If you are interested in nonanthropomorphic life forms and like science fiction, like The Blob, you might also enjoy the book Solaris by Stanislaw Lem. The main character in that book is a biomagnetic ocean that interacts with scientists by creating living beings, essentially replicas in most ways, for them from their thoughts. I think it detects the scientists are lonely and it's a playful way to communicate with them, but the scientists get 'upset' and try to kill them... except one.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
Dawkins is a British version of one of my professors. It's cracking me up! I love hearing these two taking amazing facts and, with it, thinking like a child.
I think by turning on a greater sense of smell, we would be taking away from sight and sound. Our brain processes all our senses at once, it's biologically allocated processing power, so to speak. So giving additional resources to one sense would hinder the others, just as a blind person experiences heightened hearing and smell because the resources of the brain that used to go to sight become reallocated with time.
this is neither science nor research. nothing comes out of this. for science and research read feynman's "lectures on physics", maybe watch walter lewin's lectures, maybe judith grabiner's "mathematics, philosophy and the real world" and maybe you'll work through eric kandel's "principles of neural science". ...and then you can go to development, production and recycling. this here? just talk, talk, talk - no applications at all.
looking at the audience, there's like no body there! Imagine if they had an audience on a scale similar to a rock concert. It would obliterate our plague of science illiteracy in our world.
@Maccabird5 Hey, I was actually there that day- you can even see me in the audience shot! The reason it was only partially full (but there were still quite a few people) was that it was the middle of the day on a weekday. I had a flexible job, so I found a way to make it out, but I'm sure most of the students at Howard had classes, and it wasn't an especially accessible place for people who don't go to the school, like myself. At least everyone else has a chance to see it on the internet!
personally I find it rather charismatic to see Dawkins kind of humble because he knows that physics is not his field but he usually is the one doing the talking about stuff he is very good at. I think both having a good time. I think the same goes with Tyson as he dabbles into questions about genetics and biology and Dawkins is the expert.
Everyone focusing on Neil cutting Richard off is missing the point of the talk. They're just having a chat about topics and they EACH covered a wide variety of complicated topics while simplifying them for the audience watching AND Neil is bound to have more things to say because he is the "guest" to the Richard Dawkins Foundations. So, Astrophysics is obviously much more relevant in the discussion than Biology is. Calm down and enjoy the talk. Thanks for the upload!
Oh, and as it appears that noone else noticed: Christopher Hitchens can be seen at the front row in a stylish pale suit during the final applause :-) I miss him to pieces...
Not a debate. This is two awesome dudes being awesome. Tyson is being his energetic self, which may appear to be lacking in tact, and Dawkins is showing grace and humor that I have rarely seen.
I didn't think Dr. Tyson's style was that onerous especially since it seemed Dr. Dawkins' goal (to me) for the chat was to solicite opinions from Dr. Tyson. I am ok with the the result and really enjoyed the talk. I do disagree a little on the thought that biology is a "poor brother" to physics. I prefer physics myself but I am in awe of the complexity of DNA, protein folding, the makeup of the cell, etc. I have tremendous respect for scientists who are in that field.
The trouble here is that Tyson's style evolved to suit the bombastic american media, while Dawkins' niche is the more reserved and gracious british audience. This is sadly To Be Expected.
Dawkins is an intelligent and extraordinarily patient man, but a biologist is hardly a physicist. A biolologist's brain is a sponge, but a physicist's brain is a knife.
But they are both scientists and anyone who wants to become one, has to have a sponge as a brain in order to soak in all the information over years. Eventually it becomes a knife and I think Dawkins and Tyson reached that point a long time ago.
I think both Dawkins and deGrasse Tyson are in search of truth. Both of them are BRILLIANT in their area of expertise, and both of them have flaws to the philosophies that they have developed as extrapolations from said areas. I lost respect for Dawkins as a philosopher when he described Dan Dennet as 'a philosopher he can actually understand', and when he said that the muli-verse theory is "probably true", but damn did he prove altruism as a naturality.
I really appreciate Tyson's apprach and style. For me personally, he communicates science as if it is magic... I love it. This is EXACTLY what schools need.
Billl Nye and Dr. Tyson share the habit of interrupting people, both are famous for educating people about science via television. Coincidence, or the result of having to deal with Hollywood?
Dear Mr. Tyson, Please shut the fuck up and let Mr. Dawkins speak. His gracious deference to your subject of expertise was not an invitation to monopolize the discussion with your asinine analogies and patronizing simplifications. Your constant talking-over and interrupting betray a profound lack of self-awareness, which fatally undermines what intelligence you possess. Also, your insights are mostly inane, and you are annoying. Thank you.
@techrenegade Reminds me of the scene from Monty Python's Meaning of Life. Grim Reaper: Shut up! Shut up you American. You always talk, you Americans, you talk and you talk and say 'Let me tell you something' and 'I just wanna say this', Well you're dead now, so shut up.
Hey. Love these guys, but I didn't really get the poetry part. I was hoping for a more philosophical discussion, something between two giants in their fields. Profound possibilities.
I usually love Dr Tyson and agree with many of his tactics and opinions. That being said I couldn't help but thinking that he was being a total dick the entire conversation. Talking over Dawkins, cutting him off, getting frustrated at his terrible "sea horizons" analogy,... ect.
@BIindsid3 They are both awesome scientist. I like dawkins because he always seems so calm under pressure. but as much as I think that we should be rational under all attack on science. Tyson has that voice or conviction to push the point that science is necesesary. Science needs guys like that because these Creationist and the such have to many of them, able to convince people who might otherwise see the rational flaw of obeying an irrational god. I don't think he ment to cut him off.
