I don't agree with the conclusions on parenting because he is using a set of data that does not distinguish between variability in the environment and the adoption of different niche's or specialization within the family.Sibling compete and differentiate. We need studies that compare parenting styles with outcomes in genetically identical siblings in different households. One then can we identify the degree to which nature and nurture and uncontrollable factors contribute.
I am more than halfway through "The Blank Slate" and it is interesting. I do have a gripe with this statement on page 128: "anyone who believes in an immaterial soul is certainly not going to believe that thought and feeling consist of information processing in the tissues of the brain." This seems to sugguest that you have to either believe in neuroscience or an immaterial soul. However, the two are NOT mutually exclusive unless a person is an extreme Cartesianist, Anyone agree?
Logically, he's begging the question. By positing a human nature as it relates to art and criticism, and using that position to reject art and criticism as contrary to his position, he's not giving us any insight into what this rejection might actuall entail; instead, he's simply rejecting without analysing, and justifying his rejection through his lack of analysis. If human nature is at odds with modern art and criticism, it's not enough to say so; he should be prepared to say how.
It is not necessarily the case that Pinker is wrong, as such, about art and criticism, as that he hasn't even bothered to format the question to the answer he's posited in the relevant language. He's made little attempt to understand "elite" art or criticism, literary analysis or theory, or to appreciate the literary and visual forms he's talking about. Instead he simply rejects them because they reject "human nature" as he understands it.
The problem with what Steven Pinker has said about the arts and criticism, is that he's attributing "decline" to a disregard for human nature. That may seem like a reasonable hypothesis to him, but what he's doing is effacing the functions of the fields he's critiquing. Without raising the question of what human nature is, as it relates to culture and art, there exists no criticism, no analysis, and art and theory recapitulate undigested assumptions latent in the concept of human nature.
His mind is so structured, I can almost hear the clicks when he's talking. Each argument has logical steps going back to his view of the world. Very impressive
@MaxWeberz, Epigenetics has the same conclusion as Pinker... not only genetics plays an important part of who you are but the development of cells will vary even among twins... which is what Pinker mentioned in this very precise video. Second, he never said we are all biologically-driven savages, he said heredity plays a huge role in our personality, but other things such as culture and peers also have minor effects
...., in essence there is no perfect copy of anything.
Anyone ever notice Pinker tries really hard to avoid talking about epigenetics? Because with epigenetics not only is Pinker wrong but his entire argument is obsolete.
@AndroidPolitician Well, I think there is a good reason for why he doesn't mention it: there is very little evidance for it. He would only confuse his audiance with arguments that have litt scientific evidence compared to the evidence of what he talks about holds. Most biologists believe epigenetics is now enjoying their 15 minutes of fame in the biological community
I doubt that since there are numerous studies that show epigenetics very well and it can't just be like 7 different flukes on completely different subjects (violence, obesity, addiction, schizophrenia etc.).
If anything, Pinker's 15 minutes of fame are up and he only got famous because people in power like to hear about how people are biologically trapped and can't be rehabbed.
Seriously speaking, I don't see anyone who knows about the real meaning of the nature in relation to what you guys call or name it as 'Language'. If the whole world is attacked by the natural disaster and no one left so, next new creatures which are as capable as us will get to know such thing called 'Language' or not we created!!! everything is empty soil is soil no one owns it even air doesn't own itself. we all are distorted and don't know how to exploit our mind according to the truth of t
It's a shame that some people mistake open-mindedness for elitism. Especially when those with closed minds are usually the ones who are most judgmental. I believe it was Frank Zappa who once said "you can be a truck driver and still be a snob." Take care people :)
@mightyafrowhitey I think that's a misdirection. People often confuse 'open-mindedness'. It means open for consideration without pre-judgment, not open to acceptance without any judgment. If it doesn't please the senses via human nature, people will reject it: beauty, aesthetics, symmetry, meter, etc. Modern movements (elite, by definition) moved away from these themes to unconstrained ones, and nobody likes them. That's not closed-minded pre-judgment; it's legitimate post-judgment.
Yeah the Gays really messed up the rainbow for me!
When I was child and I saw a rainbow, it was a thing of beauty and there was that slight chance there just might be that pot of gold at the end of it.
But now when I see a Rainbow, All I see is a couple of leprechauns humping each other! It aint right…
Pinker is right about the "Blank Slate" being a myth but thinks that genes are absolute and can never change which is totally wrong.
Genes can be altered by our environment (epigenetics) and the environment is required for things like depression and violence. For instance, there is a gene associated with depression but only if people experience actual traumatic events, and not everyone with the gene will get it. Likewise people without the gene can get depression.
@AndroidPolitician that's not what i gathered from his talk. he doesn't say anywhere that genes are absolute. he just points out they have a defining nature most people were ignoring before-hand.
His version of "nature" is one that is determined by genes and has humans be violent and stupid which is why we need a Leviathan or state to regulate them.
You might notice he never mentions epigenetics and relies on twin studies which can be like he describes or they might turn out completely different.
The fact is, his ideas on human behavior are used to justify power.
@AndroidPolitician The Gabor Mate, James Gilligan and Robert Sapolski school of thought. Also the the most balanced because it recognises genetic predisposition but *not* predetermination. Behavior is cultivated by environment, and any abhorrent behavior can be dormant without stimuli or rectified by nurturing social conditions. Great section in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward on these men if you haven't seen it.
I will explain the biggest problem of both determinism and constructivism in social science by paraphrasing a quote:
"the distinction between the determinist and constructivism has sometimes been blurred because an excessively consistent practice of either leads to the same practical result — ruthlessness in political life."
and I think "modern art" in all it forms is some of the most asthetically beautiful art that has ever been created. I understand I am at odds with many people on this, though I can't really understand why they would disagree with me. it all comes down to personal taste since beauty is anything but an objective quality.
@mightyafrowhitey Modern art is crude and ugly. This would be plain to anyone with a developed aesthetic sense, which you obviously lack. There is not a single work of modern art that can rightly be termed beautiful - the drawing is universally poor, thats a given, but the arrangement of value, color, and paint handling all drops off considerably after about 1910. Anyone who likes modern art is a phony concerned with creating the false perception of sophistication. Its no more than a con game
@mittROMNEY666 That has to be one of the most pompous comments I've ever heard on youtube. It is the height of arrogance to presume that just because you happen to not like something, that makes it "bad." It's kind of sad that you've probably never even entered into modern art without any preconceived notions. That's fine though, some people just don't get it. And that's fine. But it's pretty self-centered to think that everyone who likes modernism is doing it just to try and be intelligent.
it's funny what they'r saying about art. because in my opinion, art, whether it's dance, music, painting, or literature started getting most interesting starting at the beginning of the 20th century.
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.
Pinker is right about the academic humanities. They tend to focus way too much on grey areas, and then generalise from those grey areas. They can't see the forest for the trees.
Ok, the part about arts did offend(?) me a little bit, being a huge fan of modern and post modern arts. But it's ok because he does not make political assertion such as "modern and post modern art should lose their present way!" or something like that. I'm not a fan of all of Pinker's work but this was at least interesting. The rest wasn't anything I haven't heard of before. But the arts part was something new.
A blank slate is an odd idea for modern people to have. It would be odd to buy a computer that was completely blank, and it would be unusable without copying material onto it before you even get to do anything. We very basically can't start out blank.
He had me for the first ten minutes with all the science, and then he started spewing all these judgmental unscientific conclusions and totally lost me.
Also, he missed a critical factor that tweaks people in addition to genetics, environment, and chance: TRAUMA. About 1/3 of children suffer significant and sustained trauma, and this drastically effects the physiology, structure and development of the human brain and human psychology. Search for "bomb in the brain" here on youtube.
Yes, or by "environment," but it deserves a separate category. Why? Because childhood trauma effects about 1/3 of the populace, and is a very real problem. Just fixing this ONE thing,,,even just cutting it in half...would make a huge impact on society. Also, because many parents do not even consider what they do abuse, or traumatic, or as potentially causing brain damage. I think if parents realized that spanking their kids can result in brain damage, they might not do it.
