Dr. David Berlinski: Self-criticism (Clip 10)

[ttcmp0]

Nobody likes to admit to have it wrong. But scientists, as a group, are _probably_ the largest group of wrong-admittances (is that a word?). I imagine theists at the other end (with creationists at the far, far end, along with politicians ;) ).

And even if scientists tell that they eager to get "beaten up", it does not enable them to get away from criticism in any way. What's the reasoning behind that statement?

[RandallLord]

This video misses the point about how science works completely. Yes, an individual person, scientist or not, does not like to be criticized, but the process of science is to verify another investigators work and publish the results for peer review. The scientific process is therefore self-correcting, unlike the other process that says '"we have this holy book that we read and believe".

If someone proved that Evolution was false, they would be world famous almost overnight.

[YHWHisSovereign]

Whoever questions Darwinism must be banished forever from society unless they come to repentance. Darwinism must not be questioned. Children must be taught from first grade, and taught the punishment for questioning it. Unfortunately, this is the way most evolutionist react to anyone who would dare question their belief. Dr. Berlinski is a great thinker, but evolutionists hate him for pointing out all the flaws in their belief.

[dezparado5]

Rejecting the possibility of ID is not scientific. Supposing ID is not religious. The fact that the religious & non-religious use the possibility of ID to battle each other does not make ID a non scientific possibility. Miraculous feats of random chance is not scientific. I'm sure that DNA has more intelligence that the lifeforms it builds sometimes.

[djbanizza]

What a load of rubbish! The main mechanism for the advancement of science is critique of existing theories. To propose a new theory you must criticize the shortcomings of an existing theory!

[dragknuckle]

@djbanizza

When the Sistine Chapel was restored, they found that the colours were bright and vibrant. This was a serious problem for many art historians, who had developed extensive explanations as to why Michelangelo had used dull, muted colours. Their response was to claim that the restorers had damaged and changed the painting, rather than admit that they were wrong.

Scientists are capable of self-deception as well.

[AwesomeSuperbaws]

Atheist, yeah?

[kshackleton]

What a liar.

He equates the practice of science with individual scientists.

Scientists dislike being criticized, but they LOVE to point out the errors in the works of others. That is how it works.

Berlinski is a lying sack of shit.

[newdimensionfilms]

"If somebody publishes data that don't work out in the right way or if there are mathematical flaws in a certain theory, these tend to get known."

That's the self criticism part Bernie. What you're looking for is a criticism of scientific materialism, which you're not gonna find because the alternative is magic and that just plain doesn't work for science.

[garethac81]

How ironic that Berlinski complains about scientists avoiding criticism, when the worst culprits for avoiding peer-reviewed publications are creationist organisations like the Discovery Institute.

Oh, did I forget to mention that Berlinski is a fellow of the Discovery Institute?

[LovingKimiKatkar]

["I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them… The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed…" – Theodore Roosevelt]

[heloizyjhenifer]

He's one of the most dishonest people ever to have walked this earth.

[AwesomeSuperbaws]

Nice PhD

[gregrutz]

Who found out about the one and only hoax, piltdown man?

Scientists did.

.

''Scientists don't like ... me too''. At least he admits he is NOT a Scientist.

[TerrencePhillip66]

@gregrutz And who was the hoax perpetrated against? Scientists. They were the victims of the hoax. Creationists are still peddling Moab Man, fossilized cowboy boots, Paluxy tracks, evolution violates the 2nd law, Lucy's knee was found a mile away from the rest of the remains, Lucy was found over a size of several football fields, Lucy was not bipedal, Lucy's hip was fraudulently rebuilt, oh hell Lucy alone proves creotards are liars. Therefore all of creationism is disproved.

[gregrutz]

@TerrencePhillip66

But,, but  but they are christians, it would be a sin to lie.

They wouldn't do that, would they?

The Discovery Institute surely would not pay someone with a DR. not in biology, to question evolution?

Adding nothing, just being an ass.

[JerezJulio]

Of course if you are such a mean spirited crackpot like David Berlinski who keeps making stuff up, then you are going to be critizied.

[gregrutz]

Science is self correcting, what a liar.