@BIindsid3 I think both were quite nervous to the extent that both have respect for each other in a way. But Tyson is like that:) When he has something to say he says it, regardless of the situation. I don't think he deliberately tried to cut Dawkins of, more so, I think he enjoyed the conversation enough so he felt he could be natural with his dialogue.
@BIindsid3 I think deGrasse Tyson felt pressured to come across as humorous to the audience and that translated badly in his patronisations of Dawkins.
@BIindsid3 Was he getting frustrated? And if you "usually" love Dr. Tyson, you'd realize that he talks like this no matter who the interviewer is. He even talks over people asking him questions. I see how that can be taken the wrong way though. From what I gather, Neil does what he does to make sure everything, including a question, is really, really clear.
@BIindsid3 true, however , i don't think he realized that's how he came across, he was just trying to be communicative and entertaining....i wouldn't hold it against him...
@BIindsid3 I do agree with you; although, as much as I love Dawkins, he is quite proper and somewhat of a stiff (a wonderfully brilliant stiff, mind you!). Tyson is fairly enthusiastic, and I think his enthusiasm contrasted against Dawkins stiffness provides a bit of awkwardness in those moments. But, nonetheless, I love them both the same!
The question if human like mammals would evolve on other planets is very interesting. I felt degrasse did not listen to Dawkins enough. Perhaps he got a bit itchy because of all the religious ideologists that would be jumping onto such an explenation and tainting it with their convictions.
This ended on the perfect note! Tyson basically said: If I were to die, and even if I were dead, I would STILL find a way to contribute to all life here on Earth.
Dawkins comes across rather naive compared to Tyson , I say "look" as in reality these two brillliant men are equal to each other in terms of intellect and vision.
@DjDedan hmm but amount of dna is not necessarily directly proportional to intelligence. that is one gene that scales the brain size may increase our intelligence by x3 for example. so 1% difference in dna (for example) doesn't equal 1% increase in intelligence. I think dawkins explains that... but still - crazy!
but didn't mankind "lose" their stronger sense of smell/sight before the advancements in the field of math. I mean the homo-sapiens such as we are, were the same 2500 years ago (or when ever they came out I don't remember the date). Therefore, we lost the strength of these senses prior to being able to overcome these deficits through math and science. It wasn't before civilizations came that the sciences became of interest. Thus why did we lose the power of our senses again Mr. deGrasse?
simple we didn't need it for our survival. the things that we needed developed more and more, things that were unnecessary were pushed out. it's like asking why humans haven't developed senses like bats have...
@mmgironi i'm not sure he actually gives a reason WHY we lost our senses but HOW we can understand beyond our senses thus the line from phantom of the opera "abandon your senses"... neither of them are talking about WHY the senses are reduced from our ancestors, probably because there are theories already discussed probably having to do with environmental change, dietary change, development of language etc...
@DjDedan I understand that, my comment was referred to the fact that he specifically said that we lost our senses due to the fact that we could achieve the same results through science. There are other theories regarding that, I wanted to point out that he likes to attach math/physics to everything even when they are not directly involved. We lost our senses due to (as u stated) environmental/dietary/development changes not because we had knowledge of science which made the senses reduntant.
@DjDedan He actually states that the senses were eventually lost because our brain was able to recreate the senses that we had lost, giving the examples of the scopes to increase vision, and some other stuff about smell which I don't recall at the moment. But he did imply that, even if I am 100% sure that he knows that it was due to biological evolution behyond the fact that our brain was capable of inventing such things thousands of years later :P
I have newfound respect for Mr. Dawkins--I now see that he's not just a scholarly mercenary for the cause for atheism. I also believe that Mr. DeGrasse Tyson is a modern incarnation of Newton and Sagan--or rather, an ambassador for the cause of physics and our relationship with the cosmos, making sense of our connection to the universe, and the universe which is contained within us.
I think that life only originated once in the universe but this one micro-organism evolved into many, many species and the microbes of that world seeded life on other worlds and panspermia spread life from one planet which it originated from to many millions across the universe.
I base this on the idea that there are an infinite number of universes. If true, a very small fraction would be suitable for life but I believe an even smaller fraction of this fraction would actually see life be born.
I love watching these 2 speak. I just felt slightly uncomfortable at times, for Richard. It seemed, to me, that Neil would talk over him at times leaving Richard looking slightly nervous. Otherwise, a good talk. I did hope for some more facts from Neil though. /searches for more Tyson videos. :)
@Ironside783 My favourite type of grenade. :) Neil is sincere and you can see the joy that astrophysics has brought him, since he was a boy, dragging his telescope up onto the roof of an apartment block in New York. He seems to have time for anyone. As a married man, I love Neil. There, I said it. :)
@chestypants78 Haha, no worries, my fiancee bugs me about having a crush on scientists. Especially Neil! She just laughs at me. His podcast is pretty decent too.
i respect both of these guys individually.and admire their perspectives of the universe. Richard never disappoints but for the first time neil annoyed me. The conversation could have had better direction at times.The gap in their understandings in Biology and Physics made it difficult for them to contribute as they would probably have liked. Richard definitely wanted the conversation to be more intellectually rigorous and focused. Neil didn't feel the same and rather just hear himself 'talk'.
Science has poetry? Really? I suppose if you ignore the absence of words, verses, stanzas, rhyme, meter, imagery, and diction. If there's poetry without those things, then maybe science has poetry. Provided you use the word "poetry" in a poetic way and don't mean actual poetry. Really, can't these guys just be scientists without the pseudo-literary pretense?
@jimtrueblue99 Go watch a time lapse of anything. You can find beauty in science in any time lapse. And please, don't criticize science like that. If you don't appreciate it, you best not insult the people who do.
