Charlie Rose - TIME 100: SCIENTISTS AND THINKERS

[stokepogue]

I wish these shows would talk about the actual ideas themselves and what to look forward to future-wise in terms of technology, thought, and economies. But they never do - they're so ratings/PC-conformed, they stay away.

Everything has to be "Best of" "Top Ten", "Top 100". It's like a syndrome the media suffers from.

[anthonymichail]

Steven Pinker is an evil man... and his friend Bruce Sterling is not that nice either!

[xxlimpyleg]

hacks

[samudra8O]

Schrodinger and Heisenberg were missed out on the list.

[MilesB1975]

Perhaps they couldn't determine by observation whether Heisenberg really existed to any degree of precision.

[fomastephanovitch]

Stephen Pinker can be my best mate if he wants

[HJNitu]

dumb questions by charlie rose. is this so that the average american can keep up with the lines of thought?

[shilohwillcome]

probably not, is it supposed to be?

[gothiccitizen]

what time does this show start in califronia?

[MassZombicide]

She's dressed in camouflage

[pschlehr]

I am sure that Prof Dennett would not appreciate being referred to as "the shiznit" or "as the shit and a straight up pimp." If I might be allowed to speak in Prof Dennett's place, let me just say:

Please get off his side! No thinker of the caliber of Dennett wants monosyllabic morons like you offering your support and praise.

Some advice: Go to a college or university in your area, take some classes and learn proper English and stop with the ghetto street language.

[rationalistic]

i think mr dennet would be pleased to know that his ideas are reaching further than just college students and intellectuals. you should see the authors@google with steven pinker. slang and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, and dennet really is the shit.

[ARTAUDIOJOTA]

He is defending or protecting the cultural habits of typical higher education, and concerned with the habits of the uneducated bleeding into the established methods or habits of the educated. And I think you are considering the benifit of lower level cultures looking upward towards growth.

[ARTAUDIOJOTA]

Point is, language being evolutionary, and therefore adapted to suit the environment, low slang languages are incapable of developing the kind of "precision" that higher forms of languages have themselves adapted to handle/exercise/wield, and the lower slangs, being evolutionarily adapted to their own environments, "unscientific", would by default mutate, to fit the proper "gear ratio" which other higher forms of languages have adapted too previously. Said...its easier to utilize existing tools.

[fomastephanovitch]

he might be extremely hostile towards bourgeois values and cultural elitism...

He could be like Sartre or someone of that kind...

[mrkvamaster]

They mention Marconi and they don't mention Tesla? WTF

[flamablesteve]

Tesla was more of an influence in the 19th century than in the 20th.

He still made some advancements, but I think most of his groundbreaking work was during the 19th.

He was no doubt a huge influence though.

[theskeptic]

They're everywhere - I just hope they ALL will find enough holes to crawl into to wait for the rapture. I'd be glad to cement the holes closed for them.

[jeffreydebra1]

Dennett is a very courageous man, willing to be honest about what he believes and WHAT HE DOESN'T BELIEVE.

[vegetaowen]

wow big names here

[teddywinroth]

Dennet is the shiznit !! hes the grand pimp of the millenia. Pimp Daddy D ^^ Love you Dennet. Keep it upp you rock.

[ExpressAgain]

Maxine Singer's outfit matches the background.

[ReligionIsACrutch]

Fuck yea, Dennett is the shit and a straight up pimp.

[babrockkk]

Yeah, Bruce Sterling was reveared as t godfather of cyberpunk and coined t term cyberspace(unless that was Gibson), but what is he doing in this group of people. Whatever cool thing one might expect him to say-that bit about Turing-was said by Dennet

[Craighill9]

LESSON TO ALL ID RESEARCHERS: To get an ID paper published, explicitly deny that it is an ID paper. In fact, you might want to go one further and suggest that it actually disproves ID (the latter maneuver should hasten acceptance of the paper).

[IaintNoGood]

LESSON TO ALL ID RESEARCHERS:  Follow the scientific method & prove your hypothesis. When it becomes accepted, have someone submit your name to the Nobel Prize committee because you will be worth literally billions of dollars & become a rock star within the science community. It is comparable to Indiana Jones finding the Holy Grail. World wide fame & fortune await you.

Oh my bad, this will never happen because your hypothesis is not observable, testable or repeatable.