[MikeTMerciless]

@gregrutz You mean science keeps moving the goal posts to deflect self-criticism?

[gregrutz]

@MikeTMerciless Like when creationists can't prove evolution wrong so the talk about the BIG BANG and Abiogenisis?

[MikeTMerciless]

@gregrutz The fossil record has proven evolution to be wrong. And there is no evidence to support the idea that random mutation through environmental stimuli changes one species to another. But more importantly, it's interesting that you bring up abiogenesis, because it is precisely fanatical darwinists who subscribe to this idea.

[gregrutz]

@MikeTMerciless

Evolution has not been proven wrong.

Correct, random mutation did not change anything. But that is not evolution.

Darwin wrote. Origin of Species, not origin of life.

so ''fanatical darwinininiists' do give a shit.

IDIOT !

[MikeTMerciless]

@gregrutz I think you need to actually read his work and then understand the entire premise. Unlike you, I obviously have. Look up what a tautology is, and what a truism is, then apply these concepts first to the Laws of Thermodynamics or to the General Theory of Relativity (or the Special if you're so inclined). Maybe then you'll see what we're talking about. But that would require actual work on your part.

[gregrutz]

@MikeTMerciless I already know about Thermodynamics, and I know why evolution does not violate them.

I also know about Einstein's theories and the expanding universe, Leading to the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Everything.

I know enough about Geology to prove there was no global flood.

So tell me all about philosophy.

[MikeTMerciless]

@gregrutz I said look up what a tautology is, and a truism, then compare those concepts to what the laws of Thermodynamics is, and then the Theories of General and Special Relativity, and THEN, take another look at Darwin's "theory" of Evolution. While you're at it, read Thomas Malthus essays on Population and then Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, and you'll get a better idea of where Darwin truly got his ideas.

[TerrencePhillip66]

@MikeTMerciless "then apply these concepts first to the Laws of Thermodynamics "

So what is the relevance of the study of thermodynamics to the theory of evolution? Please explain. Especially the 2nd law.

[MikeTMerciless]

@TerrencePhillip66 Directly they don't. But one falls into actual science and the other does not by virtue of the fact that there can be no viable experimentation that proves parent-descendant relationship with similar fossils of species (speciation), nor can we conduct experiments deducing the notion of a common ancestor for all lifeforms. Thermodynamics, on the other hand, is highly quantifiable, and observable, and can be resolved and predicted mathematically.

[TerrencePhillip66]

@MikeTMerciless Again, what is the relevance of the 2nd law to evolution? BTW, it is 'the 2nd law,' and the 'theory of evolution' not the 'law of evolution'. It is apparent that you don't know the difference between a law and a theory in science. And please, apply 'truism' and 'tautology' to the Laws of Thermodynamics. Teach us O Great One, for we idiots wish to learn science from a creationist (snicker).

[gregrutz]

@MikeTMerciless thermodynamics is about heat flow. evolution is about biology and the history of life. Math is explained with laws, facts are explained by theories.

[TerrencePhillip66]

@gregrutz They don't seem to understand that they are saying the process of evolution would send more thermal energy to the sun than it receives from the sun. They get waylaid into the 'order from disorder' canard since they don't understand thermodynamic order - the possible set of microstates a system can be in. The energy life binds up by increasing thermodynamic order on earth by storing that energy in molecular bonds -organic compounds - is dwarfed by the increasing disorder in the sun.

[TheFreebourne]

The interesting, at least to me, quantitative nature is a clearly a 10/80/10 split. The first 10 percent lay with dogs, the second 80 wait to see if dogs are worth laying with, and the last 10 percent say "Stop being flee infesting, lie infested mongrel's."

[gregrutz]

How would he know about scientists, he is a math teacher.

[DeJay14]

@gregrutz um no he is

[logicCplusplus]

test

[sherwoodstars]

Since the theory pf evolution of life generally by chance plus natural selection is backed by no good evidence, criticizing it is a perfectly desirable activity. We shouldn't go around claiming that a theory that is false or very dubious, is the same thing as real science which has been properly verified by experiments.

[urantivirus]

@sherwoodstars What would you consider to be good evidence for evolution? And second of all. When you say "evolution by chance and natural selection". What do you think "chance" means?

