Eric Weinstein: This makes scientists nervous…

#ericweinstein #evolution #science

Join this channel to get access to perks:

📺 Watch my most popular videos:📺

Follow me to ask questions of my guests:

-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-
Please watch: "Neil DeGrasse Tyson: Plays the Race Card!"
-~-~~-~~~-~~-~-

[DrBrianKeating]

Is the universe a product of Intelligent Design?

[A.M.]

"A new scientific truth does not generally triumph by persuading its opponents and getting them to admit their errors, but rather by its opponents gradually dying out and giving way to a new generation that is raised on it."
Max Planck (translated)

[Thrainite]

Newton was very devout though heterodox. Considering he's had a bigger impact on mathematics and science than any scientist since him, I don't think religious scientists are a problem. The bigger problem, considering the scandals of the last few years at Harvard's biology department, is falsification of results, herd mentality within the community, inadequate peer review, and money. Lots of money. As in "I will never see that much money in my entire lifetime." Some of these scientists are wearing different hats while boarding their own departments making a serious conflict of interest.

[steinfranken]

I am a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design. I can't see how things could have come to be the way they are without an intelligent designer. Nevertheless, I agree with Eric Weinstein that God/Jesus should not be "smuggled" into every discussion. I believe we have to let the scientists do their work and not hijack the discussion prematurely into religion or apologetics. Faith and the theological discipline that it engenders are separate disciplines and fields of study from science. Being different, however, does not have to mean that they are at enmity with each other. In fact, science blossomed in the context of the university which itself blossomed in Christian culture where the desire was to come to a deeper understanding of God's creation. Everything, therefore, is worthy of study and must be done so with objectivity. That objectivity, however, must go both ways. Science must be allowed to investigate without putting a Christian template on everything, but scientist must not be allowed to foist the template of their own "religion", e.g., Darwinism, onto the field of study.

[richarddobreny]

There is also funding bias! When you pay people to find something, they will find what they are paid to find.

[stephencarlsbad]

Every scientist is vulnerable to confirmation bias OR falsification bias. We should be EQUALLY concerned and watchful for scientists who might be motivated to create false data that pushes a religious narrative or falsification narrative for targeted beliefs.

[StatedCasually]

Scientists have been discussing what Eric calls "perception mediated selection" for over 100 years. The general term is "biotic selection" and has been in use since at least 1908. The evolution of lures (as in the clam and the flower Eric mentions) are examples of "aggressive mimicry", a term coined by Edward Poulton in 1892. Mimicry, in general, evolves through a special type of biotic selection that remained unnamed until the 90s, but is now called "sensory exploitation".

I imagine Bret would not like that Eric is pretending Bret came up with all these ideas, since they are staples of evolutionary biology almost from its start.

[russellsacks]

Pseudo-copulation; that pretty much sums up a good chunk of my adolescence.

[zedek_]

Is this what we're doing now? Pretending that when someone says "intelligent design" they aren't talking about a god magically poofing things into existence, but rather, somehow contorting the tricking of a fish to be "intelligent design, " rather than literally just being the normal selective pressure of natural selection i.e. the more fit tricky mollusk is able to care for its offspring better.

You're just trying to shift the perspective here and claiming the fish is "intelligently" *designing* the mollusk, rather than the more realistic and evident fact of a given mollusk being better fit to propagate, thereby continuing the natural selection process.

[Dmidnightmachine]

I love these conversations because it gets quite frustrating not being an atheist or religious, yet seeing there is something much more to the universe and its life.

[bertpineapple]

1. Mutated mussel creates floppy lip.
2. Bass eats lip killing mussel but inhaling its young. Advantage mussel and Bass as bass gets a meal and young bass get a meal and distribution.
3. Mussel evolves ability to survive its lip being eaten. Advantage mussel & bass.
4. Mussel evolves ability to keep its tissues intact. Bass loses its meal but still provides blood meal for young mussels. advantage mussel only
5. Mussel makes tissues more attractive to bass because lip no longer a food supply for the bass. Advantage mussel only.

A similar obvious route doubtless exists for the orchid example. Nice examples but no sign of intelligence needed by any of the organisms involved. Not sure what point Eric was trying to make here.

[tracyli]

I am confused. Aren't the examples provided about "intelligent design" examples of artificial selection by human breeders? In terms of "perception mediated selection", it still falls under the bigger umbrellas of natural selection and sexual selection of evolutionary biology, whether you are talking about eagle's vision or camouflaged flowers. Its a subset of Darwinian selection, not a supplement or replacement.

[ruffmeow]

I've always wondered how statistically possible it was to evolve complicated life - it just can't be totally random

[heartpath]

One thing is for sure. History will look back upon us and our understanding of reality as being primitive, coarse, and mostly incorrect.

[vagabondcaleb]

I like to think that the insect knows and doesn't care. "Dang that is one sexy flower" [quickly checks his six as he unzips his trousers]

[danmartens]

Shocking that Scientists would censor dissenting ideas.

[KDawg]

Why use the term "intelligent design" in this way? Just to confuse people? Because you could come up with (or use existing) terms very easily instead.

[Jackripster]

What are people afraid of, everything should be questioned anytime at all. This what the Galileo case proves, no book should ever be closed.

[Mindmartyr]

I think the implication believing in God means you have to deny science is one of the most pernicious lies our generation has been fed.

[traceybaldwin]

Just because someone rejects evolution theory doesn’t necessarily mean they believe in the “creation” according to the Bible.