Robert Wright interviews Steven Pinker (1/7)

[Tom45931]

"Is there really any evidence that the brain is a result of evolution?"

Yes, yes there is such evidence

..wipes eyes...

[stalinist666]

Is there really any evidence that the brain is a result of evolution? The co-founder of evolution itself, Alfred Russell Wallace, was convinced that the brain was far too complex to have evolved in response to environmental imperatives, and that there must have been some divine planning involved in its creation. This is a rational position, but many Atheists will actually ignore reason if it points them away from a secular position - which, in my opinion, is a hypocrisy equal to that of religion

[BLacanette]

@stalinist666

Atheists aren't ignoring reason, they are ignoring convenient explanations that have no evidence to back them up.

[pawsoned]

/cont./

was mind-numbingly uncritical praise that he receives devoid of any substance whatsoever. I put it down to the atheistic community on YT that worship Dawkins, Pinker, Dennet et all simply because they're atheists and that's why I speak up.

[Happypast]

@pawsoned I don't think that's true for Pinker. He doesn't really focus on atheism that much. Yeah the computational theory of mind don't leave much space for an immaterial soul but that's not because Pinker wants it to be so. This is a direct quote from the blank slate "The point of this section is not [...] nor to condemn religion or argue against the existence of God. Religion have provided comfort, community and moral guidance to countless people,"

Not really militant-atheist talk eh?

[pawsoned]

@Happypast /part1/ Doesn't he endorse atheism together with the new atheists like Dawkins et all?

Doesn't he speak against religions, first and foremost the Christian ones?

Consider this from How the Mind Works p.440:

Leninism, Nazism, and other totalitarian ideologies always demand a new loyalty "higher" than, and contrary to, family ties. So have religions from early Christianity to the Moonies ("We're your family now!")...Matthew 10:34-37 ...When Jesus said "Suffer the little children.../tbc/

[pawsoned]

/part2/ cont.

to come unto me," he was saying that they should not go unto their parents.Successful religions and states eventually realize they have to coexist with families, but they do what they can to contain them, particularly the most threatening ones."

P.S.: sorry the quote is not from How the Mind Works, but from 'The Language Instinct", pp.439-440.

[Happypast]

@pawsoned I think it's a big difference between trying to understand the psychology of control that many religions use and being a militant-atheist with the primary goal of converting people to atheism. He's an atheist yes, but that's not his focus. People don't like him because he's an outspoken atheist, they like him because he's a good scientist and voice of reason. Some people may admire i.e. Dawkins simply because he's an outspoken atheist but I think very few have that relation to Pinker.

[pawsoned]

Happypast I agree with you that he's a GOOD scientist and his focus should be on science indeed. Atheism may be his worldview and I have nothing against people holding such beliefs but imo when scientists speak for a certain worldview they present their own personal values that lie outside the scientific realm per se. I think that Pinker cleverly intertwines both in his writings and vids on YT. Moreover, his own original research mentioned in his books is very scarce, don't you think it unusual?

[Happypast]

@pawsoned no. the books I've read (reading how the mind works and have read the blank slate) are good and I see no reason for why it would have to be his own research.

As for his own personal values I just don't see that at all, (ok, maybe the Art chapter in the blank slate) Pinker is unusually politically neutral and I just don't see it at all. What are these personal values that lie outside the scientific realm that he's trying to sell us?

[pawsoned]

@Happypast Well, it seems to me that scientists do research, don't they?

The fact that Pinker writes bestselling books popularizing science (of other scientists) instead of focusing on doing his own experiments diminishes his scientific validity as far as I'm concerned. And don't pretend that Pinker is a lukewarm atheist. He is involved in fighting religion. Just watch more vids on YT.

[Happypast]

@pawsoned By what logic does not doing research diminish the validity of the science he's presenting. I don't see how that follow. And I have watched a lot of other videos, he's rarely focused on religion. It's just not his main thing, don't pretend that it is. Again, people don't like him because he's atheist, they like him because he's sane and rational and he does a good job communicating interesting and important ideas in psychology, cognitive science and much more.