@jimmyphonghater I see reading skills continue to deteriorate. I objected to using the word "poetry" in reference to science. I did not use the word "beauty." Poetry and beauty are not synonyms. Poetry is a literary form that comes in many types: epic, lyric, dramatic, etc. Science is not poetic because science is not literature; scientists do not express themselves poetically but analytically. If you want to talk about beauty and science, the correct term would be the aesthetics of science.
@jimtrueblue99 It's an analogy, not an claim of identity: Poetry is based on harmony in independent patterns, like in rhythm, phonetic, and sentence structure. The same true for biology and physics. We perceive beauty in poetry, and they want us to see beauty in science, too.
@photoallergic Poetry is imagination, science is fact. Poetry delights in contradictions and metaphors, science requires consistency and precision. And since when is all poetry supposed to be about beautiful things? Is "The Waste Land" about beauty? Or the parts of "Illiad" in which Homer recounts in gory detail the slaughter of Greeks and Trojans? There's more to poetry than honey-sweet romantic lyrics. Dawkins and Tyson need to take a philosophy class in basic aesthetics.
@jimtrueblue99 Once again: It's an anlogy, this is not implying equality or identity. And by golly, there IS aesthetic in science, everywhere. It's just a matter of perception. I for myself consider some data structures beautiful. Apart from that, it's "Iliad" or "Ilias", but not "Illiad". Yes, i do know quite a lot about poetry.
@photoallergic What are you, a typing teacher? Forgive my typo, oh magic fingers! I know it's an analogy--a bad one. An analogy between A and B exists if A and B share an essential characteristic as do poetry and music. What essential characteristic do poetry and science share? Since when is poetry concerned with quantity or measurement? Or science with meter or metaphor? What's wrong with the aesthetics of science? That branch of philosophy is still valid—and relevant!
@jimtrueblue99 You didn't even care to read what i wrote. I answered these questions in my first comment already. Okay, you don't get it and you just want to rant and troll a bit, so i was wasting my time trying to explain it. My bad. If you fail to see beautiful patterns similar to those in poetry becoming evident by science - well, i recommend the book "Das Spiel" by Eigen for starters.
@jimtrueblue99 Ah, but science is an art, the greatest discoveries of our time have come out of ingenuity, not mere observation. The stroke of genius comes first, then it is tested, and that takes true creativity.
@gymgymgymgym looks a lot like him, but I cant say for sure, i don't know when he for instance had no hair, I chose not to get involved in his personal life, though it DOES look incredibly like him
Agreat discussion between these two behemoths of their respective fields of study! One thing that was over-looked, sadly, was when they were discussing intelligence and communication abilities of creatures here on earth. Dawkins completely over-looked the fact that even though our primate brothers lack the proper physiology for vocal communication, they do in fact have the ability to learn and communicate with us using sign language!
@TheJaredThingy I can agree with this. But then again, The hands are a naturally occurring rudimentary tool, and most probably one of the first forms of simple communication was done with hands. They can give something a plethora more detail than a simple description can. My opinion, anyway.
It doesn't even have to be virtual reality, just convert the readings of the sensorblocks into an interactive software. How cool would it be, to cut out dead tissue by playing skyrim :D
@Babeman12 I thought Tyson was unfocused and not as stimulating as I expected. I think Dawkins also expected a more intellectually rewarding discussion.
Wonderfully creative and educational, the universe, this planet, and our place in it will inspire poetry, critical thinking, art, philosophy, science, e.t.c
May the asking of purpose driven questions never end.
I find the theory of the infinite universe very interesting. Very entertaining, as well. Based on this theory, somewhere out there... RIGHT NOW... is a planet JUST LIKE OURS, with the EXACT same history as ours, except the only difference is, instead of them naming the 2nd element "Helium", they named it "Steve".
@notessimodude And, on this planet, a YouTuber comments:
"I find the theory of the infinite universe very interesting. Very entertaining, as well. Based on this theory, somewhere out there... RIGHT NOW... is a planet JUST LIKE OURS, with the EXACT same history as ours, except the only difference is, instead of them naming the 2nd element 'Steve', they named it 'Helium'."
@notessimodude I do too, but I also find it equally disturbing, because we are forever putting the universe outside of human understanding, and thus outside of science. But I do feel the universe (multiverse?) is in fact infinite.
TBH Neil deGrasse Tyson went off topic quite a lot as well as making some poor example/analogies. A little annoying, I think Richard felt the same way. On the whole though a very entertaining and interesting video.
@skaloon No it wouldn't. LOL how the Hell did you get from here to there? All it would mean is that things that have a miniscule chance of happening; happen.
well following logic if you got two indentical things by the law of identity they have to behave in the same way - otherwise they wouldn't be indentical. so it makes free will obsolete - actions are determined cause they have to be indentical. deterministic view of universe (einstein view) seems to be wrong. ofcourse all of these are logical speculations with no observable premises and should not be taken seriously.
I love how Neil brings up bugs life haha. he's so awesome.
thedarkshitstain 3 hours ago
If you are interested in nonanthropomorphic life forms and like science fiction, like The Blob, you might also enjoy the book Solaris by Stanislaw Lem. The main character in that book is a biomagnetic ocean that interacts with scientists by creating living beings, essentially replicas in most ways, for them from their thoughts. I think it detects the scientists are lonely and it's a playful way to communicate with them, but the scientists get 'upset' and try to kill them... except one.
ABitOfTheUniverse 3 hours ago
Tyson loves Marvel... :)
retrosyk 19 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 19 hours ago
the force is strong in these ones
TheReaperzEye 20 hours ago
1:14:05 Is that Hitchens in the front row, four seats in?
thedaystripper 1 day ago
@thedaystripper I think so!
