvious to anyone with the ability to think as an individual.
There is a whole field of science called 'evolutionary linguistics'. They study "how language evolved" from cuneiform (the first known form of written language), to how it evolves today. It even involves the study of how animals communicate. Meerkats have sentries warning the group for potential danger. They have a call for the approach of a land predator and a different call for the approach of a predator from the air. Those calls can be considered 'words'. I can well understand how this could evolve into a language.
Full discussion here: ua-cam.com/video/M_5gVn6G_1Y/v-deo.html
Who on the left states that opinions are more important than facts and in what context?
Um, how about biology? All this crap that boys can be girls and vice versa. That a trans person is ACTUALLY the biological sex they "feel" like.
The entire "my truth" movement was left leaning in American culture.
Everyone who says trans women are women.
@tunes012 wow, my comment was already blocked. I guess the sensitive left had it removed since it was about trans delusion
This may be a case of more and less sophisticated versions of similar ideas, when I talk to left wing people about this it's all about rights and roles in society, it's only from right wing people that I ever hear that apparently trans ideology means not believing in biological sex but to me it just seems like a strawman
How the f’ is Islam “the Left”?!
- opinion is more important than evidence
Depends on what your goal is. If you want to attain knowledge about reality, then probably not.
- we're all entitled to our opinions
Yes, but not to our own "facts". The Right tends to be the ones who see any form of criticism as a threat to free speech.
- everything is a social construct (even science)
Physical reality is not a social construct. Our models and descriptions of it are.
- scientists claim to be objective and to study evidence objectively and logically but actually they're pushing some kind of political agenda
Good thing we have peer review and replication.
Nice, I always love a good Sci Fi convention Q&A.
What is the date of this gathering?
I believe this was summer of 2017 or 18 ..
These audience members just don't understand that no one wants to hear the rambling of someone who came to listen. Get to your question quickly and stop wasting everyone's time.
9:21 “when I hear the word ‘postmodern’, I reach for my revolver” 😂 🔥
Perhaps RD has the better grasp of what is at stake here.
Matt there is a genuine portion of people that do not differentiate their language. They include their sex in gender.
Exactly, Isn't the phrase repeatedly said 'trans women are women'?
@ronocko that's still technically gendered language but yes what they mean by that is biologically female traits. Like I prefer females as one of the requisites for my preference is having a child. That's not possible with a trans woman. Still a woman in gendered language but not my "type of woman".
That's why he's pushing for honestly evaluating what other people have to say. If people keep discussing the meaning of words, that hinders the discussion of ideas.
@@FlipjevanTiel You cant discuss ideas until you've discussed the meaning of words. I have to know what you mean by certain words so that I know what ideas youre trying to convey and to hold you to some consistency so that you dont try to pull some kind of linguistic switch mid conversation and then assert a false conclusion.
@@ronocko Sure you can, it just takes a lot more words, before you understand each other. However, It helps a lot if both parties agree on the meaning of words. That's why several philosophers start the discussion by coordinating various terms, before they start the discussion. However, if they disagree on specific terms, the discussion doesn't necessarily end there or get stuck on those terms. People can always find other words, that they do agree on, to communicate an idea.
If people want to discuss eg socialism, it would be impossible to discuss anything, before they explained what it means to them, because the meaning differs so much, from person to person. If any other discussion about socialism required agreement on what the term socialism means, that would be the only discussion among socialists. And believe me, it isn't.
Follow the money. Who funds the studies and experiments is a great predictor for the results.
Opinions are, in fact, physical brain states in the physical minds of physical human beings. Depending on what you're studying, they are, in fact, evidence... if of nothing else but themselves.
The audio for this clip is atrocious.
Islam is on the left?
? That's what I wondered.
@@josefschiltz2192 I think maybe they meant more the left wings perceived defense of islam, coining the term islamophobia for anyone critical of Islam and its spread into western politics and society, the irony being that the authoritarian nature of Islam and its adherents is anthithetical to the very people who are happy to open the doors to them whereas the somewhat religious, puritan right that dont want them will be happy to have womens rights removed, the murder of homosexuals and science denialism taught in schools.