*snicker*

[IaintNoGood]

What is so sad about you and your ilk is, you do not have the critical thinking skills to ask yourself WHY, if the Discovery Institute had so much peer review & evidence for their "science", did their top 5 "superstars," Meyer, Dembski, Johnson, etc., of the 8 witnesses at the Dover trial, back out at the last minute. Especially after they banged the drum so hard & loud about how awesome it was going to be to have their day in court & how they were looking forward to being deposed. They also

[IaintNoGood]

predicted that the evolutionists would run with their tail betwixt their legs. Hmmm, who did the running? LOL

Of the remaining 3, one, Behe, was busted for lying under oath. Another of the 3, Fuller, was not even an ID proponent. His testimony was basically to say that ID should be promoted as a science so it can be studied. Here is a quote "I think it should be given affirmative action strategy so that it can be given the chance to gain new recruits."

[IaintNoGood]

No one is saying it cannot be studied. Real scientists just want evidence before they accept it. Not untestable hypothesis. This is what is confusing you & your ilk. Real scientists backed by real science. It is a novel idea I know but this equation has brought more discovery, inventions, progress, etc., to the last 200 yrs than anything else has. So when your side can produce real scientists with real science, you will change the world!!!

Good luck

*snicker*

[Craighill9]

What's this *snicker*?

Your ilk has raise a philosophical barrier. Its aimed at the peer review of creationist science. The rejection of creationist papers is due to philosophy not science. Modern science was started by Christians, but the atheist have violently removed the reigns and are steering the scientific community down a road to hell.

"when your side can produce real scientists with real science, you will change the world!"

My side began modern science and has changed the world.

[IaintNoGood]

Craig, once again regurgitating your rhetoric & lies without providing evidence, hurts your cause a great deal. Prove your conspiracy theory. Offer evidence outside of your bullshit. If what you say is true there must be a mountain of evidence to source. WHERE IS IT????? We both know where it is huh?

*snicker*

Oh yes, I do remember the violent overthrow of Christian science by atheists. A bloody battle it was. I forget who led the charge though was it Galileo, Newton, Einstein? LMGDAO

[Craighill9]

Peer review publications support intelligent design

1. "Conflict Among Individual Mitochondrial Proteins in Resolving the Phylogeny of Eutherian Orders,"

2."Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,"

3."Tempo, Mode, the Progenote, and the Universal Root,"

4. "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe."

There are hundreds of them

[IaintNoGood]

Sorry Scooter but your first 3 examples are not articles which support ID & I would love to read your analysis of how they do relate to ID & what work has come from them since their publication. 1 is about protien sequence evolution & you obviously have not read it, check out the abstract portion of the article where it clearly states the viability of evolution. 2 is about cellular evolution on a molecular level, again you obviously have not read it. The conclusion is very interesting &

[IaintNoGood]

states, "Molecular biology enlarges our horizons, but without a firm basis in evolutionary theory, the most interesting questions still elude us." 3 is also about cellular evolution & makes no mention anywhere of ID or the fall of evolution. Please explain how these articles validate ID. As for #4 by Michael Denton, he is not an IDer. He has removed himself from the Discovery Institute's board. He refers to natural law in this book, not a god thingy, the same way Einstein did. Denton

[IaintNoGood]

clearly validates the evolutionary theory by stating it has taken over 4 billion yrs to go from a single cell to homo sapiens. He goes on to say evolution is proven through the complexity and diversity of life. Granted I can see how the first 11 chapters which are basically nothing more than rehashing the Anthropic Principle, can give your ilk a spiritual half chub but he drops the bomb in chapter 12. Sorry but I just do not see how any of these prove ID or discount evolution.

[IaintNoGood]

Lastly, there are not hundreds of peer reviewed papers, books, articles, etc., for ID. At best there are 15-20. Evolution gets more peer review in one day than ID has had in its entire existence as a philosophical hypothesis. However if there were HUNDREDS as you claim, it kinda blows your conspiracy theory out of the water huh? LMGDAO. Valiant effort though Scooter, that was precious! You blew your own conspiracy theory with your own lie. Ironic huh?

*snicker*

[Craighill9]

Stop arguing from ignorance

[IaintNoGood]

Craig, ummmmm, let me now introduce one of the greatest refutations I have ever heard...

"I am rubber you are glue..."

Or if that does not work for you....