TheSmashedPumpkin 1 day ago
@TheSmashedPumpkin It looks a hell of a lot like him.
thedaystripper 1 day ago
@thedaystripper It is him! I think..
skating1611 1 day ago
@skating1611 It is guys, He wore that hat in a video
rkcraigslist51907 22 hours ago
Tyson is almost too genius
wackywinnebago 2 days ago
This video - 300,000 views
Justin Bieber's baby video - 600,000,000 +
... Yeah we have no future...
skating1611 2 days ago 6
@skating1611
Feeling sorry for these stupid people.
pcgmithu 1 day ago
@skating1611 FUCKING WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
greekpanther1 21 hours ago
the Space -Time fabric is being severely distorted by the combined presence and proximity of these two giants of our time.
sushanalone 3 days ago
person that dislike this movie is a stupid moron...
TheLalaGOD 3 days ago
The most astonishing characteristic of Dr. Tyson is his child-like passion and excitement for science; truly inspiring.
freakjeff76 3 days ago 5
Dawkins is a British version of one of my professors. It's cracking me up! I love hearing these two taking amazing facts and, with it, thinking like a child.
InnateWhisper 3 days ago
brilliant analogy at 30:00
Polydynamix 4 days ago
I think by turning on a greater sense of smell, we would be taking away from sight and sound. Our brain processes all our senses at once, it's biologically allocated processing power, so to speak. So giving additional resources to one sense would hinder the others, just as a blind person experiences heightened hearing and smell because the resources of the brain that used to go to sight become reallocated with time.
Polydynamix 4 days ago
Excellent, enjoyed every minute of it, thanks so much for posting !
stadiv 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is neither science nor research. nothing comes out of this. for science and research read feynman's "lectures on physics", maybe watch walter lewin's lectures, maybe judith grabiner's "mathematics, philosophy and the real world" and maybe you'll work through eric kandel's "principles of neural science". ...and then you can go to development, production and recycling. this here? just talk, talk, talk - no applications at all.
partonace 6 days ago
looking at the audience, there's like no body there! Imagine if they had an audience on a scale similar to a rock concert. It would obliterate our plague of science illiteracy in our world.
Maccabird5 6 days ago
@Maccabird5 Hey, I was actually there that day- you can even see me in the audience shot! The reason it was only partially full (but there were still quite a few people) was that it was the middle of the day on a weekday. I had a flexible job, so I found a way to make it out, but I'm sure most of the students at Howard had classes, and it wasn't an especially accessible place for people who don't go to the school, like myself. At least everyone else has a chance to see it on the internet!
AlonaLeora 3 days ago
Richard Feynman.
tr1bute1 6 days ago
dawkins idea for a virtual reality surgeon would be class!
lawndog6794 6 days ago
god I love physics XD
victordamnit 6 days ago
I have a total man crash on Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Textra1 6 days ago
did neil degrasse admit that europeans are more intelligent than native americans?
insanic1 6 days ago
Wow, this is a real treat. Two of my most favorite speakers!
MsMommaRose 6 days ago
Two of my most favorite speakers. Each different and both eloquent. I have spent many hours listening to each express their expertise.
MsMommaRose 6 days ago 14
Just fucking talk and stop cracking jokes you dick!!!!!!!!!!
Static822 6 days ago
This guy is clever but a total dick. Dawkins is pretty humble here.
Static822 6 days ago
personally I find it rather charismatic to see Dawkins kind of humble because he knows that physics is not his field but he usually is the one doing the talking about stuff he is very good at. I think both having a good time. I think the same goes with Tyson as he dabbles into questions about genetics and biology and Dawkins is the expert.
kMondrakken 1 week ago
Comment removed
hiph0pfiend 1 week ago
so if Sagan was here..... One can only wish
OM3N1R 1 week ago in playlist Favorite videos
Everyone focusing on Neil cutting Richard off is missing the point of the talk. They're just having a chat about topics and they EACH covered a wide variety of complicated topics while simplifying them for the audience watching AND Neil is bound to have more things to say because he is the "guest" to the Richard Dawkins Foundations. So, Astrophysics is obviously much more relevant in the discussion than Biology is. Calm down and enjoy the talk. Thanks for the upload!
MrPsychedelic11 1 week ago 21
This discussion begins in the limitation of visual detection and ends in extremeopiles making the definition of life larger. How poetic!
memfisbelle 1 week ago
It's 10^22 stars in the visible universe Neil.
YesIamJames 1 week ago
These guys extreme intelligence comes together with total incompetence to pick a tie :D
sebek128 1 week ago
lol @ 56:35
SaenFX 1 week ago
@mamonuth
Oh, dammit; you're right...
pahatlem 1 week ago
Oh, and as it appears that noone else noticed: Christopher Hitchens can be seen at the front row in a stylish pale suit during the final applause :-) I miss him to pieces...
pahatlem 1 week ago
@pahatlem Man, what a catch. Nice job my friend!
iz2sicc 1 week ago in playlist Neil deGrasse Tyson
Not a debate. This is two awesome dudes being awesome. Tyson is being his energetic self, which may appear to be lacking in tact, and Dawkins is showing grace and humor that I have rarely seen.