[huwrj]

@pawsoned Nonsense. Science contradicts the Bible. Science says virgins don't have children unless fertilized in vitro. Science says that men can't walk on water and part the Red Sea and that men can't ride a horse up into heaven like Mohammed, and that if men have dreams about God speaking to them then that is a psychological phenomenon, a neurological state, no more. Science has also completely disproven the Bible's version of biology, astronomy, chemistry and cosmology.

[huwrj]

@pawsoned Religion wants to claim special exemption from scientific and philosophical analysis by claiming to be supernatural and beyond the natural universe. That's just unacceptable in the 21st century, because religion draws its "authority" from supernatural claims and religious leaders seek power, influence, and subsidies in the form of tax breaks here in the natural world, they seek influence over their fellow evolved mammals. Therefore their claims about reality are fair game for science.

[bg420fl]

THE SOUND SSSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUXXXXXX­XXXXXXX

[pawsoned]

Mr Pinker is just another modern day sophist and his pseudo-explanations are a whole lot of hooey that befuddle other people by constructing false data and presenting them as a scientific fact that is seemingly irrefutable. Who is he really? Not a philosopher or a scientist but only a linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like.

[BrightEyesDavid]

@pawsoned Do you have any examples?

[pawsoned]

@BrightEyesDavid Sure, just read his books and you'll see in what way he uses data, as e.g identical twins. Although I've read "The blank Slate" and watched numerous videos never did he give a concrete result of any of such study, but only presents a cartoon drawing and an anecdote about one guy raised in a fascist family and the other somewhere else. Reading his linguistic conundrums is a waste of time. You can learn as much from Pinker's books about humans as from Moby Dick about whaling.

[BrightEyesDavid]

@pawsoned Okay, thanks. I don't know much/anything about him/his field, but I've seen his TED talk which I found very interesting - had him down as being good at what he does.

[pawsoned]

@BrightEyesDavid Yep, I know what you're saying. It's hard not to succumb to the tantalizing hype of his charming glamor and glitter. However, when it comes to scientific contribution - his work it is next to nothing. You can learn as much about humans from his books, or by the same token performances, as from Moby Dick about whaling.

[grands1am]

@pawsoned

Have you ever read Moby Dick? There are chapters and chapters about specific elements of the whaling process.

[GohModley]

@pawsoned Wow. Looks like you have Pinkers number. You should write a book and expose him.

[pawsoned]

@GohModley lol there's nothing to expose. His books are full of research other than his own, they seemingly popularize scientific knowledge but in a cumbersome way. He wants to make impression that it's pure science but it's atheistic worldview that he promotes, not science. Why doesn't he write technical books anymore? Does he do any relevant scientific research? just saying

[GohModley]

@pawsoned I wasn't being sarcastic. I like to see "giants" take a beating if they deserve it. I have always liked Pinker, but I have to agree with you.

[pawsoned]

@GohModley Oh thanks. You know, Pinker as a man is not that bad, and if I were to expose anything it would rather be a critique of a particular field of science (e.g. cognitive science or evolutionary psychology) than him as a person. Furthermore imo other greater minds (e.g. John Searle) do it in book form, and I dare to speak my mind on YT because it's my opinion that I have made after studying his writings, watching his vids and reading comments about him for some time. What got my goat ...

[rooley]

This and the one with Dennett are both great. I just wish I could find the rest of them.

[chfaaz]

He has nice hair.

[fluxqubit]

Hey Sumof parts!

Thanks alot for those interviews! By any chance, can't you extract the rest of the interviews from the meaningof life website and post them on your channel? That would be really G R E A T.

[rooley]

Does anyone know where the rest of these interviews can be found? All I can find on here is Dennett and Pinker. There are others.

[fluxqubit]

meaningoflife

dot

tv

[leporidus]

I'd like to second CognosSquare across the time span of 11 months.

[LITTLER0CKAR]

Dr. Pinker, call me. I would like to interview you, too. Thanks. ;o)

[CognosSquare]

Thanks for posting this. Pinker was brilliant as always.