@daimonmagus I don't get this comment, or why people thumbed it up. What judgmental unscientific conclusions did Pinker come to? He argued that the decline of the arts is due to their lack of appeal to human nature, and that parenting is not as important a factor in children's behavior once genes are taken into account. Both of these are based on psychological research. The video you linked is by Stefan Molyneux, who is not a qualified psychologist, and a questionable character at that.
The decline of art can be traced back to liberal art intellectuals' paradoxical and absurd attitude toward fine art. The progressive artists disdain and "deconstruct" art, painting, and music. (For instance, feminists love to criticize classic art on women are sexism, and the classic dancing as the by-product of patriarchy). After they kill the fine art, they start complaining why the fine art is dying and why the majority are corrupted by consumerism. Well, we know why now.
@inferno0020 okay, that comment is consistent with mine that said that modern art doesn't appeal to human nature as much as it used it. I'm not sure why you're responding to me in particular.
"Kelley's (1997) study showed that 100% of those violent juveniles needing complete neurological evaluations had been abused by parents or relatives, either physically or sexually."
I thought you might find this interesting. In much the same way smoking causes cancer the environment plays a huge role in violence.
I used some of Pinker's work when writting about an essay about how language is innate in all humans. Some people used to think that language was coppied and carefully learnt by children and that the human brain had no special properties for language learning.
Pinker has balls to be treading this thin ice between science and philosophy. Respect....even if he's wrong on some things, his overall points are at least trying to make sense of the hard to tackle stuff of life.
How could someone claim that the human brain is not predisposed to any behaviors? This attitude of human exceptionalism pisses me off. It flies in the face of all the evidence, and, ironically, it reflects an attitude humans are predisposed to: whatever group you happen to be a part of is superior.
@Mikeofdundee1987 Feral children confirm that there are both innate and learned tendencies. There is nothing in this video that suggests Pinker is insane, and I'm guessing he has studied psychology longer than you have.
@friendofthefunk Cyril Burt studied psychology for longer than Pinker and used to talk about intelligence like this and was very respected until it was discovered that he made it all up! Psychology is not a natural science, we should remember that. It does not explain the natural world. Don't get so exicited.
@Mikeofdundee1987 Anyone can be mistaken and a scientist in any field can falsify data, but to call someone insane just because you disagree with him is just foolish. And to say psychology is not a natural science is untrue. The brain is a biological structure and can be studied scientifically as such, so while psychology may be considered a social science in certain contexts it is certainly a natural science as well.
@Mikeofdundee1987 Sounds like you just don't like psychology, so you keep insisting it is in no way a natural science. However, unfortunately for you, insisting on something doesn't make it true.
@Mikeofdundee1987 The problem with your inane comment is that if you knew anything about psychology you would know it's a very broad field that encompasses both things that are "weak and undesided [sic]" and very well evidenced like any other science. It has both pure experiments and quasi-experiments. Even if you only have the most basic understanding of the field, it's surprising you're this ignorant.
@Mikeofdundee1987 I'm saying it also has aspects that are well evidenced and are the result of experimentation. Those aspects are undoubtedly scientific.
I wonder if you'd consider theoretical physics scientific?
@Mikeofdundee1987 "Psychology is not a natural science, we should remember that. It does not explain the natural world." errm....brains are not part of the natural world?
@Aletheophile psychology is not an objective science or a natural science. It is a social science and if you ask anyone in that field they will tell you that.
@friendofthefunk I'm not denying that point. But pinker always uses the same tactic to destroy a concept or person. Pick out one small part that is negative or bad, in this case her communication skill. Then, use that example to marginalize the entire concept or person.
@whatdaheck5 I think you missed the point, its not just that Judith is not a very good communicator, there is a large movement in the field of artistic criticism that actually encourages this kind of obscurantism.
I love the idea that everything I am is because of me, that i can be inspired and helped and taught.. but that I am pre-programed to find certain things inspiring and certain things worth learning.
On the other hand it's scary, because i haven't got any children but I was kind of planning that if i ever did I would carefully mold them into little versions of myself!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's funny to see Pinker in this video ridiculing himself by trying to pass off as an intellectual. His argument is pseudo-scientific, incoherent adn when he takes on aesthetic or social issues he appears completely illiterate.
Hmmm, well...among other impressive achievements, Pinker is a Harvard professor. He was listed in Times 'top 100 most influential people' and has been on TED numerous times. What have you accomplished intellectually with your life?
i dont get it? ya know jews blks italians, asians, does it really matter? really? i understand theres certain grps political n religgy but when u get down to it ppl r ppl.
To consider that all our actions or reactions are drived from genes is not the issue, it is a source, yes.
In psychology we also have many other factors, as was stated, which are self moderating factors as well, which can influence behaviour or reactions as well.
eg. the repression of gay tendancies, recent studies, show a 90% increase in the subject performing spousal abuse and homophobic reactions.
I disagree with the final conclusion of this because I don't see an important consideration taken into account: a systemic view that sees kids taking on different roles all but ensures massive differences in the same household. Here's the kicker - while one child may play the good kid or the bad, the athlete or the scholar, it doesn't equate to no environmental, cultural or social imprinting. It would be as ridiculous to say we are not a systemic species as it would to deny our genetic nature
I paused the video too quick - I agree with the assessment that culture and chance play big roles, I agree that genes play some part (not as much as many think, though, given the nature of inherited protein-makers can manifest), but I do stand by his interpretation that equated to no role for parenting. I would like to see him take into consideration family systems.
The funny thing is, that the strongest rejection of Pinker´s book did not come from a leftist or behaviourist, but was uttered by Jared Taylor, publisher of American Renaissance, a kind of "race-conscious" group. So, if you dont want to agree with those, you possibly agree with Pinker.
It's conservatism afraid of conservatist science and the non existence of a personal God. It's OK if it works for us, as long as it doesn't apply to others. which simply equate to xenophobia and fanatism which are adapted psychological mechanism gone souht...
I wish there were more of these talks available to us, on more topics. He discusses so many different things in his books--naming, for example, is fascinating.
More from TED would be nice. The quality is surprisingly good in nearly all of their videos, and not just for Pinker.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Thank you very much. I'm glad to be an "idiot" for the sake of Christ and the truth of His Word the Bible. The Bible has overwhelming evidence on its side....archeologically, historically, etc.
You never answered to the fact that you can't show from complexity that there is one god more than two hundred more than just some force that created the universe more than 9.45 gods that were created by a supernatural force. you can't justify one supernatural assumption over another. i don't doubt that it's possible the universe was created outside of natural forces but you are totally pulling your assumption from desert sand writings and not from reason.
I'm not pulling any assumptions from desert sand writing, but from the Word of God. The evidence for the truth of the Bible both in archeology and otherwise is overwhelming...and ancient book containing many books written over 1,500 years with singleness of purpose and unity...could only have been God-given. And where did those natural forces come from....don't forget from nothing comes nothing UNLESS it's supernatural....GOD.
again you obviously can't answer to my point that you can't just assume your god from complexity you failed to answer the question. refer to previous statements.
overwhelming evidence my butt!!! i was preparing myself to become a missionary by delving into yer so called evidence and it sucks it's not there!!! it was so easily fabricated too. I'm sure you think people fabricated the gospel of judas, thomas, mary, peter,and so on why not the others? people made up the koran, zeus, thor, on and on. paul is the only one who can vouch for paul within his time period. that one verse in peter means nothing becuase it's vague!
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (creation), so that men are without excuse.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
a good quote when one has no solid evidence for god to get people to believe! i guess it's just a coincidence that this is the best reason for belief that the bible can come up with! belief without physical evidence but with heavily biased metaphysical evidence is really valuable to god for some unexplainable reason. again just a coincidence that this is a great way to get people that have no reason to believe to do so.
The verse simply shows that the witness of the creation all around us points to God...and therefore men are without excuse when they stand before Him in a coming day!
again beauty and complexity doesn't mean that there is a god more than no gods more than a million gods. unless your making a purely metaphysical statement like "I know in my heart that there is a god when i look at creation". However many religions state this and that it is their god they feel. i don't put much trust in metaphysical epistemology because it's full of bias and inconsistent. your god condemns those who critically analyze and rewards the impressionable. Sounds made up by men to me
juanitotraveler, you said, "your god condemns those who critically analyze and rewards the impressionable." Can you give me some concrete examples...rather than just throwing out a rediculous statement like that.?