ShinobuHarvester 1 week ago 2
I don't understand this tyson guy. why he always cuts richard words? let him finish first!
pacblues 1 week ago
I didn't think Dr. Tyson's style was that onerous especially since it seemed Dr. Dawkins' goal (to me) for the chat was to solicite opinions from Dr. Tyson. I am ok with the the result and really enjoyed the talk. I do disagree a little on the thought that biology is a "poor brother" to physics. I prefer physics myself but I am in awe of the complexity of DNA, protein folding, the makeup of the cell, etc. I have tremendous respect for scientists who are in that field.
iamanon4u 1 week ago
The trouble here is that Tyson's style evolved to suit the bombastic american media, while Dawkins' niche is the more reserved and gracious british audience. This is sadly To Be Expected.
hunrahel 1 week ago
Hey Tyson, shut up once in a while
Mrsiepel 1 week ago
Tyson talks too much
difero123 1 week ago
great video, funny how they ignored that stupid and random question about egypt, i felt embarrased when she asked it.
bluexepnos 1 week ago
@bluexepnos [sarcasm] nice username. [/sarcasm]
IlersichProductions 1 week ago
My favorite science-fi's aliens came from the series "Animorph!"
Athrun000 1 week ago
Dawkins is an intelligent and extraordinarily patient man, but a biologist is hardly a physicist. A biolologist's brain is a sponge, but a physicist's brain is a knife.
Snakepliskinist 1 week ago
@Snakepliskinist
But they are both scientists and anyone who wants to become one, has to have a sponge as a brain in order to soak in all the information over years. Eventually it becomes a knife and I think Dawkins and Tyson reached that point a long time ago.
GuitarSongCoverDude 1 week ago
Thanks for including the book-signing footage at the end.
8bobthebuilder 1 week ago
I think both Dawkins and deGrasse Tyson are in search of truth. Both of them are BRILLIANT in their area of expertise, and both of them have flaws to the philosophies that they have developed as extrapolations from said areas. I lost respect for Dawkins as a philosopher when he described Dan Dennet as 'a philosopher he can actually understand', and when he said that the muli-verse theory is "probably true", but damn did he prove altruism as a naturality.
lnorthstarl 1 week ago
Both men are fascinating to listen to and i couldn't help but listen to the whole discussion!
8bobthebuilder 1 week ago
I really appreciate Tyson's apprach and style. For me personally, he communicates science as if it is magic... I love it. This is EXACTLY what schools need.
Rhoky 2 weeks ago
@Rhoky Now, if only he would just learn to let others speak.
GRAVEROTT 1 week ago
Billl Nye and Dr. Tyson share the habit of interrupting people, both are famous for educating people about science via television. Coincidence, or the result of having to deal with Hollywood?
NotDuncan 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
NotDuncan 2 weeks ago
He clearly didn't understand Dawkin's question about where the universe is expanding into and whether there is an edge to it.
ParadymeFlux 2 weeks ago 2
Dear Mr. Tyson, Please shut the fuck up and let Mr. Dawkins speak. His gracious deference to your subject of expertise was not an invitation to monopolize the discussion with your asinine analogies and patronizing simplifications. Your constant talking-over and interrupting betray a profound lack of self-awareness, which fatally undermines what intelligence you possess. Also, your insights are mostly inane, and you are annoying. Thank you.
techrenegade 2 weeks ago
@techrenegade Reminds me of the scene from Monty Python's Meaning of Life. Grim Reaper: Shut up! Shut up you American. You always talk, you Americans, you talk and you talk and say 'Let me tell you something' and 'I just wanna say this', Well you're dead now, so shut up.
ABitOfTheUniverse 2 weeks ago
Somehow, the whole things gives me an impression as if Mr Tyson despises Biologists.
semperFi4ever100 2 weeks ago
I loved hos Dawkins knew excactly how many times echolocation had appeared :)
AdurianJ 2 weeks ago
I like Dr Tyson's tie
masmanwbma 2 weeks ago
Wait...isn't it "abandon their defenses"?
aznneozanet 2 weeks ago
I would love to see Michio Kaku and Neal Tyson doing one of these. *dreams*
zjj15th 2 weeks ago
i just want to say that neil's tie is pretty damn awesome!
theramenbuddha 2 weeks ago
Great talk by both Richard and Neil. Love and admire them both.
Thank you for sharing!
ॐ
4micaman 2 weeks ago
Neil never disappoints with his thought processes... around 22:30 - 25:00 lol
4micaman 2 weeks ago
Hey. Love these guys, but I didn't really get the poetry part. I was hoping for a more philosophical discussion, something between two giants in their fields. Profound possibilities.
Still, great vid from 2 great minds.
WolvesBane95 2 weeks ago
I usually love Dr Tyson and agree with many of his tactics and opinions. That being said I couldn't help but thinking that he was being a total dick the entire conversation. Talking over Dawkins, cutting him off, getting frustrated at his terrible "sea horizons" analogy,... ect.
BIindsid3 2 weeks ago 2
@BIindsid3 They are both awesome scientist. I like dawkins because he always seems so calm under pressure. but as much as I think that we should be rational under all attack on science. Tyson has that voice or conviction to push the point that science is necesesary. Science needs guys like that because these Creationist and the such have to many of them, able to convince people who might otherwise see the rational flaw of obeying an irrational god. I don't think he ment to cut him off.
nomercyevolution 2 weeks ago
@BIindsid3 I think both were quite nervous to the extent that both have respect for each other in a way. But Tyson is like that:) When he has something to say he says it, regardless of the situation. I don't think he deliberately tried to cut Dawkins of, more so, I think he enjoyed the conversation enough so he felt he could be natural with his dialogue.
PokkiTube 2 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@BIindsid3 I hate this kind of comment! They ruin the video for me and now I'll be watching, anticipating deGrasse-Tyson's idiocy.
TweekDash 1 week ago
@BIindsid3 I think deGrasse Tyson felt pressured to come across as humorous to the audience and that translated badly in his patronisations of Dawkins.