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars

Why can't IDiots see fossils?

Do you just pretend they don't exist?

[sherwoodstars]

Darwin-fans don't seem to be able to understand that Berlinski is criticizing evolution by chance and natural selection, not some other form of "evolution" which might be proposed. He doesn't espouse intelligent design, nor does he deny that new species have descended from older ones. He calls his view on the subject "intelligent uncertainty." They should pay attention, think carefully about his arguments, and thus possibly learn something.

[gregrutz]

You are right, he is paid to criticize by the Discovey Institue. He offeres no other explaination, HE IS Worthless, HE Adds NOTHING to the world

[logicCplusplus]

No, you got that backwards. Darwins theory offers no explanation. The mechanism is obsolete to explain information processing systems. This is the 21st century, the information age, any biologist in the modern day who discusses changes from one species (hop) to another under via NS & RM + genetic drift is worthless, because its simply wrong.

[urantivirus]

@logicCplusplus It's easy to just say "because its simply wrong". If it's that simple, can you explain why evolution is wrong? There is a lot of evidence for evolution coming from scientists that work in the field of biology. And you're expecting me to believe one or two odd biologists and a bunch of lawers, theologians and other scientists of nonrelated fields? I don't believe in creation because I know a lot about both evolution and creation. I bet I can prove you dont know squat about evo...

[logicCplusplus]

Urant, I have written evolutionary algorithms, I know exactly the limits of these algorithms, I have studied Avida and other advanced simulations. Currently I'm working on an evolutionary algorithm that utilizes a binary search tree that takes into account cumulative selection as well as something I call specified selection. Just because this is youtube, does not mean you can make these grand assumptions about what others know.

[urantivirus]

@logicCplusplus I'm making assumptions?

You're making the assumption that nature uses algorithms. lol

I go back to what I said earlier...

"And you're expecting me to believe one or two odd biologists and a bunch of lawers, theologians and other scientists of nonrelated fields?"

That includes you. And you've only proved to me you know nothing about evolutionary biology. And my assumption I made on you were based on your ignorant comments. And I stand by what I said.

[gregrutz]

@logicCplusplus

Why do you think Darwin is well known, he offered the explaination as to how evolution happened.

[sherwoodstars]

Berlinski's argument about the eagle isn't lieterally about how flight developed. That should be obvious. He's simply pointing out that extrapolation often doesn't work, so Darwinists ought to stop trying to make claims based upon it. Thus large and small changes often require different causes: I can walk to my bathroom step by step, but not to China even if I had a billion years. The oceans would stop me..

[gregrutz]

Can't walk to China? Why Not? They walked to the USA.  Just thousands of years ago.

[urantivirus]

@gregrutz Your comment gets thumbed down as if it was wrong. lol

I guess they believed their magical super creator brought the native americans to america.

[tigerw222]

wow... im not gonna resort to name calling and im simply going to say: our intellect has evolved to a point where traveling over seas is actually possible... evolution isnt just random mutations "making us able to breathe under water" to put it in crude terms... evolution is also "the one who figures out how to survive in certain conditions... lives" and gets to procriat... the idiots dies along with his stupid genes =).

[eastjones]

Berlinski also doesn't understand how flight developed, as revealed by his comments about flapping our arms like an eagle and expecting to fly. the bottom line on this guy is he first sets up a 'straw man' by ignoring, misrepresenting or just lying about what science has discovered, then he knocks down the straw man with more false claims, all lacking evidence. when I starteed tolisten to him, I looked forward to well reasoned arguments that might shed new light on evolution. This stuff is tired

[eastjones]

hBerlinski's comments about cows and whales reveal an astounding misunderstanding and portrayal about how species evolve from common ancestors. His comments about the fossil record are ill-informed to the point that he is basically just lying. Over and over, in every one of these segments, I have refuted his claims, often holding in my hand the very thing he says doesn't exist. His lack of understanding leads him to make comments like evolution needs "dumb luck" which I have refuted already

[eastjones]

if what Berlinski claims about evidence was true, he would have a point. but it's not true, he ignores a huge body of evidence in chemistry, biology, geography, biogeography, physics, the fossil recorde, lab experiments, and pretty much everywhere. it ALL supports evolution!

he also misrepresents how science works, he doesn't understand evolution very well, and he offers very few examples to bolster hs points, he simply makes a claim and that's that.