Knowing that nothing comes from nothing...beauty and complexity are clear indications of a creator.
i don't need examples because faith in christ is what one needs to be saved but if you seek the truth and lack that then one is condemned. plus if i give examples of people seeking the truth that didn't come to your conclusion you'll probably just say "oh well you can't really know that they sought the truth wholeheartedly"
"beauty and complexity are clear indications of a creator" yeah except when we talk about yer creator right? cause you can draw whatever cut off point you conveniently want
why? it's worthless. lee strobel is not a scientist, he doesn't even do a decent try at apologetics. he has a degree in LAW...isn't it funny he doesn't have a degree in something where you get acclaim for finding the truth....but instead in a field where you gain acclaim for convincing others regardless of the truth? funny isn't it?
So what you're telling me is that ONLY a scientist can speak any truth regarding science???
List to the fact and statistics regarding the universe which he presents.
I bet you just dismissed Strobel because he isn't a "scientist" -- lots of you aren't interested in truth, but interested in finding excuses to reject it.
first off there are FOUR fundamental forces of the universe. all the other 'variables' derive from these.
we can ignore the weak force _entirely_ the research indicates without it we wouldn't notice a difference. particles wouldn't decay, we wouldn't notice a difference (though carbon dating and such would stop working, oh no!)
we have the strong nuclear force. now if THIS force was shifted up or down, we would change how powerful stars are how much they counteract gravity pulling them in.
this would change how far from a star a habitable zone like ours would be from the sun, not IF there was a habitable zone.
gravity can be shifted up and down the scale and it would mostly just balances the strong nuclear force in almost all regards. there are bounds but they are by no means so extreme as he implies. all this would change is how many stars there are, how far the planets reside from there stars etc etc. we would have FEWER stars (or more) but it's not like we would have NONE
lastly we come to the big daddy. the electromagnetic force! the one that plays with all of chemistry. he is absolutely right when he says if you change this force even a TINY bit then chemistry doesn't work the same way...and that all of our life wouldn't work based on that type of chemistry....and? who says WE are the point of all this? there could be billions of OTHER types of chemistries, all able to support life. or other types of life entirely not based on chemistry at all (who knows?).
so his entire argument rests on the assumption that if we change the forces, our life wouldn't be possible...but this only works to indicate god (sort of, if you squint REAL hard) if you first assume our type of life was the purpose of the universe....which is a conclusion of the god hypothesis in the first place!
I'm sorry sir, but you can't assume something in the postulates in the attempt to prove it in the conclusion!
circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...
heck all of THAT is assuming you wanted a universe with life in it. so what. your misapplying the anthropic principle.
the _whole_ point of the anthropic principle is that the universe we are in has to be able to support life, because we are life in the universe. thats it. nothing more.
it's not supposed to be used to show ANYTHING it is supposed to _eliminate_ certain possibilities.
you could change it also. the universe we exist in has to support the formation of planets....etc etc.
The complexity of the universe doesn't suggest one god more than one million gods! it doesn't suggest three gods anymore than it suggests no gods, but just some force that causes things to happen. lee has no problem stating that a complex creator with no creator exists (total convenient assumption)and yet his mind is closed to any other of the infinite number of possibilities. interpreting desert sandwritings and a feeling in ones heavily biased heart are not a good reason for belief.
lee strobel helped lead me to atheism by showing me how weak the evidence for Christianity really was. his book and video case for the creator are poorly researched (science teacher talking here). all his case books are so full of the worst reasoned arguments ever that one would have to turn a blind eye to not realize how terrible they are. "historical evidence for the resurrection" yeah right! earliest scrap of biblical writings we have dates 90 CE second oldest 150 CE (it's not even canonical)
There are many letter exchanges that exist today from the 1st century between Christians and from non-Christians who referenced what some of the Christians believed. No...the earliest biblical writings date from at least 60 AD....
The apostle Paul refers in his writings to over 500 people who saw the risen Christ appear in bodily form...."many of which are still alive today" he writes.
I don't believe you search for truth, but rather you search for excuses to not believe the truth.
i was referring to the earliest that we physically have look up the info if u don't believe me!it doesn't matter anyway we only have stuff from the most biased sources possible. Even stroblel's scholars contend that Josephus was tampered with.i wanted to believe and tried to for years I gave up my girlfriend of 4 years, intimacy in church friendships, and a lot of comfort to be an atheist.i searched truth more than comfort.hope your other beliefs aren't as presupposed as those about my character
how are the words of paul evidence for anything? That's like quoting Mohammad as proof of the koran. why would you even bother trying to make a point this way?! i'm guessing you wouldn't believe in a resurrection of anyone else without extreme proof. I don't doubt that there were Christians with ideas back then so what? We have evidence of what Jim Jones followers believed.
Your attempts to try to draw any form of correlation between Jim Jones and Christians or the Apostle Paul shows the depth of the darkness of your soul.
I was not just pointing out that ancient writing by Christian exist, but rather writings from those who had witnessed the resurrection of Christ.
I wasn't correlating jim jones and christians. i was simply stating that we have an understanding of jim jones believers ideas just like early christian's ideas and that that knowledge doesn't make either of their ideas about the world true. But i will throw in "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or stoning homosexuals if you need to see the darkness of your own faith. Don't try and say "well that was the old testament" because only a truly cruel person would ever say that's okay.
Wow people said they saw christ resurrected you know what i think i'll just convert back since you pointed that out! Sorry to put it so bluntly to you but if i were still a christian i'd want my rhetoric to be able to take it and i would have said bring on the harsh truth. "Be prepared to give an answer to the faith you profess" is the verse that turned me to atheism. maybe you should seek the truth more instead of telling everyone else to.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The truth of "science" will change and be updated and corrected. The Bible won't need any of that because it is God-given and contains wisdom and truth.
That's why the Bible says that "the wisdom of man is foolishness with God." He is the source of wisdom and knowledge and truth.
wisdom like don't touch a menstruating woman, she should sacrifice doves or a ram for her menstrual pollution, rape women and pay shekels to marry them, don't eat pork "but that's the old testament" oh right i guess it makes sense in light of that ;) virgin birth cause we're intimidated by naughty sex, view homosexuality as sin, women should not instruct or talk in church and have head coverings, john's acid trip sounding revelations(figurative or literal) if you prefer the newtestament nonsense
Well, for example, I'm sure the Old Testament folks did not have bathrooms with running water in their homes, so the instruction to not touch a menstruating woman makes complete sense....and so it goes....further study and understanding blows all your excuses away.
I'm sure that John Revelations will transpire in a coming day as foretold in Revelations....you just wait and see, the battle of Armageddon, etc. But it will be too late for you by then unfortunately.
"complete sense" hahahahah! your response is so hilarious! I'd really like to hear how not touching menstruating women let alone sacrificing doves for periods is a good idea in detail. Also, if god really was trying to be helpful why not tell them how to have clean running water? answer: easy because this was made up by primitive men who didn't know better. you wouldn't believe anyone else claims that sound like the book of revelation without heaps of evidence!
exactly, i wouldn't believe anyone else's claims that sound similar to the book of revelation.....period....the Word of God is complete according to the Apostle Paul; therefore no book of Mormon...or any other heretical writing are acceptable.
i think I'm gonna have to call it good in this little discourse u are too far gone to reach currently! i used to be kinda like u back in the day although not quite as assumptive and my arguments for the faith were better than yours! i can only hope that as you continue to seek the truth u will become free of your irrational religious mental defense mechanisms.
Who knows what you mean by "Fundie Creationist" crazywhapeles, but whatever it is, it's probably considerably warped from the facts of what I am an believe!
Now if you mean by that that I'm one of those who believe in the "fundamental" truths of the Bible and that the Almighty God created heaven and earth, then you are right on.
I use the term fundie creationist to distinguish you from the Lysenko creationists. While you use the bible to support your version of creationism, the lysenko creationists uses the ideas of the "blank slate", "noble savage" to support their impossible ideas of economic egalitarianism and communism. They are more dangerous to science than you because they control the power structure of the West such as the Ivy Universities and the bureaucracies.