TweekDash 1 week ago
@BIindsid3 yeah I'm a big fan of Tyson too, but I do think showmanship was a bit too important for him in this one....
darkerforest 1 week ago
@BIindsid3 Was he getting frustrated? And if you "usually" love Dr. Tyson, you'd realize that he talks like this no matter who the interviewer is. He even talks over people asking him questions. I see how that can be taken the wrong way though. From what I gather, Neil does what he does to make sure everything, including a question, is really, really clear.
iz2sicc 1 week ago in playlist Neil deGrasse Tyson
@BIindsid3 The sea horizons analogy was spot on, Dawkins just couldn't grasp it.
MrPsychedelic11 1 week ago
@BIindsid3 true, however , i don't think he realized that's how he came across, he was just trying to be communicative and entertaining....i wouldn't hold it against him...
maioca17 1 week ago
@BIindsid3 I do agree with you; although, as much as I love Dawkins, he is quite proper and somewhat of a stiff (a wonderfully brilliant stiff, mind you!). Tyson is fairly enthusiastic, and I think his enthusiasm contrasted against Dawkins stiffness provides a bit of awkwardness in those moments. But, nonetheless, I love them both the same!
nastyWOLFE 6 days ago
Tyson enjoys sounding dumb sometimes.... ?
viviane5572 2 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@viviane5572 "Tyson enjoys sounding dumb sometimes.... ?" I do too!
masmanwbma 2 weeks ago
Murka Durka.
2WallsBalls 2 weeks ago
The question if human like mammals would evolve on other planets is very interesting. I felt degrasse did not listen to Dawkins enough. Perhaps he got a bit itchy because of all the religious ideologists that would be jumping onto such an explenation and tainting it with their convictions.
machinevos 2 weeks ago
This ended on the perfect note! Tyson basically said: If I were to die, and even if I were dead, I would STILL find a way to contribute to all life here on Earth.
rayp526 2 weeks ago
Dawkins comes across rather naive compared to Tyson , I say "look" as in reality these two brillliant men are equal to each other in terms of intellect and vision.
vashna3799 3 weeks ago
How much time I spend watching these kind of debates. Worth every second!
GuschtlD 3 weeks ago 10
science all stars lol
yeon723 3 weeks ago
1:00:55 did Hitchens say "Read my book" ? <3
Mamonuth 3 weeks ago
wow that 1% chimp to human intelligence discussion blew my mind... SO THERE!
DjDedan 3 weeks ago
@DjDedan hmm but amount of dna is not necessarily directly proportional to intelligence. that is one gene that scales the brain size may increase our intelligence by x3 for example. so 1% difference in dna (for example) doesn't equal 1% increase in intelligence. I think dawkins explains that... but still - crazy!
DjDedan 3 weeks ago
They should have to show this video in highschool
Genocideviawaski 3 weeks ago 2
Random Guy: well, have you found life in the universe yet?
Neil: ehh noo
Random Guy: well there you go
Neil: that's like going to the ocean with a cup, scooping up some water and saying, well there are no whales in the ocean
Random Guy: :O
Zlumka 3 weeks ago
my 2 favorite scientists talking, if i was there... i would feel like a school girl at a justin bieber concert. lol
jakec916 3 weeks ago 23
@jakec916 With the difference that no one would want you to throw your underpants onto the stage...
TomFynn 3 weeks ago
Dawkins could hardly get a word in edgewise.
Twidleydee 3 weeks ago
Poor Dawkins kept on getting over talked by Niel
MESHASMGUD 3 weeks ago
10:55 You can't see the universe before it existed - That's deep.
1LHerne 3 weeks ago
but didn't mankind "lose" their stronger sense of smell/sight before the advancements in the field of math. I mean the homo-sapiens such as we are, were the same 2500 years ago (or when ever they came out I don't remember the date). Therefore, we lost the strength of these senses prior to being able to overcome these deficits through math and science. It wasn't before civilizations came that the sciences became of interest. Thus why did we lose the power of our senses again Mr. deGrasse?
mmgironi 3 weeks ago
@mmgironi
simple we didn't need it for our survival. the things that we needed developed more and more, things that were unnecessary were pushed out. it's like asking why humans haven't developed senses like bats have...
skaloon 3 weeks ago
@mmgironi i'm not sure he actually gives a reason WHY we lost our senses but HOW we can understand beyond our senses thus the line from phantom of the opera "abandon your senses"... neither of them are talking about WHY the senses are reduced from our ancestors, probably because there are theories already discussed probably having to do with environmental change, dietary change, development of language etc...
DjDedan 3 weeks ago
@DjDedan I understand that, my comment was referred to the fact that he specifically said that we lost our senses due to the fact that we could achieve the same results through science. There are other theories regarding that, I wanted to point out that he likes to attach math/physics to everything even when they are not directly involved. We lost our senses due to (as u stated) environmental/dietary/development changes not because we had knowledge of science which made the senses reduntant.
mmgironi 3 weeks ago
@DjDedan He actually states that the senses were eventually lost because our brain was able to recreate the senses that we had lost, giving the examples of the scopes to increase vision, and some other stuff about smell which I don't recall at the moment. But he did imply that, even if I am 100% sure that he knows that it was due to biological evolution behyond the fact that our brain was capable of inventing such things thousands of years later :P
mmgironi 3 weeks ago
I have newfound respect for Mr. Dawkins--I now see that he's not just a scholarly mercenary for the cause for atheism. I also believe that Mr. DeGrasse Tyson is a modern incarnation of Newton and Sagan--or rather, an ambassador for the cause of physics and our relationship with the cosmos, making sense of our connection to the universe, and the universe which is contained within us.
soulinthewall77 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from richarddawkinsdotnet
I think that life only originated once in the universe but this one micro-organism evolved into many, many species and the microbes of that world seeded life on other worlds and panspermia spread life from one planet which it originated from to many millions across the universe.