[eastjones]

science is not an ":institution", it is a process of investigation. While scientists don't criticize themselves, but they certainly try to disprove other people's theories. There is not a 'scientific 'side' to defend, there is evidence to gather and interpret in a manner that explains why the results are as they are. "Darwinians" as you call them, do listen to Berlinski, it's just that he is so ill informed about what he is saying it's hard to take him seriously. He just ignores evidence

[sherwoodstars]

Darwin-fans here exhibit their usual inability to listen to Berlinski, or to understand what he is talking about, at all. He's talking about "large, global criticisms" of what is going on in science, or in alleged "science" such as old Darwinist dogma, not about technical errors in particular scientific papers etc., which do tend to get caught.

[jessc1979]

Scientists never criticize themselves? Is he talking about one scientist criticizing another or a criticizing him/herself?

Leonard Susskind wrote a book *just* about his argument with Hawking about Black Holes.

[sleazybtd]

Of course everyone hates being criticized, but he misses the point entirely (or lying).

Scientists are NOT self-critical, what IS critical is the scientific method. Once a scientist publishes a paper, every other scientist is going to comb through that paper looking for every mistake.

Summary: One scientist publishes a paper, EVERY OTHER scientist checks it over for mistakes. So, yes, science is self-critical.

[sherwoodstars]

Berlinski is highly educated in biology and in many other fields. So he's very unpopular with the stupid and the incompetent, who like to imagine that they know a lot more than they actually know. He demonstrates that science really doesn't know what caused species to emerge. And that drives ignorant people nuts.

[gregrutz]

He makes statements that are outright false.

So how is that not lying purposely for his cause?

Berlinski (of whom i can find no peer-reviewed publications in the biology field) has a false view of this process and proclaims his view as fact.

[mrpayne123]

Scientists don't share one consciousness. They compete with each other you raving sycophant.

[gregrutz]

Mr. Butinski is not a scientist, he is paid by the Discovery Inst. to put down evolution, something he does not even understand.

[mathewjohn5174]

gotta agree here, scientists hate being criticized

[gregrutz]

@mathewjohn5174 Science works on criticism, dummy.

[sherwoodstars]

So Berlinskl's postgraduate studies in biology weren't the study of biology??? Hmmm. These Darwin-fans aren't very logical in their thinking, it seems.

[sherwoodstars]

Berlinski, a well-known secular Jew and agnostic, doesn't follow any religion. So he disproves the ignorant notion that all critiques of the old doctrines of conventional "evolutionary biology" are motivated by "religion." With his Ph.D in philosophy and post-graduate training in biology, as well as in mathematics, Berlinski has deep understanding of biology and of conventional evolutionary theorizing. It's too bad that everyone isn't as knowledgeable and rational as Berlinski.

[gregrutz]

Dr. Butinski has never studied biology, it is evident in his lack of knowlage about evolution.

[EastofForever]

@sherwoodstars Excellent post: and one so rarely seen among the pseudo-intellectual YT atheist ad hominem drivel pervading YT "discussions." So many of these atheists don't know shit about Philosophy, Logic or the rules of Rhetoric. Dawkins and Hutchens are PRIME examples. It takes someone who knows Philosophy to critique this stuff correctly and Berlinski is the man for the job. Anyone not soberly and objectively listening to Berlinski now really hasn't "smelled the coffee" yet.

[gregrutz]

@EastofForever Why don't you listen to someone who is an Evolutionary Biologist instead of a philosopher and math teacher who does not understand evolution?

[AwesomeSuperbaws]

I agree

[sadathusain]

@sherwoodstars gotta agree with you man. I'm sick of youtube morons calling his credentials into question. Typical.

[gregrutz]

@sadathusain You are listning to a philosopher not a scientist.

[kusalaviro]

@sherwoodstars Berlinski is a dip shit.

[gregrutz]

@sherwoodstars Mr. Butinski is paid by the Discovery Institue, a religious creationist organization.