Well, i'm not dangerous to science at all as an "fundie creationist" -- we need science and we need intellectual honesty in science. I don't use the Bible to support my version of creationisn....the Bible IS THE source of creationism.
The bible is not the only source for supporting ideas that assume humans are some kind of special mystical creature, marxism also does the same thing (Lysenko Creationists). I reject both as superstitions and myth. Unfortunately, the marxist Lysenko Creationists are the ruling class of the West.
Nice way to sidestep the issue here, but don't you think the universally accepted "theory" (well I say it's as close to truth as it gets) of evolution directly confronts any creation arguments? Bible, which is written a few thousand years ago, without all the knowledge that we as homo sapiens have today, is still to be upheld as a trustworthy source in such a debate? I for one don't think so.
The Bible is ancient and true and God-given by the creator of the universe...tons of evidence for its truth. The first man was Adam created by God. The skeletal record does not support evolution. There are variations within species or "kinds" as the Bible puts it, In other words dogs, wolves, foxes may have all developed from the original dog-like animal, but that dogs evolved from dolphins (as I once heard on a science program) is a bunch of wild imagination unsupported by the fossil record!
First of all, please gather your facts in order, if you gather enough evidence to convince me that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and so is the universe, instead of mindlessly falsify the fossil records. Second, please try to understand what evolution is all about before you speak.
Do some research yourself on the internet for "young earth" sources. There is plenty of information out there to refute the billions of years of age....of anything in the universe....except God himself who had no beginning....!
Sorry, those arguments aren't strong enough for most of academia, nor is it strong enough to "refute" the age of universe. And how is it rational or logical that God had no beginning but everything else does?
That's what makes God the divine -- he is all powerful and had no beginning. From nothing comes nothing. The only thing in the universe that was always there as the Bible claims is the almighty power God himself....fully logical deduction even without the Bible!
How is this logical without taking the Bible word for word? I think Murray Gell-Mann says it best, you don't need something more, to explain something more.
I believe the Bible is God-given and can be taken word-for-word! The evidences for the Bible are tremendously stacked in its favor! You have the wonders of it's unique design, of its survival, of its historical precision, of its scientific respectability, of it predictive prophecy, of its main theme -- Jesus Christ, and the wonder of its life-transforming message!
Read "10 Reasons to Trust the Bible" by Don Stewart....
Please stop repeating yourself. Religion came into existence as a method by which people could be controlled. It is a framework for social interactions, not a literal bible. Good for you--you believe so strongly. Just please stop with the spamming. I'd like to read actual commentary, not zealous outbursts. Go blog about this somewhere else.
I don't agree with the conclusions on parenting because he is using a set of data that does not distinguish between variability in the environment and the adoption of different niche's or specialization within the family.Sibling compete and differentiate. We need studies that compare parenting styles with outcomes in genetically identical siblings in different households. One then can we identify the degree to which nature and nurture and uncontrollable factors contribute.
michalchik 1 month ago
I am more than halfway through "The Blank Slate" and it is interesting. I do have a gripe with this statement on page 128: "anyone who believes in an immaterial soul is certainly not going to believe that thought and feeling consist of information processing in the tissues of the brain." This seems to sugguest that you have to either believe in neuroscience or an immaterial soul. However, the two are NOT mutually exclusive unless a person is an extreme Cartesianist, Anyone agree?
metaldude82 1 month ago
Logically, he's begging the question. By positing a human nature as it relates to art and criticism, and using that position to reject art and criticism as contrary to his position, he's not giving us any insight into what this rejection might actuall entail; instead, he's simply rejecting without analysing, and justifying his rejection through his lack of analysis. If human nature is at odds with modern art and criticism, it's not enough to say so; he should be prepared to say how.
dROUFrank 1 month ago
It is not necessarily the case that Pinker is wrong, as such, about art and criticism, as that he hasn't even bothered to format the question to the answer he's posited in the relevant language. He's made little attempt to understand "elite" art or criticism, literary analysis or theory, or to appreciate the literary and visual forms he's talking about. Instead he simply rejects them because they reject "human nature" as he understands it.
dROUFrank 1 month ago
The problem with what Steven Pinker has said about the arts and criticism, is that he's attributing "decline" to a disregard for human nature. That may seem like a reasonable hypothesis to him, but what he's doing is effacing the functions of the fields he's critiquing. Without raising the question of what human nature is, as it relates to culture and art, there exists no criticism, no analysis, and art and theory recapitulate undigested assumptions latent in the concept of human nature.
dROUFrank 1 month ago
Oops, the Nazis were right, yet again. How embarrassing.
raderator 2 months ago
His mind is so structured, I can almost hear the clicks when he's talking. Each argument has logical steps going back to his view of the world. Very impressive
crudhousefull 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
This guy is awesome. Very very smart
crudhousefull 2 months ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
Comment removed
dubified89 2 months ago
Steven Pinker has been fiercely ignoring epigenetics because it disproves his thesis about how people are biologically-driven savages.
Even in his latest 2011 book, not a single mention.
MaxWeberz 3 months ago
@MaxWeberz, Epigenetics has the same conclusion as Pinker... not only genetics plays an important part of who you are but the development of cells will vary even among twins... which is what Pinker mentioned in this very precise video. Second, he never said we are all biologically-driven savages, he said heredity plays a huge role in our personality, but other things such as culture and peers also have minor effects
...., in essence there is no perfect copy of anything.
ManyInfiniteComments 2 months ago
very impressive TED talk, love Pinker
NUGNESS123 3 months ago
Anyone ever notice Pinker tries really hard to avoid talking about epigenetics? Because with epigenetics not only is Pinker wrong but his entire argument is obsolete.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Well, I think there is a good reason for why he doesn't mention it: there is very little evidance for it. He would only confuse his audiance with arguments that have litt scientific evidence compared to the evidence of what he talks about holds. Most biologists believe epigenetics is now enjoying their 15 minutes of fame in the biological community
Ovemathias 3 months ago
@Ovemathias
I doubt that since there are numerous studies that show epigenetics very well and it can't just be like 7 different flukes on completely different subjects (violence, obesity, addiction, schizophrenia etc.).
If anything, Pinker's 15 minutes of fame are up and he only got famous because people in power like to hear about how people are biologically trapped and can't be rehabbed.
AndroidPolitician 3 months ago
This actually proves the white race is more...
Hermoor 3 months ago
@Hermoor more.....smart
FIGHTFANNERD3 2 months ago
Seriously speaking, I don't see anyone who knows about the real meaning of the nature in relation to what you guys call or name it as 'Language'. If the whole world is attacked by the natural disaster and no one left so, next new creatures which are as capable as us will get to know such thing called 'Language' or not we created!!! everything is empty soil is soil no one owns it even air doesn't own itself. we all are distorted and don't know how to exploit our mind according to the truth of t
mackjang10 3 months ago
It's a shame that some people mistake open-mindedness for elitism. Especially when those with closed minds are usually the ones who are most judgmental. I believe it was Frank Zappa who once said "you can be a truck driver and still be a snob." Take care people :)
mightyafrowhitey 4 months ago
@mightyafrowhitey I think that's a misdirection. People often confuse 'open-mindedness'. It means open for consideration without pre-judgment, not open to acceptance without any judgment. If it doesn't please the senses via human nature, people will reject it: beauty, aesthetics, symmetry, meter, etc. Modern movements (elite, by definition) moved away from these themes to unconstrained ones, and nobody likes them. That's not closed-minded pre-judgment; it's legitimate post-judgment.
ChadEnglishPhD 4 months ago
I like the picture on the left and I'm not even interested in 'art'. What ever that is on the right, I don't see the woman in that.
HybridD91 4 months ago
I prefer genetic engineering to 'fix' humanity.
HybridD91 4 months ago
That lone man in the audience who laughs at each joke kinda reminds me of this lol:
/watch?v=klAMX956Oi4
StatelessLiberty 5 months ago
Yeah the Gays really messed up the rainbow for me!