I base this on the idea that there are an infinite number of universes. If true, a very small fraction would be suitable for life but I believe an even smaller fraction of this fraction would actually see life be born.
AntiSpeciesistWorld 3 weeks ago
I'm curious how people dislike this. What reason?
14ByTheSword 3 weeks ago
all the world uses the metric system. Britain and the USA are just lacking behind... feet fingers, dicks
dumbnetworks 3 weeks ago
i find it interesting at the end when tyson made a great point on death and hitchens is watching
3732334 3 weeks ago
I love watching these 2 speak. I just felt slightly uncomfortable at times, for Richard. It seemed, to me, that Neil would talk over him at times leaving Richard looking slightly nervous. Otherwise, a good talk. I did hope for some more facts from Neil though. /searches for more Tyson videos. :)
chestypants78 4 weeks ago 24
@chestypants78 I agree. But Neil, is a hard man to stop once he gets an idea he wants to share...Like a knowledge grenade
Ironside783 2 weeks ago
@Ironside783 Knowledge grenade. I like that.
Js5s141 2 weeks ago
@Js5s141 Thanks ;)
Ironside783 2 weeks ago
@Ironside783 My favourite type of grenade. :) Neil is sincere and you can see the joy that astrophysics has brought him, since he was a boy, dragging his telescope up onto the roof of an apartment block in New York. He seems to have time for anyone. As a married man, I love Neil. There, I said it. :)
chestypants78 2 weeks ago
@chestypants78 he truly is an amazing man i cant believe I had never seen this video
cptmuska 2 weeks ago
@chestypants78 Haha, no worries, my fiancee bugs me about having a crush on scientists. Especially Neil! She just laughs at me. His podcast is pretty decent too.
Ironside783 2 weeks ago
Everyone is always an indirect dick towards Dawkins, I guess it isnt to popular to buddy up with a renowned atheist
lyles32386 4 weeks ago
This conversation just blew my mind!!!!
ranyichie 4 weeks ago
I'm wondering if that black woman questioner is a pan-African.
Calculus in Egypt? Srsly.
YawnGod 1 month ago
Yeah, just like video game controllers. Come on Tyson. Get it together. ;)
pythor2 1 month ago
I noticed that Richard made more questions where neil made more explanation
mvszao 1 month ago
i respect both of these guys individually.and admire their perspectives of the universe. Richard never disappoints but for the first time neil annoyed me. The conversation could have had better direction at times.The gap in their understandings in Biology and Physics made it difficult for them to contribute as they would probably have liked. Richard definitely wanted the conversation to be more intellectually rigorous and focused. Neil didn't feel the same and rather just hear himself 'talk'.
OverdriveRevival 1 month ago
@OverdriveRevival Agreed. I wanted a more intellectual discussion too.
summerlytriangle 1 month ago
This was absolutely incredible! I really enjoyed the discussion, It taught me quite a bit in such a small timeframe!
Jellochevy 1 month ago
Science has poetry? Really? I suppose if you ignore the absence of words, verses, stanzas, rhyme, meter, imagery, and diction. If there's poetry without those things, then maybe science has poetry. Provided you use the word "poetry" in a poetic way and don't mean actual poetry. Really, can't these guys just be scientists without the pseudo-literary pretense?
jimtrueblue99 1 month ago
@jimtrueblue99 Go watch a time lapse of anything. You can find beauty in science in any time lapse. And please, don't criticize science like that. If you don't appreciate it, you best not insult the people who do.
jimmyphonghater 1 month ago
@jimmyphonghater I see reading skills continue to deteriorate. I objected to using the word "poetry" in reference to science. I did not use the word "beauty." Poetry and beauty are not synonyms. Poetry is a literary form that comes in many types: epic, lyric, dramatic, etc. Science is not poetic because science is not literature; scientists do not express themselves poetically but analytically. If you want to talk about beauty and science, the correct term would be the aesthetics of science.
jimtrueblue99 1 month ago
@jimtrueblue99 There are many uses of the word poetic, saying only is valid (literary form), seems to emanate arrogance. A bit like religion, also.
jimmyphonghater 3 weeks ago
@jimtrueblue99 Are you a robot?
InvertedHorizon 1 month ago
@jimtrueblue99
Why so grumpy?
chillinpotato5 1 month ago
@jimtrueblue99 It's an analogy, not an claim of identity: Poetry is based on harmony in independent patterns, like in rhythm, phonetic, and sentence structure. The same true for biology and physics. We perceive beauty in poetry, and they want us to see beauty in science, too.
photoallergic 1 month ago
@photoallergic Poetry is imagination, science is fact. Poetry delights in contradictions and metaphors, science requires consistency and precision. And since when is all poetry supposed to be about beautiful things? Is "The Waste Land" about beauty? Or the parts of "Illiad" in which Homer recounts in gory detail the slaughter of Greeks and Trojans? There's more to poetry than honey-sweet romantic lyrics. Dawkins and Tyson need to take a philosophy class in basic aesthetics.
jimtrueblue99 1 month ago
@jimtrueblue99 Once again: It's an anlogy, this is not implying equality or identity. And by golly, there IS aesthetic in science, everywhere. It's just a matter of perception. I for myself consider some data structures beautiful. Apart from that, it's "Iliad" or "Ilias", but not "Illiad". Yes, i do know quite a lot about poetry.
photoallergic 1 month ago
@photoallergic What are you, a typing teacher? Forgive my typo, oh magic fingers! I know it's an analogy--a bad one. An analogy between A and B exists if A and B share an essential characteristic as do poetry and music. What essential characteristic do poetry and science share? Since when is poetry concerned with quantity or measurement? Or science with meter or metaphor? What's wrong with the aesthetics of science? That branch of philosophy is still valid—and relevant!
