Lawrence Krauss Discussion (1/12) - Richard Dawkins
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- See more at richarddawkins.net
Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss sat down for a public discussion at Stanford University on Sunday, March 9th 2008. The focus was on Science education, but the discussion also covered religion, physics, evolution and more. This video will be released on DVD soon at RichardDawkins.net , along with other unmoderated discussions with Richard Dawkins.
Produced by The Richard Dawkins Foundation and R. Elisabeth Cornwell
Filmed by Josh Timonen and Wayne Marsala
Edited by Josh Timonen
It would be great if some people like Richard Dawkins lead the world !
Two phenomenal speakers. I'm a professor in biology at a mid sized university in Canada and regularly teach ecology. Sometimes I feel as Richard is one of the giant's whose shoulders I stand upon. I thought this such an excellent conversation and immensely enjoyed it. I can only aspire to the influence these two speakers have on society. Great job gentleman!
Thank you for posting this, richarddawkinsdotnet.
I've watched this all the way through, it's definitely worth it ; if I had had exposure to this kind of exciting discussion and this calibre of people when I was younger I might have just gone into scientific pursuits. Inspiring and beautiful, thank you very much!
Simply incredible.
I like this new format. Fookin awesome.
What a fascinating discussion! Thanks for posting this!
Agreed.....although I started watching it at 2am, I could not not finish it.
where is the original dialogue between the two that Krauss was talking about around the first minute in or so? (link?)
How fortunate we are to live in an era where scientists like Dawkins, Krauss and Dennet are alive and still effective.
I suggest you listen to the context of the statement again.
You seem to have missed his point.
He is saying he is in the school of though that Sagan taught.
Anyone care to explain why a physicist would be asked about the baseball season? I am not getting the connection. Thanks!
great discussion, youtube has to make a like button that allows a person to like all videos attached in a playlist simultaneously. it's bothersome to have to stop and like each vid individually.
thank you
@thechessstick
Punctuated equilibrium is not the same as the 'hopeful monster' hypothesis. In fact, it is entirely different!
Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis as to the graduation of evolution, not another theory entirely!
Also, you will note that in modern evolutionary synthesis, punctuated equilibrium AND the 'hopeful monster' hypothesis the fact that animals evolve is what they are all attempting to explain.
Keep up the good work.
i love the first 1:30, I completly agree with Richard on my hatred of the debate format lol
@Jasonlittlex Thats a fascinating notion. Religion is part of Human Culture, I dont believe it will ever leave. Look at this way, when Human became self-aware and knew their imminent death was inevitable, there came the need for certain beliefs to reduce this anxiety. Our early ancestors did not have the knowledge that we do today and they started forming organized religions to reduce this anxiety.
Why do many drops of water form a liter of water?
Why, when walking up a hill, will you eventually reach the top?
@Botie2 became Jupiter in Roman. Heracles became Hercules, etc. Unfortunately, the names have become crossed up over the years and are used interchangeably. See 'Gods, Heroes, and Men of Ancient Greece', or Bullfinch's Mythology.
strange how my yearn to learn only happened after graduating high school.
@Botie2 Zeus was not Roman, he was Greek. Jupiter was the equivalent god in Roman theology. Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same god. The God of Abraham. The three faiths are referred to as 'children of the Book.
Religion has never been a part of my life, my parents worked 7 days/wk, they had more important things to take care of. I don't need religion. I was never brainwashed. I am forever grateful for my parents, my childhood & upbringing. I can see the insecurity, fear, and conflict when I look at my religious peers. You can see it just looking at their eyes. Makes me sad bc there's nothing I can do. Religion really is a poison.
It's not about recognition. I love people to call me a geek because it implies I am intelligent, and I respect intelligence very highly.
This was one of the first (possibly the first) public discussion between Dawkins and Krauss. I thoroughly enjoy their discussions without the moderator but have noticed the evolution of Krauss's contribution. Of late I have noticed he interrupts RD to often and therefore doesn't let RD elaborate on his answer to questions. RD is a serious person and always wants to be clear and precise. He never used unnecessary terms or makes things more complicated than they need to be. LK sometimes tries to be funny (which is ok with me as I love humour) but I wish he wouldn't do it with RD. Other than that their discussions always fascinate me. It is staggering that in the year 2016 so many American people still believe in Bronze Age myths and superstition. It is a terrible indictment of the US educational system.
@seansalvador1 clearly u don't understand the mechanism of playlists.. upon reaching the end of a vid a next starts. as a result the watcher doesn't get to like the previous vid without stoping the current and returning to the latter.. that is what the complaint is about
It's not the pieces of evidence that is the issue but rather the conclusion that is made from it. I have read through many examples of evidence for evolution and interestingly the exact same examples are given from creationists. Creationists wear their specs and those who support evo wear their specs.