When I was child and I saw a rainbow, it was a thing of beauty and there was that slight chance there just might be that pot of gold at the end of it.
But now when I see a Rainbow, All I see is a couple of leprechauns humping each other! It aint right…
bobaldeagleclark 7 months ago
Pinker is right about the "Blank Slate" being a myth but thinks that genes are absolute and can never change which is totally wrong.
Genes can be altered by our environment (epigenetics) and the environment is required for things like depression and violence. For instance, there is a gene associated with depression but only if people experience actual traumatic events, and not everyone with the gene will get it. Likewise people without the gene can get depression.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
@AndroidPolitician that's not what i gathered from his talk. he doesn't say anywhere that genes are absolute. he just points out they have a defining nature most people were ignoring before-hand.
jeaumiew 5 months ago
@jeaumiew
His version of "nature" is one that is determined by genes and has humans be violent and stupid which is why we need a Leviathan or state to regulate them.
You might notice he never mentions epigenetics and relies on twin studies which can be like he describes or they might turn out completely different.
The fact is, his ideas on human behavior are used to justify power.
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
@AndroidPolitician The Gabor Mate, James Gilligan and Robert Sapolski school of thought. Also the the most balanced because it recognises genetic predisposition but *not* predetermination. Behavior is cultivated by environment, and any abhorrent behavior can be dormant without stimuli or rectified by nurturing social conditions. Great section in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward on these men if you haven't seen it.
mysterywhiteboy72 3 months ago
google "The Almost Blank Slate Making a Case for Human Nurture " it is a review on the book this lectuer is based on.
Mikeofdundee1987 7 months ago
I will explain the biggest problem of both determinism and constructivism in social science by paraphrasing a quote:
"the distinction between the determinist and constructivism has sometimes been blurred because an excessively consistent practice of either leads to the same practical result — ruthlessness in political life."
inferno0020 8 months ago
Stephen Jay Gould, that guy is a polymath of fail.
fringeelements 8 months ago 9
This doesn't seem to make much sense when you take into consideration recent studies on epigenetics.
attemptingtobehumble 9 months ago
and I think "modern art" in all it forms is some of the most asthetically beautiful art that has ever been created. I understand I am at odds with many people on this, though I can't really understand why they would disagree with me. it all comes down to personal taste since beauty is anything but an objective quality.
mightyafrowhitey 11 months ago
@mightyafrowhitey Modern art is crude and ugly. This would be plain to anyone with a developed aesthetic sense, which you obviously lack. There is not a single work of modern art that can rightly be termed beautiful - the drawing is universally poor, thats a given, but the arrangement of value, color, and paint handling all drops off considerably after about 1910. Anyone who likes modern art is a phony concerned with creating the false perception of sophistication. Its no more than a con game
mittROMNEY666 4 months ago
@mittROMNEY666 That has to be one of the most pompous comments I've ever heard on youtube. It is the height of arrogance to presume that just because you happen to not like something, that makes it "bad." It's kind of sad that you've probably never even entered into modern art without any preconceived notions. That's fine though, some people just don't get it. And that's fine. But it's pretty self-centered to think that everyone who likes modernism is doing it just to try and be intelligent.
mightyafrowhitey 4 months ago
it's funny what they'r saying about art. because in my opinion, art, whether it's dance, music, painting, or literature started getting most interesting starting at the beginning of the 20th century.
mightyafrowhitey 11 months ago
I believe that argument is that the quality of art has declined and not the quantity. it's a judgement call surely.
mightyafrowhitey 11 months ago
wow, people as late as the 20th century still believed in the tabula rasa? I believe John Locke originated the idea.
mightyafrowhitey 11 months ago
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.
pawsoned 11 months ago
@pawsoned google, pinker storyteller
Mikeofdundee1987 11 months ago
Thanks, I'm reading it. It's good
pawsoned 11 months ago
Pinker is right about the academic humanities. They tend to focus way too much on grey areas, and then generalise from those grey areas. They can't see the forest for the trees.
Having said that, not all their work is useless.
lamentate07 11 months ago
Th Nazis were right, as usual.
raderator 1 year ago
This dude is a nerd
cnestudy1 1 year ago
@cnestudy1 maybe, but what's wrong with that?
FGGTZORZ 1 year ago
To be fair to Butler, she doesn't always write so densely. Good talk by Pinker though.
ThisSentenceIsFalse 1 year ago
Ok, the part about arts did offend(?) me a little bit, being a huge fan of modern and post modern arts. But it's ok because he does not make political assertion such as "modern and post modern art should lose their present way!" or something like that. I'm not a fan of all of Pinker's work but this was at least interesting. The rest wasn't anything I haven't heard of before. But the arts part was something new.
laruefichtner 1 year ago
A blank slate is an odd idea for modern people to have. It would be odd to buy a computer that was completely blank, and it would be unusable without copying material onto it before you even get to do anything. We very basically can't start out blank.
stevebritgimp 1 year ago
The blank slate is one of the most annoying conceptions modern people have...
xNickTheBrickx 1 year ago 3
@xNickTheBrickx I agree. It's frustrating that people believe it's so simple to change oneself.
Cyrus150 1 year ago
@xNickTheBrickx Not more annoying that the other end of the spectrum AKA genetic determinism.
Epigenetics is the most accurate explanation for me.
Ignozi 11 months ago 3
@xNickTheBrickx indeed
FIGHTFANNERD3 2 months ago
Could someone please tell me the name of that composition at the end of the video? I know it wasn't written specifically for that ad.
MisappliedRhetoric 1 year ago
He had me for the first ten minutes with all the science, and then he started spewing all these judgmental unscientific conclusions and totally lost me.
Also, he missed a critical factor that tweaks people in addition to genetics, environment, and chance: TRAUMA. About 1/3 of children suffer significant and sustained trauma, and this drastically effects the physiology, structure and development of the human brain and human psychology. Search for "bomb in the brain" here on youtube.
daimonmagus 1 year ago
@daimonmagus Wouldn't trauma be covered by chance?
Aletheophile 1 year ago
@Aletheophile
Yes, or by "environment," but it deserves a separate category. Why? Because childhood trauma effects about 1/3 of the populace, and is a very real problem. Just fixing this ONE thing,,,even just cutting it in half...would make a huge impact on society. Also, because many parents do not even consider what they do abuse, or traumatic, or as potentially causing brain damage. I think if parents realized that spanking their kids can result in brain damage, they might not do it.
daimonmagus 1 year ago
@daimonmagus Point taken.
Aletheophile 1 year ago
@daimonmagus I completely agree.
hinatahsama 8 months ago
@daimonmagus I don't get this comment, or why people thumbed it up. What judgmental unscientific conclusions did Pinker come to? He argued that the decline of the arts is due to their lack of appeal to human nature, and that parenting is not as important a factor in children's behavior once genes are taken into account. Both of these are based on psychological research. The video you linked is by Stefan Molyneux, who is not a qualified psychologist, and a questionable character at that.
Agnotio 10 months ago 30
@Agnotio
The decline of art can be traced back to liberal art intellectuals' paradoxical and absurd attitude toward fine art. The progressive artists disdain and "deconstruct" art, painting, and music. (For instance, feminists love to criticize classic art on women are sexism, and the classic dancing as the by-product of patriarchy). After they kill the fine art, they start complaining why the fine art is dying and why the majority are corrupted by consumerism. Well, we know why now.
inferno0020 8 months ago
@inferno0020 okay, that comment is consistent with mine that said that modern art doesn't appeal to human nature as much as it used it. I'm not sure why you're responding to me in particular.
Agnotio 8 months ago
@daimonmagus
"Kelley's (1997) study showed that 100% of those violent juveniles needing complete neurological evaluations had been abused by parents or relatives, either physically or sexually."
I thought you might find this interesting. In much the same way smoking causes cancer the environment plays a huge role in violence.
AndroidPolitician 7 months ago
My fathers left handed, sucks to be him!