"sticks and Stones..."

Point being you once again ignored my rebuttals which were concise, clear & accurate. Go figure.

*snicker*

[Craighill9]

Point being you once again ignored my rebuttals which were concise, clear & accurate. Go figure. And false go figure

*snicker*

[IaintNoGood]

Sorry Craig but I clearly refuted your nonsense about hundreds of peer reviewed materials for ID. If you want a link I can give you one which has ALL the peer review that IDers has to offer. There is at best between 15-20. Secondly, of those most were peer reviewed by philosophers not scientists. Lastly thank you for the compliment. The greatest form of flattery is imitation so thank you for letting me know how much I have moved you.

*snicker*

[ARTAUDIOJOTA]

This is a bag of hot air

[woodsay7]

What a ridiculous statement from "flyzeggs". Dawkins is one of the most brilliant people in the world actually.

[chvzfamcom]

Dennett

[brickbungalow]

Intelligent Design is not simply false. It is manifestly dishonest and intentionally misleading. Thank goodness for scholars who stand up for principle in science rather than cowing to the political might of religious fundamentalism.

[flyzeggs]

Dan Dennett is much more brilliant than he seems when he talks. Way above the level of Richard Dawkins, he makes Dawkins look like a fool, he should stop hanging out with him. There are many much more brilliant people who are not on this panel, nothing special about this panel.

[Craighill9]

Where is Ben Stein, Micheal Behe, John Morris, Eugenie Scott? "The modern scientific establishment has bound itself to a single system of interpretation, with myriad variations but one bottom line: evolution is fact, and alternatives must be rejected out of hand. Thus the tenets of evolution have become a matter of faith, the foundation of a worldview where random chance is the organizing principle and survival of the fittest is the highest law." Thus REAL scientists are not invited.

[IaintNoGood]

Craig, Ben Stein has ZERO scientifc credentials perhaps that is why he was not invited. Michael Behe's Irriducible Complexity hypothesis has been utterly & embarassingly refuted which is why it is not peer reviewed & given the status of scientific theory. Not to mention he was busted lying under oath at the Dover trial. John Morris not qualified nor peer reviewed in any of his creationist hypothesis. I agree with you on Eugenie Scott however she is a qualified & brilliant proponent of Evolution

[Craighill9]

How about Ravi Zacharias, Steven Meyer, or Dennesh D'Souza? These two are amazing thinkers. I notice that there is a complete absence of people who espouse a view that requires people truly think about what they believe. To claim that theirs is the only valid concept, as Maxine Sanger does, shows complete arrogance. If you are going to be truthful, then present all sides of the issue.

[IaintNoGood]

Craig, your comment was on evolution and science. Your claim was that real scientists were not invited. I was simply responded to that premise. Behe, Morris or Stein do not work in evolutionary biology. Scott does and is brilliant. If you want to move the goal posts on me or change the topic, fine. Meyer is not an evolutionary biologist either nor does he actively work as a scientist. Not to mention he is mired in controversy over the way he back doored his paper into a peer reviewed journal.

[IaintNoGood]

Then there is the Wedge Strategy memo. If this was Time's top 100 liars, cheats and cowards, then yes Stephen Meyer should have been invited. As for Ravi and Dennesh, I have no argument against them being great philosophical thinkers, certainly not in the top 100. Not to mention they certainly are not scientists and they misrepresent science in their apologetics. As for presenting all sides of the issue, I agree 100% as long as the ID hypothesis uses accepted science, which as of yet they do not

[Craighill9]

"Not to mention he is mired in controversy over the way he back doored his paper into a peer reviewed journal."

It wasn't a back door process. The only reason it is controversial is because people like Scott have fabricated a controversy. Hundreds of papers pass review in the same way Meyers did, and the only reason Scott and others don't frail around about it is because they agree with the philosophical view of the paper. It had nothing to do with science.

[IaintNoGood]

Craig, if there is no controvery why was it removed? Why? Why was he chastized for not allowing anyone else to read the paper & critically anaylize it? Your conspiracy theory does not hold water. The simple fact is, peer review is not done by ONE PERSON as was the case with Meyer's paper. PERIOD. You cannot dispute this so you make up a conspiracy theory and throw the rest of the facts away. Why is he no longer editor of the paper? Oh yes, another conspiracy. How sad to live in your world

[Craighill9]

"As for Ravi and Dennesh, I have no argument against them being great philosophical thinkers, certainly not in the top 100."