His PhD is not in Biology, he does not have a ''deep understanding'' of evolution, he has no answers.

[gregrutz]

Scientists correct other scientists, who are only human, yes, and the system works, knowledge is gained.

[baltusd]

Wow, did I hear the word, duche

[Generouschromosome]

In Berlinski's case, he argues on he side of "intelligent design" which is NOT science and is not subject to scientific scrutiny

tell me murphymagick, is saying a computor is designed scientific? It is OBVIOUS...yet most scientists claim "its a religious statement!" Obviously logically thinking human beings, like us, can come to rational conclusions about the world around us.

[murphymagick]

No. Scientists hate when people make scientific claims or counter-claims without going through the scientific process (hypothesis, testing, peer review, etc.) or offering an alternative. In Berlinski's case, he argues on he side of "intelligent design" which is NOT science and is not subject to scientific scrutiny. Find another model for what we see, and scientists will review it.

I do believe this man is VERY smart. But here, he is only being savvy. He argues for th intelligent design movement.

[mankind2112]

This guy is very accurate. Far smarter than anybody reading this.

[chadpron1]

corruption is science...a term silenced by none other than the scientific community.

[SocialScruples]

that was suppose to be (CHANCE, accident or for....)

[SocialScruples]

Well done Dr Berlinski. It is pleasing to hear constructive criticism and an alternate point of view. These issues may or may not be addressed but if they are not addressed then those who believe in chance guiding humainty and the universe should be pleased to discover the answers. No need to get worked up just because one's faith (the belief in Chance) is under question.

[Freeze01]

How ignorant of the scientific process are you? This Berlinski is purposely lying to those ignorant of the processes of science, and I guess he has you hook-line-sinker.

[SocialScruples]

Please explain so that you take me out of my ignorance and save me so that I, like you, can believe that the universe and all that is contained within it came about by overcoming trillions upon trillions upon trillions to one odds. I have said this before and am mentioning it again. It is not ignorance to think that the deity you believe in (change, accident or fortuitous) was not responsible for the wonders that surround us.

[algorithm007]

Lying purposely? How omniscient of you! I love it when people make concrete accusations with not a spec of evidence.

The scientific process, including peer reviewed journals, have produced MANY inaccurate and falsifiable claims... It would be ignorant to claim

perfection is attributed to such a process.

[Freeze01]

He makes statements that are outright false.

So how is that not lying purposely for his cause?

Algorithm007: "The scientific process, including peer reviewed journals, have produced ... claim perfection is attributed to such a process."

And how did we find out? By the SAME scientific process! I claim no perfection to the system.

Just that Berlinski (of whom i can find no peer-reviewed publications in the biology field) has a false view of this process and proclaims his view as fact.

[lunabirdie]

@Freeze01 ...NAoS....is not the end all be all of science!!.....there are a lot of good scientists doing good science....apart from media hype,dumb stories,and all the other fallacies the naos is very much a part of.....i like what you said..."i claim no perfection to the system"....i don't agree w/ some of berlinski's statements either . he is an intelligent person i believe......just out of curiosity......what were the false statements?

[bullviii]

oh there is plenty wrong with neo- darwinism that falls well within science .

berlinski merely examines some of the more salient points.thank you socialscruples. I truly enjoy piercing sarcasm

[gregrutz]

Natural selection is not chance.

It only need variation which you can show by turning a wolf into a poodle, [wrongly called micro evolution by creationist.]

[wimahlers]

What a bunch of bull!

It is exactly because of(!) the human nature of bias and their hostility toward criticism that we have the scientific method.

In the scientific method you criticize others. OTHERS!

Everybody who overturns - OVERTURNS! - a well established scientific theory is nominated for the Nobel prize.

David Berlinski deomonstrates that he is a fool and an arrogant prick who does not understand dip shit of even the basic principles of the scientific method.

Regards, Wim.

[KainenDarkley]

Finally a voice of reason! I second your opinion!

[kieranpaul]

the best way for a scientist to make a name for themselves is to completely and properly disprove major existing scientific theories. For example Bohr's work on the quantum atomic model completely changed the pre-existing theories of the atom, and it won him a nobel prize. Now his name is in every modern chemistry book and the scientific community couldn't be happier.