BBDrums34 1 year ago
I think I have an academic crush... :)
sibzism 1 year ago
Pinker is on the cutting edge. Excellent presentation.
astrothwins 1 year ago
Foucault had more brains in his head than this guy could have in ten heads. Down with fake Darwinism!
nebuncz 1 year ago
astoundingly overrated book + huge hypocrite in his embracement of the ashkenazi intelligence paper + supreme jewfro
Danube03 1 year ago
I'd rather have root canal than endure another miniute
dajdmac 1 year ago
Pinker reminds me of the joker in "the dark knight" movie.
serenoodio 1 year ago
I used some of Pinker's work when writting about an essay about how language is innate in all humans. Some people used to think that language was coppied and carefully learnt by children and that the human brain had no special properties for language learning.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
Pinker has balls to be treading this thin ice between science and philosophy. Respect....even if he's wrong on some things, his overall points are at least trying to make sense of the hard to tackle stuff of life.
Thrashaero 1 year ago
How could someone claim that the human brain is not predisposed to any behaviors? This attitude of human exceptionalism pisses me off. It flies in the face of all the evidence, and, ironically, it reflects an attitude humans are predisposed to: whatever group you happen to be a part of is superior.
alexjohnc3 1 year ago
I have studied psychology and this man is insane. Explain feral children Pinker
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
@Mikeofdundee1987 Explain the LAD, dumbfuck.
alexjohnc3 1 year ago
@alexjohnc3 Since you curse I will use Pinkers model to say to you, your just like your father aren't you lol
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
@Mikeofdundee1987 Aww, I'm sorry I offended your meager sensibilities.
alexjohnc3 1 year ago
@alexjohnc3 lol, look at you talking with the big boys
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
@Mikeofdundee1987 You're a "big boy"? Grow the fuck up, kid.
alexjohnc3 1 year ago
@Mikeofdundee1987 Feral children confirm that there are both innate and learned tendencies. There is nothing in this video that suggests Pinker is insane, and I'm guessing he has studied psychology longer than you have.
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
@friendofthefunk Cyril Burt studied psychology for longer than Pinker and used to talk about intelligence like this and was very respected until it was discovered that he made it all up! Psychology is not a natural science, we should remember that. It does not explain the natural world. Don't get so exicited.
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
@Mikeofdundee1987 Anyone can be mistaken and a scientist in any field can falsify data, but to call someone insane just because you disagree with him is just foolish. And to say psychology is not a natural science is untrue. The brain is a biological structure and can be studied scientifically as such, so while psychology may be considered a social science in certain contexts it is certainly a natural science as well.
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
@friendofthefunk Psychology is a social science, it cannot work on a positivist model
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
@Mikeofdundee1987 Sounds like you just don't like psychology, so you keep insisting it is in no way a natural science. However, unfortunately for you, insisting on something doesn't make it true.
alexjohnc3 1 year ago
@alexjohnc3 maybe you should take your own advice. I study psychology and know how weak and undesided it actually is. It is not a natural science.
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
@Mikeofdundee1987 The problem with your inane comment is that if you knew anything about psychology you would know it's a very broad field that encompasses both things that are "weak and undesided [sic]" and very well evidenced like any other science. It has both pure experiments and quasi-experiments. Even if you only have the most basic understanding of the field, it's surprising you're this ignorant.
alexjohnc3 1 year ago
@alexjohnc3 to quote you, it's a very broad field that encompasses both things that are "weak and undesided. Thats my point.
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
@Mikeofdundee1987 I'm saying it also has aspects that are well evidenced and are the result of experimentation. Those aspects are undoubtedly scientific.
I wonder if you'd consider theoretical physics scientific?
alexjohnc3 1 year ago
@alexjohnc3 science exists so that one day it may be disproven.
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mikeofdundee1987 "science exists so that one day it may be disproven.
Mikeofdundee1987 2 months ago "
hahahah, ain't that the truth.
Hilbert claimed "we MUST know, we WILL know"
Godel proved "you can't"
Turing added " and you don't know squat either".
Chaitin compounded it with " and you never will".
Pinker is just a boy who hasn't matured into a man, he'd try to quantify love and think he still makes sense.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mikeofdundee1987 "Psychology is not a natural science, we should remember that. It does not explain the natural world." errm....brains are not part of the natural world?
Aletheophile 1 year ago
@Aletheophile psychology is not an objective science or a natural science. It is a social science and if you ask anyone in that field they will tell you that.
Mikeofdundee1987 1 year ago
Comment removed
RBN1967 1 year ago
@RBN1967
Sheer rectal locution. Pinker is a cognitive psychologist as well as linguist, you fucking Dolt.
As for Noam Chomsky, only his formal Credentials are limited to linguistics.
Much like Isaac Asimov, that man knows damn near everything.
MisappliedRhetoric 1 year ago
@Mikeofdundee1987
Yeah psychology doesn't use biology or anything, just a bunch of random assumptions...
AndroidPolitician 5 months ago
So his criticism of Judith Butler is that she uses convoluted language that Pinker can't understand? I see he's using the glen beck defence
whatdaheck5 1 year ago 2
@whatdaheck5 I think his criticism is that she uses language that few people can understand and therefore she may not be an effective communicator.
friendofthefunk 1 year ago
@friendofthefunk I'm not denying that point. But pinker always uses the same tactic to destroy a concept or person. Pick out one small part that is negative or bad, in this case her communication skill. Then, use that example to marginalize the entire concept or person.
whatdaheck5 1 year ago 2
@whatdaheck5 I think you missed the point, its not just that Judith is not a very good communicator, there is a large movement in the field of artistic criticism that actually encourages this kind of obscurantism.
Aletheophile 1 year ago 6
I love the idea that everything I am is because of me, that i can be inspired and helped and taught.. but that I am pre-programed to find certain things inspiring and certain things worth learning.
On the other hand it's scary, because i haven't got any children but I was kind of planning that if i ever did I would carefully mold them into little versions of myself!
rabbitwho 1 year ago
The Blank Slate is an old phylosophical idea: compare with John Locke's "Tabula Rasa"!!!!
luarionte 1 year ago
t;hu[p;[p03wp er nkafm,.sd
n
azileflute 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's funny to see Pinker in this video ridiculing himself by trying to pass off as an intellectual. His argument is pseudo-scientific, incoherent adn when he takes on aesthetic or social issues he appears completely illiterate.
tzitzikifan 1 year ago
Hmmm, well...among other impressive achievements, Pinker is a Harvard professor. He was listed in Times 'top 100 most influential people' and has been on TED numerous times. What have you accomplished intellectually with your life?
fermentedoffal 1 year ago
@fermentedoffal ill vouch for that
utsawin09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hai my name is freemoviebonanza [.] com
What my name is freemoviebonanza [.] com
Who my name is freemoviebonanza [.] com
dingsonarianafi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First the Jews make money repressing the obvious, then more money exposing it.
raderator 2 years ago
@raderator Shalom, brother!
bogdanF132 2 years ago
i dont get it? ya know jews blks italians, asians, does it really matter? really? i understand theres certain grps political n religgy but when u get down to it ppl r ppl.
adzug 1 year ago
What a great talk and far too brief.
To consider that all our actions or reactions are drived from genes is not the issue, it is a source, yes.
In psychology we also have many other factors, as was stated, which are self moderating factors as well, which can influence behaviour or reactions as well.
eg. the repression of gay tendancies, recent studies, show a 90% increase in the subject performing spousal abuse and homophobic reactions.
The basis in which Stephen talks, fits humanity
MilitantPeaceist 2 years ago
I disagree with the final conclusion of this because I don't see an important consideration taken into account: a systemic view that sees kids taking on different roles all but ensures massive differences in the same household. Here's the kicker - while one child may play the good kid or the bad, the athlete or the scholar, it doesn't equate to no environmental, cultural or social imprinting. It would be as ridiculous to say we are not a systemic species as it would to deny our genetic nature
Darwyn43 2 years ago
I paused the video too quick - I agree with the assessment that culture and chance play big roles, I agree that genes play some part (not as much as many think, though, given the nature of inherited protein-makers can manifest), but I do stand by his interpretation that equated to no role for parenting. I would like to see him take into consideration family systems.
Darwyn43 2 years ago
Although I believe that there is a God, I have to say, he makes a VERY good argument. I couldn't agree more with what he said at the end.
Haven't read his book, but was referred to him by my professor. I just might pick up his book...