Yeah I'm sure you would choose people like Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins. How about your drunkard friend Christopher Hitchens?. I notice that this panel poses a science fiction writer as an authority on great thinkers. I can see why...evolution is science fiction, therefore why not have a science fiction authority on the panel?

[IaintNoGood]

Craig, what part of the word "scientist" is confusing you? We have been talking about SCIENTISTS. It is a simple fact that Ravi & Dennesh are NOT scientists. Now as I already said, they are great thinkers but they are not scientists. I actually have a debate in my favs with Ravi & Hitchens if you want to see it. As for your pathetic assumption about my feelings for Hitchens, you are sadly mistken. He is much more like you than he is me. He is a hypocrite whiner just like you.

*snicker*

[Craighill9]

"I agree 100% as long as the ID hypothesis uses accepted science, which as of yet they do not."

Accepted by whom? I'm sure you aren't aware of the large number of scientists that reject the abiogenesis and evolutionary hypotheses.

[IaintNoGood]

Craig, there is this little thing called the scientific method. Let me break it down for you:

#1 Ask question

#2 Do background research

#3 Construct hypothesis

#4 Test hypothesis

#5 Analyze results & draw conclusions

#6 If conclusions verify hypothesis, retest for accurate results

#7 Report results

#8 If conclusions do not support hypothesis, start over at #3 until #7 can be reached with supported, observable, testable, repeatable evidence.

Your god hypothesis simply cannot meet this

[IaintNoGood]

Craig, I will play along with your red herrings, avoidances, deflections, etc.. I love playing with your ilk. Saying there is a large number of scientists who disagree with this or that, is a dubious & ambiguous claim. I can cite actual numbers with resources for how many biological/earth scientists believe in evolution. It is 99.95% & climbing. As for abiogenesis, the big bang, panspermia, it has nothing to do with evolution & even if they are wrong, prove nothing for or against evolution

[IaintNoGood]

Also Scooter the Clergy Letter Project has over 11,400 signatures of clergy who support evolution. Juxtapose that to Discovery Institute's Dissent from Darwinism Letter Project which has a mere 800+ signatures. Of those, les than 25% are actual biological/earth trained, educated, working scientists. The rest are mathematicians, computer scientists, physicists, etc.. Of those, most have asked to be removed because they were misled & Discovery Institute, true to form, refuses to remove their names

[kkadera]

Nelson Mandela? are you serious? (watches point fly over dedalbs head)

[dan020350]

I heard the rockefeller are geniuses in the knowledge of evil

[wookieproductions]

the forgot about chemistry. they brought it up but kept talking about bio!

[MetaMorphy]

I would argue that Niels Bohr is actually the most influential physicist of the 20th century, esp. given that his insights lead more directly to atomic power and the A-bomb.

[Ecothearcy]

Rockefeller university, Carnegie Instiute, charlie rose, Time magazine, Council on Foreign Relations- the elite CIA PSYOP foundations affiliates.

[muchachaverdeygris]

... and of course all the nominees will be white

[nestorrfortuna]

who will you say was the most influential non-white|????

[darc1979]

to me, Neil Degrasse Tyson

[dedalb]

I like him. But, really, him? What about Nelson Mandela? Percy L. Julian?

[JosephNorris]

Ghandi?

[tomwash1]

Dalai Lama?

[3rdWorldCrusader]

Nelson Mandela wasn't really a thinker or scientist.

[barisozdil]

holly fucking jumping jesus! Are you from Mars, are you friendly?

[hivquestions]

when Gallo announced hiv as the 'probable' cause of AIDS it never went through independent scientific review, and when scientists asked to do so their funding was cut. why?

[IbnDarwish]

Great secular Einstein split the atom and urged secular America to drop his great split on Hiroshima, which wiped off the lives of 750.000 human beings. How great is Einstein! Thank God we are still alive. The 20th century has proven to be the bloodiest century known to mankind, "The Imperialistic Secular Century."

[barisozdil]

"urged secular America to drop his great split on Hiroshima" .. You don't have to lie to make your case!

[hocobo]

Firstly, the greatest cause of human conflict is and has always been religion. Second, the 20th century has not been the bloodiest century known to man. I would urge you to watch Steven Pinker's video "A brief history of violence."