A better statement would be that the left is pro-islam. Look at university campus protests proudly supporting Hamas, look at “gays for Palestine” protestors, and certainly since GW Bush’s “war on terror” campaign in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, where the right saw a battle against islam and the left then sought to differentiate themselves by supporting islam while ignoring the violence especially towards women and LGBT. This led to the false notion that to be against islam was to be racist so to be a good lefty one must be pro-islam, which then one could add to the “anti-racist” political and identitarian ideologies.
It's neither, it's akin to fascism.
@@MALEXI10 That's my view on it.
Speaking of science. Most people are unaware of the FULL name of Darwin’s; Origin of Species.
The name of the book is: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
That is the name of his book!…
Has Richard always been this tediously obstinate? It's like he literally refuses to recognize that trans liberationists are just as self-righteously dedicated to scientific materialism as he is.
The full name of Charle’s Darwin book: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” … This is the name of his book. How is this “good”?
This says 9 comments but i only see 3, so within 27 minutes 6 comments are removed..!?!
*"This says 9 comments but i only see 3, so within 27 minutes 6 comments are removed..!?!"*
... It's getting worse and happening to a lot of channels. UA-cam has done nothing to fix it.
I disagree with both fellows here on much but am in total sympathy with what they are saying of the attack on science . Remember first they came for and laughed at metaphysics (AIRY FAIRY ETC) ...many thought it was great fun and no one objected much ....but last of all they are perhaps coming for these guys ....sound familiar to anyone ...who will object now ?
What an utter shame Matt went woke. Still value in his old videos. Very, very sad to see. Women’s rights under attack.
The extremes of both sides are anti-science. You have the flat-earth creationists on one end, then the men can magically become women on the other side. Both are absolutely insane.
Exactly.
Science doesn't recognize the perfect male or female in any species because biology only creates everything in between.
What an utterly stupid comment.
The transgendered have existed as long as humanity. Same with homosexuality, which is seen throughout the animal kingdom.
@@cookiescraftscatsit seems you didn’t actually read the comment. He said nothing about homosexuality or transgenderism. He made a perfectly accurate claim that men cannot become women. That’s a biological fact.
This is true but do u agree that they are the loud minority that can be silenced by the more intelligent more rational and or logical majority if they only speak up and not allow the extreme ends to get their way by playing the game by their rules
don't ask Matt this question lol
Doc Dawkins sounds like he has a cold. I know hes getting older, hope its just the sniffles
Too many questioners are trying to start a conversation. Why do they think so highly of themselves? It's great to hear them get cutoff.
Richard evolved to disagree
Charles Darwin knew almost nothing, if not nothing, about genetic. And this is the man people choose to trust for modern day interpretations of science. WOW!
Of course not. Science has progressed so much since Darwin, but all the discoveries since then have failed to contradict Darwin's basic principle.
People, nor science, trust that Darwin was correct. In fact, everyone has tried for decades to disprove him, and failed. Modern genetics on its own confirms evolution.
@ No. with genetics, DNA; he didn’t have the understanding; such as the variety in the finches.
Just look at the title of one of his books: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
“The World According to Darwin.” Walter Veith, a German, South African, scientist and lecturer. He was an “aggressive atheist.”
ua-cam.com/video/leeS3I_jNGo/v-deo.html
"It's not like language was handed down from a god." Dillahunty 11 mins. Are you sure? No-one knows how language evolved. It's quite remarkable when you think about it. In the beginning was the word.
Spoken words have nothing to do with how the universe came to be.
No one knows how language evolved? Really? If that's the case, maybe it's because it's so obvious that noone has ever invested time into studying it, but I doubt that's the case anyway. Far more likely you're just saying things. Ever hear of dialects? Add time, and poof, separate languages. Same way speciation happens. I know people in my city that barely speak the same language now. My guess is you're so captured by religion you've become blind to things obvious to anyone with the ability to think as an individual.
There is a whole field of science called 'evolutionary linguistics'. They study "how language evolved" from cuneiform (the first known form of written language), to how it evolves today.
It even involves the study of how animals communicate. Meerkats have sentries warning the group for potential danger. They have a call for the approach of a land predator and a different call for the approach of a predator from the air. Those calls can be considered 'words'. I can well understand how this could evolve into a language.
Language has been evolving to describe the world we live in. Otherwise God can be real because I say so.