MoriKAshi 2 years ago
The book is very convincing, but I think it would be better to read "How the mind works" before picking up the Blank Slate.
Nades129 2 years ago
I love Pinker.
FreemanGordon2009 2 years ago 21
great book, I can recommend it.
The funny thing is, that the strongest rejection of Pinker´s book did not come from a leftist or behaviourist, but was uttered by Jared Taylor, publisher of American Renaissance, a kind of "race-conscious" group. So, if you dont want to agree with those, you possibly agree with Pinker.
ulizinho 2 years ago
It's conservatism afraid of conservatist science and the non existence of a personal God. It's OK if it works for us, as long as it doesn't apply to others. which simply equate to xenophobia and fanatism which are adapted psychological mechanism gone souht...
sliders7972 2 years ago
I wish there were more of these talks available to us, on more topics. He discusses so many different things in his books--naming, for example, is fascinating.
More from TED would be nice. The quality is surprisingly good in nearly all of their videos, and not just for Pinker.
CyhAnide 2 years ago
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Thank you very much. I'm glad to be an "idiot" for the sake of Christ and the truth of His Word the Bible. The Bible has overwhelming evidence on its side....archeologically, historically, etc.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Of course humans have preprogrammed instincts. Humans are just animals.
On a related topic, there are two types of creationists: Lysenko Creationists and Fundie Creationists.
crazywhapeles 2 years ago
You never answered to the fact that you can't show from complexity that there is one god more than two hundred more than just some force that created the universe more than 9.45 gods that were created by a supernatural force. you can't justify one supernatural assumption over another. i don't doubt that it's possible the universe was created outside of natural forces but you are totally pulling your assumption from desert sand writings and not from reason.
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
I'm not pulling any assumptions from desert sand writing, but from the Word of God. The evidence for the truth of the Bible both in archeology and otherwise is overwhelming...and ancient book containing many books written over 1,500 years with singleness of purpose and unity...could only have been God-given. And where did those natural forces come from....don't forget from nothing comes nothing UNLESS it's supernatural....GOD.
markpianoman 2 years ago
again you obviously can't answer to my point that you can't just assume your god from complexity you failed to answer the question. refer to previous statements.
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
overwhelming evidence my butt!!! i was preparing myself to become a missionary by delving into yer so called evidence and it sucks it's not there!!! it was so easily fabricated too. I'm sure you think people fabricated the gospel of judas, thomas, mary, peter,and so on why not the others? people made up the koran, zeus, thor, on and on. paul is the only one who can vouch for paul within his time period. that one verse in peter means nothing becuase it's vague!
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made (creation), so that men are without excuse.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
markpianoman 2 years ago
a good quote when one has no solid evidence for god to get people to believe! i guess it's just a coincidence that this is the best reason for belief that the bible can come up with! belief without physical evidence but with heavily biased metaphysical evidence is really valuable to god for some unexplainable reason. again just a coincidence that this is a great way to get people that have no reason to believe to do so.
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
The verse simply shows that the witness of the creation all around us points to God...and therefore men are without excuse when they stand before Him in a coming day!
markpianoman 2 years ago
again beauty and complexity doesn't mean that there is a god more than no gods more than a million gods. unless your making a purely metaphysical statement like "I know in my heart that there is a god when i look at creation". However many religions state this and that it is their god they feel. i don't put much trust in metaphysical epistemology because it's full of bias and inconsistent. your god condemns those who critically analyze and rewards the impressionable. Sounds made up by men to me
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
juanitotraveler, you said, "your god condemns those who critically analyze and rewards the impressionable." Can you give me some concrete examples...rather than just throwing out a rediculous statement like that.?
Knowing that nothing comes from nothing...beauty and complexity are clear indications of a creator.
markpianoman 2 years ago
i don't need examples because faith in christ is what one needs to be saved but if you seek the truth and lack that then one is condemned. plus if i give examples of people seeking the truth that didn't come to your conclusion you'll probably just say "oh well you can't really know that they sought the truth wholeheartedly"
"beauty and complexity are clear indications of a creator" yeah except when we talk about yer creator right? cause you can draw whatever cut off point you conveniently want
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
Folks - listen to:
Evidence for God from Physics & Astronomy_Lee Strobel
on Youtube
If you disagree, at least it will be a good laugh.
markpianoman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Folks - listen to:
Evidence for God from Physics & Astronomy_Lee Strobel
on Youtube
markpianoman 2 years ago
why? it's worthless. lee strobel is not a scientist, he doesn't even do a decent try at apologetics. he has a degree in LAW...isn't it funny he doesn't have a degree in something where you get acclaim for finding the truth....but instead in a field where you gain acclaim for convincing others regardless of the truth? funny isn't it?
addmoreice 2 years ago 2
So what you're telling me is that ONLY a scientist can speak any truth regarding science???
List to the fact and statistics regarding the universe which he presents.
I bet you just dismissed Strobel because he isn't a "scientist" -- lots of you aren't interested in truth, but interested in finding excuses to reject it.
markpianoman 2 years ago
no of course not, but when he presents something patently WRONG it's not exactly convincing. here let me present his ENTIRE argument for you.
If things where different....they would be different. therefore god.
thats it. we are supposed to assume he means the christian god but hey whatever.
addmoreice 2 years ago
first off there are FOUR fundamental forces of the universe. all the other 'variables' derive from these.
we can ignore the weak force _entirely_ the research indicates without it we wouldn't notice a difference. particles wouldn't decay, we wouldn't notice a difference (though carbon dating and such would stop working, oh no!)
we have the strong nuclear force. now if THIS force was shifted up or down, we would change how powerful stars are how much they counteract gravity pulling them in.
addmoreice 2 years ago
this would change how far from a star a habitable zone like ours would be from the sun, not IF there was a habitable zone.
gravity can be shifted up and down the scale and it would mostly just balances the strong nuclear force in almost all regards. there are bounds but they are by no means so extreme as he implies. all this would change is how many stars there are, how far the planets reside from there stars etc etc. we would have FEWER stars (or more) but it's not like we would have NONE
addmoreice 2 years ago
lastly we come to the big daddy. the electromagnetic force! the one that plays with all of chemistry. he is absolutely right when he says if you change this force even a TINY bit then chemistry doesn't work the same way...and that all of our life wouldn't work based on that type of chemistry....and? who says WE are the point of all this? there could be billions of OTHER types of chemistries, all able to support life. or other types of life entirely not based on chemistry at all (who knows?).
addmoreice 2 years ago
so his entire argument rests on the assumption that if we change the forces, our life wouldn't be possible...but this only works to indicate god (sort of, if you squint REAL hard) if you first assume our type of life was the purpose of the universe....which is a conclusion of the god hypothesis in the first place!
I'm sorry sir, but you can't assume something in the postulates in the attempt to prove it in the conclusion!
circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...
addmoreice 2 years ago
heck all of THAT is assuming you wanted a universe with life in it. so what. your misapplying the anthropic principle.
the _whole_ point of the anthropic principle is that the universe we are in has to be able to support life, because we are life in the universe. thats it. nothing more.
it's not supposed to be used to show ANYTHING it is supposed to _eliminate_ certain possibilities.
you could change it also. the universe we exist in has to support the formation of planets....etc etc.
addmoreice 2 years ago
The complexity of the universe doesn't suggest one god more than one million gods! it doesn't suggest three gods anymore than it suggests no gods, but just some force that causes things to happen. lee has no problem stating that a complex creator with no creator exists (total convenient assumption)and yet his mind is closed to any other of the infinite number of possibilities. interpreting desert sandwritings and a feeling in ones heavily biased heart are not a good reason for belief.
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
lee strobel helped lead me to atheism by showing me how weak the evidence for Christianity really was. his book and video case for the creator are poorly researched (science teacher talking here). all his case books are so full of the worst reasoned arguments ever that one would have to turn a blind eye to not realize how terrible they are. "historical evidence for the resurrection" yeah right! earliest scrap of biblical writings we have dates 90 CE second oldest 150 CE (it's not even canonical)
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
There are many letter exchanges that exist today from the 1st century between Christians and from non-Christians who referenced what some of the Christians believed. No...the earliest biblical writings date from at least 60 AD....