[IbnDarwish]

The bloodiest and most destructive century in human history - which not only murdered humanity in wholesale, but horribly destroyed the environment, as well - was the 20th century. The century's two world wars resulted in the deaths of at least 60 million people. The Russian Civil War of 1917-21 killed another 5-6 million. Between them, the tyrannical regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao killed at least another 60 million of their own citizens.

[IbnDarwish]

Many millions more were killed in dozens of other, smaller conflicts in the bloodiest century known to mankind: the 20th secular century.

[IbnDarwish]

In its pursue of spreading its liberal democracy, the USA -- along with its allies -- cause the death of about 3 million Iraqis: about 1 and ½ million deaths before the war, which resulted from the US economic sanctions on Iraq. Sadly, while, reading this reply, the death toll in Iraq is still rising.

[IbnDarwish]

Secular nationalist state of Israel bloody record is well documented. Just watch the news and keep the Zionist supported media's volume down and you may well get to see about 1% or less of the picture, which would be enough for one to see the oppression that secular Israel is inflicting upon the people of Palestine.

[hocobo]

you're saying the root cause of our troubles in the middle east is secularism? well, that's a fresh take lol

[IbnDarwish]

About two summers ago, the entire known world sat down and watched on television1000 Lebanese - 80%, majority of whom were civilian women and children - getting terrorized and killed while the Lebanese's infra-structure was totally destroyed by American made weapons.

[IbnDarwish]

How rapid was secular America (a country, allegedly, leading the war against terror) in shipping the laser guided missiles to the secular Zionist state of Israel to further its terror and aggression against Lebanon, when the victims of hurricane Katrina still haven't gotten their trailer homes yet. Sadly, the beginning of the 21st century seems to be a bloody continuation and another episode of the already proven 20th bloodiest century known to mankind: the Imperialistic secular century.

[hocobo]

you strike me as someone whose world view has been contorted beyond all recognition by religious dogma.

[brksailor]

I know I am a little late. But, why would you say this. The comment to me was a comment against dogmatic religion. Was it not?

I would say that the facts of the comment could be refuted, but the idea seems true.

[quathar]

Oh, a self-deprecating comment. There might be hope for you yet.

[quathar]

Haha,,, priceless. Do people like you really exist?

[gtjhuang]

I agree w Singer on the individualization of medical treatment and Pinker's developmental biology on the contribution of Regenerative Medicine. Also, we did not know that the great mind Watson is going to be in big trouble by being so politically incorrect, although we should always separate what science finds and what is politically correct. Nonetheless, we are programmed to be overwhelmingly politically oversensitive.

[thisishowwepray]

wow, a whole panel of gas bags who are deciding our futures while remaining out of touch with reality. HIV is a LIE and Gallo should burn in hell!!! his appearances in court to defend hiv should disturb us all.

[Iambecome]

I would like to have seen Richard Dawkins there.

[Iambecome]

Pinker is excellent. And he is right about Freud.

[RhondaH]

What was well worth the time to watch. Very fascinating. Science, in all its forms, is addictive and awesome!

[orsiorsi186]

Antibotics is the greatest discovery in history.

One third of 18 year olds today would be dead

if not for antiobotics,that ear infection when you were 7 would have killed you.The first man

who received pencillin had an infection from

a rose thorn wound,he died.

[beautifulspam]

Bruce Sterling <3

[jessefriesen]

Nietzsche..??

[TokDiYel]

I kept waiting to hear Ayn Rand but I never did.

[beautifulspam]

That's probably because Rand was a third rate thinker who never gave nietzsche credit for thinking up all of her ideas first : )

[Panserborne1]

I find it suspicious to even call Ayn Rand any sort of philosopher, when her ideas, particularly her views on morality, are so ridiculous.

[Zurein]

Great video. Would have wanted Noam Chomsky on that list but other than that I agree ;) Love listning to Daniel Dennett.

[artistssoftpastels]

omg an hour im saving this one

[MrFrankBullitt]

That Bruce fellow is really out of place here...

[bmpeter73]

Great video. I enjoyed this debate and exploration.

My only complaint is 29.97 vs 30.00

[MrWicked15]

wicked...thanks for posting the vid..daniel dennett deserves the award for most influential

[Adrian0601]

Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker are two inspiring and astounding people.