A Discussion with Richard Dawkins and Jim Al-Khalili, Communicating Science

[Rozy02]

Another beautiful lecture from a wonderful human being, eloquent and charismatic as ever... 

[yasiru89]

The discussion section was brilliant, especially the questions. Norwegians are quite sensible in that regard, whereas you're always about to wince that the next person is going to say something stupid if this was being conducted in the United States, etc.

[yasiru89]

I'm sorry, I cannot forgive the BBC for cancelling that programme with Dr Dawkins and Dr Pinker.

[marcjdumont]

Great point at 1:55! 

[PaulP567]

@marcjdumont It was a great point. Again, though, a confusion is at large where facts and opinions are concerned. There is no need for a 'balancing' democracy in the case of facts. The facts axiomatically speak for themselves. Where facts are sparse and inference is deduced, or as in the case of subjective qualia, then different opinions should be given equal airing in the interests of fairness, but all are essentially as worthless as each other until facts establish the truth.

[marcjdumont]

@PaulP567 Well said, old chap. The only thing I'll add is that most issues have a scientific answer to them. Even in questions of morality, science, logic and reason almost always point to a single solution or a narrow set of solutions. Sam Harris makes a great case in this regard. You seem like you're really intelligent...if you'd like to discuss further, feel free to reach out to my gmail account at marc.j.dumont. Bon courage et bonne chance!

[Sc0ttPrian]

Wheres the low cut filter when you need it?

[TurkiyeCumhurbaskani]

dude you got some kick ass videos, these videos are treasure

[BensPineapplejuice]

This has become one of my favorite youtube channels, thanks for the videos.

[PaulP567]

A good video. I have some doubts that the 'two cultures' will ever meet. Science is fact-based, and once facts are known they become intellectually obsolete. Yesterday's fact is not today's news. To the extent that known facts render opinion redundant, science can never be an impetus to discussion, which generally thrives on difference of opinion. Difference of opinion can only derive from subjective interpretation of human experience, which generally is emotional in nature and not fact-sourced.

[TomFynn]

@PaulP567 It is the other way around: When your "opinion" is based on emotion, it is not worth disussing. Only if it is fact-based then there is a point in having a discussion *at all*.

[PaulP567]

@TomFynn You can have a reasonable opinion on where a few facts might be headed as regards a conclusion. Opinions such as these should be given equal time in the interests of fairness. There comes a point, however, where facts point reasonably conculusively in a certain direction and take over from opinions. Opinions in contravention of the facts are of course stupid and not worth hearing.

[TomFynn]

@PaulP567 And your point is?

[PaulP567]

@TomFynn The issue was the giving of opinions equal weight in the interest of 'balance' or fairness. My point is that, in the presence of conclusive facts opinions are redundant. When facts are inconclusive rational opinions should be given equal air time. They may not of course have equal intellectual weight. All opinions based on inconclusive facts are arguably worthless and therefore 'balance' is moot. The 'fairness' is essentially ornamental. No harm done really.