[Gytaz]

This guy is dumb on purpose.

[GimbleTheWizard]

Are you kidding me?!

That's got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my entire life.

It warrants no further response.

You are truly are one dumb son-of-a-bitch!

[pittland44]

You make me think of a particular saying I heard once: There is more of for a fool than for a man who is wise in his own eyes. Another one that comes to mind: Believing themselves to be wise they became fools.

[GimbleTheWizard]

pittland44 said: "You make me think of a particular saying I heard once: There is more of for a fool than for a man who is wise in his own eyes. Another one that comes to mind: Believing themselves to be wise they became fools. "

Sounds to me like something can be applied to this Berlinski idiot.

Actually, it applies quite well to yourself as well.

Just because there's a saying, doesn't make it true when you apply to any situation you feel is in your best interest.

[fatsomamacheese]

You didn't answer the question at all, which i was hoping you would so we could continue the discussion. However, since 'you are truly are' very rude I think I will cancel this attempt to enlighten you and show you a world outside your little box where science explains everything in the universe and there is nothing new to discover.

[GimbleTheWizard]

Holy crap are those some retarded responses!

Please, do not even bother trying to enlighten me with your stupidity.

Thanks much!

[fatsomamacheese]

"Please, do not even bother trying to enlighten me with your stupidity."

Personally, I don't think it's possible lol...

[lawlerskat11]

People only use cuss words when they have nothing intelligent to say.

[NationalKarateCG]

Actually, no. "Cuss words" are used to get your point across. Another common example is in comedy.

There are quite a few commedians that are quite intelligent and have very good points and those statements often have "cuss words."

Did I hurt your eyes with a "cuss word?"

[GimbleTheWizard]

Ha! Religious faith followers try pretty damn hard to say "we're equally as stupid!"

No, just you followers of faith are the stupid ones.

Religous faith will not survive education.

[fatsomamacheese]

Every person that has ever lived has been under the umbrella of faith. What you believe is based on faith as well. Tell me what the difference is between knowledge and faith...

[procommenter]

Watch: "A World Without Cancer."

[procommenter]

Evolutionary THEORY makes no allowances for adaptation. Darwin's religion demands the melding of adaption & evolution. It hoodwinks a lot of teenagers. Shared ancestry? One might extrapolate upon anything, yet imaginative explanations must be verified before they are scientifically sound. Evolutionary THEORY will remain as conjecture as it's mythical. It's profitable and mythical.

[padraicbg]

This guy is 100% wrong. Every scientice lives for the change to be able to discover something new about our world and write a testable conclusion. That's the main purpose of science.

[Scarface1034]

Are you a scientist? I'm not trying to be facetious...

[pittland44]

That's not true. A lot of people have fought tooth and nail to keep bad theories and ideas in circulation because it was how they made their living. A lot of people make money, have job security, gain prestige and thrive of the triumph of their point of view, why would they want to change that?

[Hooya2]

"Scientists are no more self-critical than anyone else..."

That's the point of peer-review, retard.

Scientists aren't self-critical, science is.

[juxblaze]

"Scientists aren't self-critical, science is."

How can that be? Science is not a person.

[Hooya2]

"How can that be? Science is not a person."

Read above; it's through this process called 'peer-review', where other people who are critical of your work read through what you've written and try to attack it, proving your statements wrong.

[fatsomamacheese]

so peer-review is inherently flawless right? lol...

[Hooya2]

"so peer-review is inherently flawless right? lol..."

Rofl wow.

No, peer-review is inherently SELF-CORRECTING. People can make mistakes, and they may even be missed for a while, but ultimately they will be corrected when new evidence emerges.

[Chuichupachichi]

He speaks of how no humans like criticism, thats obviously a matter of behavior and ones thoughts. The ironic thing is that psychologists will play mind games, supposedly fixing one's defect of rejecting criticism. Mr. Berlinski, spoke of those who are, at least "real" scientists. You should see how evident,and how huge their defect is, when one speaks of that which proves theirs is a pseudoscience. For how does one immaterial make another immaterial ill?

Measure it! Observe it! Recreate it!

[wes788d8]

Dr. Berlinski*