Charles Darwin was indeed one of the greatest scientists who has ever lived. Not only was he not demotivated by his religious peers, he also went against his own religious beliefs.
@awhislyle
Why? I don't see the harm in having civilised online debates. They do exist!
@seansalvador1 Yes, you just don't know it. As P.T. Barnum said "There is one born every minute".
Basically it's tiny little changes (almost unnoticeable) at each generation that add up over the immensity of geological time. Yes it's hard to get your head around, but it's a fact :)
(2/2) Fish cells are no different really to human cells. They're both eukaryotic cells, they just happen to be a part of a fish or a mammal or whatever. Cells will change their exact function and may differ a little in structure as a result but that's it.
@seansalvador1 Sorry excuse the typo. It should be "We discern truth from not, when . . ." I forgot the comma.
@Th3Wab3
Meaning you would 'like' them even without having first watched them.
He fairly simply explains that his approach is to focus on the wonder of things rather than the useful little things that comes from it.
If you read any of his books, you will clearly see this. Even the god Delusion does this rather than poking fun.
Funnily enough, lit. majors ARE asked to apologise for the lack of everyday practical utility in literary criticism, but it's mostly the hard scientists asking for the apology!
Seems to me the scientists need to listen to Dawkins and Krauss as much as anybody else does.
@bachrock1
The age of 13.7 billion years for the origin of the universe is a very precise and reliable estimate. The age of the earth at 4.6 billion is slightely less reliable as it relies on the best rocks they can find for radioactive dating. It's fairly safe to assume that it won't change too much more though.
I came for Dawkins, I stayed for Krauss
I'd agree that Einstein's conceptual leaps were so radical and unintuitive as to make natural selection seem like a fairly simple, obvious explanation by comparison. With relativity however Einstein was working within a subject that demanded scientific answers. His reformulation's details were unexpected, the reformulation itself was less so.
Darwin on the other hand elucidated a naturalistic, scientific explanation for something which, by common consensus, didn't seem to need one.
@Botie2 I do not necessarily agree that an atheist is starting from a "neutral stand point." We all have presuppositions that potentially cloud our judgment of the evidence. The problem is that theists admit that and atheists don't. But the theist is at least open to both explanations - natural and supernatural. Atheists are biased against the supernatural. In fact, science is set up to accept only natural explanations. But that doesn't make supernatural explanations impossible or improbable.
its 2:02 and I'm in the same boat, lol
Epic Win
@allthingsarelikethis ...who cannot be on the same page of the discussion as I. So yes, we arent debating till you learn what you are talking about.
@no1hoopsman - The Japanese also practise Bushido, holding honour and loyalty as precious as a religious person may see their deity? Not an argument but a thought.
nooo Dawkins is retired???
why else should i go to Oxford???
« I dont think the DEAP oceans »
Organisms in parts of the ocean that don't receive much sunlight are part of the food chain. Disrupt the foodchain, and all ocean borne life will feel the results. On a larger scope, this holds true for the entire Earth's biosphere; any change in one of its parts will affect, to varying degree, the other parts. And the ocean's biosphere happens to be one of the larger parts of the Earth's total biosphere.
@XGralgrathor True ture, I forgot that. But still, I dont think talking about the problem with solve it. And I KNOW for CERTAIN that the people behind these industries are fully awere of what they are doing, so its not a matter of educating them. So im just curios, what can we do? Because in terms of politics you really need practical politics to, not just theoretical.
@chebob2009 depends on whom you ask, in 1990 the universe was,according to cosmologists, 6.5 billion years old, today it seems to be, according to the "experts", 4.5 billion years old, now you've got to ask yourself, whats 2 billion years, give or take?
@Botie2 clarity in the detail? the book of revelations is mostly all about symbolisms. things like "dragons, the mighty Leopard with many heads and crowns" are used to symbolise either kingdoms or kings etc. Revelation is easy to understand ONLY if you have basic spiritual or supernatural understanding. Just like Jesus used parables to explain the kingdom of heaven, this parables re just symbolisms of the actual situation. Like in Matt.13: 24-30
@yuyudude1112
There are actually a minority of people who are undecided on these matters and assume a religion simply because they were brought up with it. Since an active atheists approach should be to argue against religion, it may be constructive in making these people see the logical inconsistencies.
Your comment reminds me not to put too much faith in highly abstract/theoretical scientific concepts. But what the hell do you mean science is "BS with no truth..."? You responded to my comment using a computer and the internet, both of which are technological products of science. Can you really not see the fundamental difference between science and religion?
Does Krauss have an "atheist out" pin on? If so, awesome!