jimtrueblue99 1 month ago
@jimtrueblue99 You didn't even care to read what i wrote. I answered these questions in my first comment already. Okay, you don't get it and you just want to rant and troll a bit, so i was wasting my time trying to explain it. My bad. If you fail to see beautiful patterns similar to those in poetry becoming evident by science - well, i recommend the book "Das Spiel" by Eigen for starters.
photoallergic 1 month ago
@jimtrueblue99 Ah, but science is an art, the greatest discoveries of our time have come out of ingenuity, not mere observation. The stroke of genius comes first, then it is tested, and that takes true creativity.
wowzabowza123 3 weeks ago
wowowowo these two guys are awsome... Richard and Neil, keep it up brothessssssss
luckluck60 1 month ago
is the bill oriely video in the suggestions there to balance out all the smartness that exudes from this video?
blindedby2monkeys 1 month ago
Let Dawkins speak, quit interrupting...very rude. Degrasse must not get out much, his social etiquette is definitely underdeveloped.
V1c1ousWeasel 1 month ago
Anyone else find deGrasse a bit annoying?
theduderabides 1 month ago
Holy shit! Is that Christopher Hitchens in the front row at 1:14:06 ? White suit.
gymgymgymgym 1 month ago 32
@gymgymgymgym looks a lot like him, but I cant say for sure, i don't know when he for instance had no hair, I chose not to get involved in his personal life, though it DOES look incredibly like him
scratchbang 1 month ago
@gymgymgymgym it almost certainly is
manof1001faces 1 month ago
@gymgymgymgym yep
xLightFilmsx 3 weeks ago
@gymgymgymgym One could probably date this event based on hitches condition.
Malakree 3 weeks ago
@gymgymgymgym totally.
darkerforest 3 weeks ago
It always staggers me just how much this stuff ends up sounding like Futurama...
shashwati 1 month ago
Agreat discussion between these two behemoths of their respective fields of study! One thing that was over-looked, sadly, was when they were discussing intelligence and communication abilities of creatures here on earth. Dawkins completely over-looked the fact that even though our primate brothers lack the proper physiology for vocal communication, they do in fact have the ability to learn and communicate with us using sign language!
Uminchuu 1 month ago
@TheJaredThingy I can agree with this. But then again, The hands are a naturally occurring rudimentary tool, and most probably one of the first forms of simple communication was done with hands. They can give something a plethora more detail than a simple description can. My opinion, anyway.
katmannsson 1 month ago
I love how richard dawkins hypothetical version of a surgeon is a she.
:)
Jamsessionroom1337 1 month ago
It doesn't even have to be virtual reality, just convert the readings of the sensorblocks into an interactive software. How cool would it be, to cut out dead tissue by playing skyrim :D
VoidDestriant 1 month ago
I know it's not a contest but Tyson really stole the show
Babeman12 1 month ago
@Babeman12 I think Dawkins was more interested in learning something new. He kind of admits to something like that at the beginning
beserker1912 1 month ago
@Babeman12 I thought Tyson was unfocused and not as stimulating as I expected. I think Dawkins also expected a more intellectually rewarding discussion.
summerlytriangle 1 month ago
Wonderfully creative and educational, the universe, this planet, and our place in it will inspire poetry, critical thinking, art, philosophy, science, e.t.c
May the asking of purpose driven questions never end.
stephenboing 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
Comment removed
ilytopy 1 month ago
☼ Donec ♫ αγάπη ♥ स्वतंत्रता ∞
GreenGoSolar 1 month ago
Loved the discussion. Its a shame that more people haven't seen this...
I noticed Hitchens is there in the front row at 1:14:05
mscunningham93 1 month ago
epic ending
CrazyAl1991 1 month ago
I find the theory of the infinite universe very interesting. Very entertaining, as well. Based on this theory, somewhere out there... RIGHT NOW... is a planet JUST LIKE OURS, with the EXACT same history as ours, except the only difference is, instead of them naming the 2nd element "Helium", they named it "Steve".
notessimodude 1 month ago 22
This has been flagged as spam show
@notessimodude And, on this planet, a YouTuber comments:
"I find the theory of the infinite universe very interesting. Very entertaining, as well. Based on this theory, somewhere out there... RIGHT NOW... is a planet JUST LIKE OURS, with the EXACT same history as ours, except the only difference is, instead of them naming the 2nd element 'Steve', they named it 'Helium'."
TheDanielLivingston 1 month ago
@notessimodude I do too, but I also find it equally disturbing, because we are forever putting the universe outside of human understanding, and thus outside of science. But I do feel the universe (multiverse?) is in fact infinite.
QuantumStates 3 weeks ago
TBH Neil deGrasse Tyson went off topic quite a lot as well as making some poor example/analogies. A little annoying, I think Richard felt the same way. On the whole though a very entertaining and interesting video.
GoSU4u1 3 weeks ago
@notessimodude
well this would be problematic. it would mean it would invoke the law of identity - meaning no free will
skaloon 3 weeks ago
@skaloon No it wouldn't. LOL how the Hell did you get from here to there? All it would mean is that things that have a miniscule chance of happening; happen.
notessimodude 3 weeks ago
@notessimodude
well following logic if you got two indentical things by the law of identity they have to behave in the same way - otherwise they wouldn't be indentical. so it makes free will obsolete - actions are determined cause they have to be indentical. deterministic view of universe (einstein view) seems to be wrong. ofcourse all of these are logical speculations with no observable premises and should not be taken seriously.
skaloon 3 weeks ago