The apostle Paul refers in his writings to over 500 people who saw the risen Christ appear in bodily form...."many of which are still alive today" he writes.
I don't believe you search for truth, but rather you search for excuses to not believe the truth.
markpianoman 2 years ago
i was referring to the earliest that we physically have look up the info if u don't believe me!it doesn't matter anyway we only have stuff from the most biased sources possible. Even stroblel's scholars contend that Josephus was tampered with.i wanted to believe and tried to for years I gave up my girlfriend of 4 years, intimacy in church friendships, and a lot of comfort to be an atheist.i searched truth more than comfort.hope your other beliefs aren't as presupposed as those about my character
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
how are the words of paul evidence for anything? That's like quoting Mohammad as proof of the koran. why would you even bother trying to make a point this way?! i'm guessing you wouldn't believe in a resurrection of anyone else without extreme proof. I don't doubt that there were Christians with ideas back then so what? We have evidence of what Jim Jones followers believed.
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
Your attempts to try to draw any form of correlation between Jim Jones and Christians or the Apostle Paul shows the depth of the darkness of your soul.
I was not just pointing out that ancient writing by Christian exist, but rather writings from those who had witnessed the resurrection of Christ.
markpianoman 2 years ago
I wasn't correlating jim jones and christians. i was simply stating that we have an understanding of jim jones believers ideas just like early christian's ideas and that that knowledge doesn't make either of their ideas about the world true. But i will throw in "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or stoning homosexuals if you need to see the darkness of your own faith. Don't try and say "well that was the old testament" because only a truly cruel person would ever say that's okay.
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
Wow people said they saw christ resurrected you know what i think i'll just convert back since you pointed that out! Sorry to put it so bluntly to you but if i were still a christian i'd want my rhetoric to be able to take it and i would have said bring on the harsh truth. "Be prepared to give an answer to the faith you profess" is the verse that turned me to atheism. maybe you should seek the truth more instead of telling everyone else to.
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The truth of "science" will change and be updated and corrected. The Bible won't need any of that because it is God-given and contains wisdom and truth.
That's why the Bible says that "the wisdom of man is foolishness with God." He is the source of wisdom and knowledge and truth.
markpianoman 2 years ago
wisdom like don't touch a menstruating woman, she should sacrifice doves or a ram for her menstrual pollution, rape women and pay shekels to marry them, don't eat pork "but that's the old testament" oh right i guess it makes sense in light of that ;) virgin birth cause we're intimidated by naughty sex, view homosexuality as sin, women should not instruct or talk in church and have head coverings, john's acid trip sounding revelations(figurative or literal) if you prefer the newtestament nonsense
juanitotraveler 2 years ago 2
Well, for example, I'm sure the Old Testament folks did not have bathrooms with running water in their homes, so the instruction to not touch a menstruating woman makes complete sense....and so it goes....further study and understanding blows all your excuses away.
I'm sure that John Revelations will transpire in a coming day as foretold in Revelations....you just wait and see, the battle of Armageddon, etc. But it will be too late for you by then unfortunately.
markpianoman 2 years ago
"complete sense" hahahahah! your response is so hilarious! I'd really like to hear how not touching menstruating women let alone sacrificing doves for periods is a good idea in detail. Also, if god really was trying to be helpful why not tell them how to have clean running water? answer: easy because this was made up by primitive men who didn't know better. you wouldn't believe anyone else claims that sound like the book of revelation without heaps of evidence!
juanitotraveler 2 years ago 2
exactly, i wouldn't believe anyone else's claims that sound similar to the book of revelation.....period....the Word of God is complete according to the Apostle Paul; therefore no book of Mormon...or any other heretical writing are acceptable.
markpianoman 2 years ago
i think I'm gonna have to call it good in this little discourse u are too far gone to reach currently! i used to be kinda like u back in the day although not quite as assumptive and my arguments for the faith were better than yours! i can only hope that as you continue to seek the truth u will become free of your irrational religious mental defense mechanisms.
juanitotraveler 2 years ago 3
One more thing, i don't think that telling women how to make tampons would have been so hard for a big know-it-all god.
juanitotraveler 2 years ago
Tampons would have provided only very limited help without running water to clean off those nasty fingers....and....
markpianoman 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure all the women present want to hurt you right now. Really. Stop it.
Tampons are AWESOME, and running water is a Godsend...
...Oops! O_o
*chuckle*
CyhAnide 2 years ago
markpianoman is a good example of a Fundie Creationist.
crazywhapeles 2 years ago
Who knows what you mean by "Fundie Creationist" crazywhapeles, but whatever it is, it's probably considerably warped from the facts of what I am an believe!
Now if you mean by that that I'm one of those who believe in the "fundamental" truths of the Bible and that the Almighty God created heaven and earth, then you are right on.
markpianoman 2 years ago
TO markpianoman:
I use the term fundie creationist to distinguish you from the Lysenko creationists. While you use the bible to support your version of creationism, the lysenko creationists uses the ideas of the "blank slate", "noble savage" to support their impossible ideas of economic egalitarianism and communism. They are more dangerous to science than you because they control the power structure of the West such as the Ivy Universities and the bureaucracies.
crazywhapeles 2 years ago
Well, i'm not dangerous to science at all as an "fundie creationist" -- we need science and we need intellectual honesty in science. I don't use the Bible to support my version of creationisn....the Bible IS THE source of creationism.
markpianoman 2 years ago
To markpianoman:
The bible is not the only source for supporting ideas that assume humans are some kind of special mystical creature, marxism also does the same thing (Lysenko Creationists). I reject both as superstitions and myth. Unfortunately, the marxist Lysenko Creationists are the ruling class of the West.
crazywhapeles 2 years ago
Nice way to sidestep the issue here, but don't you think the universally accepted "theory" (well I say it's as close to truth as it gets) of evolution directly confronts any creation arguments? Bible, which is written a few thousand years ago, without all the knowledge that we as homo sapiens have today, is still to be upheld as a trustworthy source in such a debate? I for one don't think so.
hmsrenown 2 years ago
The Bible is ancient and true and God-given by the creator of the universe...tons of evidence for its truth. The first man was Adam created by God. The skeletal record does not support evolution. There are variations within species or "kinds" as the Bible puts it, In other words dogs, wolves, foxes may have all developed from the original dog-like animal, but that dogs evolved from dolphins (as I once heard on a science program) is a bunch of wild imagination unsupported by the fossil record!
markpianoman 2 years ago
First of all, please gather your facts in order, if you gather enough evidence to convince me that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and so is the universe, instead of mindlessly falsify the fossil records. Second, please try to understand what evolution is all about before you speak.
hmsrenown 2 years ago
Do some research yourself on the internet for "young earth" sources. There is plenty of information out there to refute the billions of years of age....of anything in the universe....except God himself who had no beginning....!
markpianoman 2 years ago
Sorry, those arguments aren't strong enough for most of academia, nor is it strong enough to "refute" the age of universe. And how is it rational or logical that God had no beginning but everything else does?
hmsrenown 2 years ago
That's what makes God the divine -- he is all powerful and had no beginning. From nothing comes nothing. The only thing in the universe that was always there as the Bible claims is the almighty power God himself....fully logical deduction even without the Bible!
markpianoman 2 years ago
How is this logical without taking the Bible word for word? I think Murray Gell-Mann says it best, you don't need something more, to explain something more.
hmsrenown 2 years ago
I believe the Bible is God-given and can be taken word-for-word! The evidences for the Bible are tremendously stacked in its favor! You have the wonders of it's unique design, of its survival, of its historical precision, of its scientific respectability, of it predictive prophecy, of its main theme -- Jesus Christ, and the wonder of its life-transforming message!
Read "10 Reasons to Trust the Bible" by Don Stewart....
markpianoman 2 years ago
Please stop repeating yourself. Religion came into existence as a method by which people could be controlled. It is a framework for social interactions, not a literal bible. Good for you--you believe so strongly. Just please stop with the spamming. I'd like to read actual commentary, not zealous outbursts. Go blog about this somewhere else.
CyhAnide 2 years ago