I have a simple, straight-forward question for evolutionists:
Why do you believe macro-evolution is merely an accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes over time?
I welcome short and direct answers. No ad hominem attacks please. (And don't say those terms were made up by creationists because I have proven previously that is not true.)
Thank you for your responses. I am simply attempting to understand your point of view. I reserve the right to ask further questions in reply to your answers.
@MrAdaLovelace Yes, in fact it does. I consider myself Agnostic. Dawkins makes a leap that I will never understand anymore than is do "Jesus" and it is exactly THAT which I address. I think Dawkins' quote in the past goes something to the effect "Why does it have to be 50/50? There are so many other options." The problem is that the atheist view assures us of possibilities, as long as they like the presented options.
The laws made by the supreme brain always remain perfect; they are never violated. We never see the sun rising in the west and setting in the east.
Every law is made by an intelligent brain and behind every law there is the lawmaker who makes the law. We have no such experience of a law without a lawmaker. None. So how can anyone accept the illogical hypothesis that there is no supreme lawmaker.
My point was that there can only be one God. Most religions agree on that. Obviously there are differences between religious beliefs and teachings, as with most things in life,but I personally have no dispute with christians or muslims.
@alfriscobernard right, i'm watching the history channel now and their saying 15 billion on the universe, and 4.5 on the earth and related satellites. i've been out of touch for so long i have no idea how they've arrived at this theory, but I'm sure it will age a few more billion years in my lifetime.
@CamoKhan2000 "And a theory doesn't have anything to do with reality. A theory is a nice sounding fable"
A scientific theory is a description of a mechanism of facts. Theories describe facts, such as gravity. Gravity is a fact, the theory of relativistic gravity describes how gravity works.
That animals evolve is a fact, the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis describes the mechanism by which animals evolve.
Cont...
1 down, 11 to go, this is going to be fun! :-)
And where did you obtain your data that lets you know for a fact that not only there is a God, but that there's only one?
Tell me, how much of science and math do you know, let alone understand
@Humperdink18 The Earth goes around the Sun? Ain't necessarily so. You can put your coordinate system wherever you want. The equations get a little simpler when you put the Sun at the origin, but there ain't no compulsion to put the origin one place or the other.
That should mean that it is more likely to be false. Ancient theories were created before modern theories, and modern theories are more correct. You can't use age as an argument.
@Botie2 Thanks, Botie. You sound intelligent too (music swells). I HAVE given it much thought (even wrote a book about it).
Of course, there are many mysteries we might never understand. That's true in science as well. But I am committed to searching for the truth - mostly by the scientific method. But I also acknowledge the limits of science. Some truths cannot be known through science. Science cannot determine if a sunset is beautiful or explain the love in the eyes of your child.
so badass \m/
You bear a judge against him. It's him or
you. He's old. You can defeat him!
@xBlackEditionx How do you know that when we take all the radiation and matter out of a region of space, there's only dark matter left? We don't even know what dark matter is. And these quantam fluctuations occur in a region of space but space itself came about 13.7 billion years. Before 13.7 billion years there was no space and time. The only thing that existed COULD be dark matter but as I said we don't know for sure. So We can't use that as a reasoning since its at present an unproven theory.
I would argue that gravity is a poor example. We can do repeatable experiments to find that things fall toward the center of the earth every single time. So that is the FACT of gravity. Why they fall is the theory part that explains the facts. It can be influenced by presuppositions.
Now, what is the fact of evolution? Things change over time. Why they change is open to many interpretations - hence the debate we are having right now.
Ah... music is useful... exactly.. for the lifting of the Human spirit!
Correlation does not imply causation.
For example on what?
Stalin allowed the Russian Orthodox Church, to operate officially again from 1943 in an effort to intensify patriotic support for the authorities during World War II and after.
In Stalin's regime the idea was to subsume everything into one centralized aegis, namely the Russian Orthodox Church
@no1hoopsman - I agree, it's not a religion, just noting that the principles of honour are held very dear to the Japanese and would help with acts of ultimate sacrifice. As for 7-7, it could be retaliatory, religiously motivated or both. It rests on whether they reacted because Iraqis were being killed or because Muslims were being killed? The first may imply defence, the latter may imply religion. I imagine that the answer lies in between the two and hence not strictly religious.
I agree I dont come here to listen to the moderators.
In general, the history of communism as a political movement can be divided into two periods: early (pre-Marxist) and contemporary (Marxist and post-Marxist) communism. In the early period, communism may have played a major role in everyday Christianity.
Christian communists trace the origins of their practice to the New Testament
« they will simply move on to the oceans »
They already have. The fishing techniques currently employed to get enough fish from the oceans are the oceanic equivalent of strip-mining, destroying entire habitats at a time. On top of that, we have land-based pollution spilling over into the oceans, erosion resulting from industry and agriculture clogging up deltas, and so on. We've little data on the deep ocean, but I don't believe they're doing well.
the League of the Just ,Christian Communists. This was initially a utopian socialist and Christian communist grouping devoted to the ideas of Gracchus Babeuf. It became an international organization, which Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Johann Eccarius later joined.
Natural laws dont change because unlike man made laws Gods laws are perfect. A law that doesnt change is still a law and must therefore still come from a lawmaker.
WHY WASN´T HE MY BIOLOGY TEACHER !!!???
« they are main producer of oxygen? »
Yes: the oxygen producing plankton and algae in the oceans outweigh the total green biomass on land by an order of magnitude. The oceans are also the most important carbon- and heatsink.
We can lose the rainforests and still survive, but if oceanic life diminishes too much, life on land won't stand a chance. The continents would be barren wastelands in decades.
@Kosiguru LOL :)
No no, I didnt mean exactly that. I think he knows about oxygen, but personally I just thnk that should be the Nr 1 reason for keeping the rain forests. I think they produce 1/3 of the worlds oxygen or something.
just because people couldnt do transplants 500 years ago doesnt mean it's impossible, just cause we cant stop death now doesnt mean its impossible, same goes for fixing organs. In case you dont know they're working on nanites that could do just that btw(at least i read it somewhere). Just cause something is inconcievable for the current age doesnt make it impossible or wrong(i.e. round earth, heliocentric system, stars are not gods, burning people for different beliefs is a crime etc etc)
@BigMikeMcBastard except of course, being a scientist you would have to willingly pick out and discard all the many parts of your given religious text which you knew to be nonsense. Which, would not make you a believer in many of your co-theists eyes.
@MrSmackdab Well it really depends on how you look at it. When darwin discovered natural selection, he changed his beliefs according to the evidence. Einstein on the other hand never acknoledge quantum mechanics even tho, he contributed to the field and has been proven experimentaly. In that sense Darwin was more of a scientist. It really depends on the context in which they mean what they say.
@Wyldwulf Yes, frightfully witty, wasn't it? The logic of your question can be summed up as follows: we don't know everything, therefore Jesus. Does that really need addressing?
« People in the west consume over twice what we actually need. »
True. But even with a very conservative attitude towards food, the planet's population's requirements will soon outgrow the ability of the Earth to provide, if it hasn't already, especially with the Chinese market developing as it is - unless we come up with some radical technological advances, such as vat-grown food, contained hydroponics, and so on.
These two guys are fucking beautiful :l honestly shaping my life at this very moment.
What scientific statements?
And if the finger was fossilized then there wouldn't BE any proteins. A fossil is where the bone has been replaced by minerals. It's like a cast; none of the original material remains.
But of course, you'd know that already wouldn't you? Otherwise you wouldn't be attempting to refute it? Oh, wait...
@XGralgrathor Probably true. But I think that if people stop pushing on the forest thing and just let them chop, then eventually it will be gone (in the hands of private owners), and even if they remove ALL of the forests, I dont think that will raise their spirit to suport the oceans, I think they will simply move on to the oceans and do the same shit.
@seraph101 Yeah and I am always arguing with religious people and gunning religion. But Dawkins uses repetitive cusses and they aren't very effective, I've always liked Hitchens's insults more, as well as his attitude to religion.
Plus, my point wasn't that religions should be let off, it's that Dawkins provokes arguments on youtube because of his huge presence on it, and his attitude.
Oh, you will all feel so silly when the mothership lands and you find out the Galactic Overlord Xenu was really behind it all. L. Ron Hubbard said so. Best reserve your seats on the mothership, Tom Cruise has.
Science!
How can you tell him that? Are you god? If you're not - how can you tell him that "nothing will be shown to him"?
read his book god delusion. he talks about it all. its a good read!
I always work on the assumption that I have average intelligence (average level, not "most common") and need to work on it.
All I was saying is that "geek" is a compliment and not an insult. It's like someone coming up to you and saying "You very intelligent person!".
Only my wife calls me a geek though :-)
Yes, I really enjoy listening to him. It really makes me feel well.
who is praying to the pumpkin man tonight? haha but seriously good video. Dawkins is great and the major issue with the idea of intelligent design is as Dawkins said before, if a human requires an intelligent designer then the designer of humans requires an even more intelligent designer.
That's a good thing, I'd love people to call me a geek.
You say that you have no beliefs, then you claim belief in one god, and then you go ahead and make the outrageous claim that you only rely on factual information...
You're still claiming to have a "reliable source whose factual data is based on observation", yet refusing to disclose what source that is.