Aubrey Manning Discussion (2/5) - Richard Dawkins

[SpidermanInLondon]

I love quantum mechanics and I don't think it's hard to understand even on the frontier of science , like the stuff there trying to do at CERN. So long as you trust the scientific method you just need to let principles wash over you i.e. thumb print of god, many worlds etc

[SpidermanInLondon]

@nextHeritage There is no God. Get used to it.

[ThePhil909]

it's because they are genuine that these things come about fab discussion

[Kan2209]

FInnish science for the win. This country is full of arrogant, depressed school shooter types, to silent altruistic time bombs waiting to blow up. But the ones who blossom make excellent athletes, businessmen, scientists etc.

[ryko26]

Eye2EyeIIIV - I pity your family.

[amaxamon]

Dawkins, "The weirdness of some of it...things that are kind of...quantum...no!" LOL This makes me feel less stupid - everyone has their limitations :) Great interview/discussion.

[unknownorigin84]

There is no such thing as good or bad science it is either science or not, true or not.

[parsimony1902]

phylogeny and ontogeny are terms ALL should understand, (provided you attended school )

[PrettyNeckslashes]

(Faith schools excluded, of course! One wonders what they do learn...)

[pokekid716]

They learn to ignore what science teaches and to just believe in god anyways. =)

[Hunkola]

After watching this, you get the visceral sense these are two of the brightest men on the face of the Earth.......an intellectual breath of fresh air for our minds so welcome after the sickening Bible-thumping propaganda from morons like George W. Bush and Tony Blair!

[ukeuwatcher]

As for QM, isn't it enough to say that it's the study of way things that are very small work, and that it differs from the way large things do.

Isn't that one of the places the enthusiasm comes from? The desire to understand how the universe works? People seemed to get that idea pretty well in the run up to the turning on of the LHC.

Then some of the strange behaviour can be described. Richard Feynman made a very good go of this with his QED lecture.

[tinytina666]

woot dawkins

[dannywilkerson1]

timestamp 8:25

richard dawkins is absolutely right. That is one of my greatest complaints about how science is taught.

Scientist do not write / speak in ways that are easy to understand. Me having to look up the words phylogeny and ontogeny is a good example. Whats the point of speaking/writing if most will not understand.

[magicbibledotcom]

I agree with you to a degree. I do agree that the arrogance, if you like, should be taken out of Science a bit. From the scientists themselves, if they want it to be more socially widespread.

In respects to the example you gave though that's not really valid. He is defining two different development types within Evolution and whilst I was not familiar with the terms until his said them... How else is he meant to define two processes which can only really be defined by those titles lol.

[dannywilkerson1]

no, not arrogance like theist say. I was referring to uncommon terminology. I should not have to reference a dictionary every time i try to read a scientific paper.

[magicbibledotcom]

Yes which is what I replied to. He's refering to scientific things which can only be refered to with scientific terms.

If you want to learn about science then you need to learn the terminology.

[andid]

I agree. You shouldn't have to reference a dictionary because you should know the terms before ever getting your hands on a scientific paper :)

[clray123]

The point is that you don't wish anyone to really understand what you are talking about. Rather, you wish to impress editors/reviewers with your writing in order to get it published because many publications generally advance your academic career. It's so much easier to assault a paper on the grounds of being trivial when it is written in a clear, concise way. In general, Dawkins et al like to idealize scientists.

[dannywilkerson1]

ahh gezz i might have to rewrite my own philosophy. My problem is that that i am one of those people they are complaining about. Dang, i have always known there is both environmental and genetic but i always slant towards genetic determinism. Damn, i guess that gene expression is probably more important. Can anyone help me find the research that Aubrey was talking about. The woman who selected for aggression mice then changed them to cowards by altering their environment? Timestamp 3:30-4:00

[dannywilkerson1]

i got lost at "phylogeny and ontogeny". I never heard the terms before.

phylogeny = evolutionary history of a species

Ontogeny = the size and shape change of an individual organism

[runevirage]

Aubrey: "They don't make a distinction between phylogeny and ontogeny"

Richard: "Oh my God, yeah"

LOL

[sylviabombs15]

i love this upbeat, british banter.

oh yes. quite so. indeed. furthermore.

fabulous.

richard dawkins FTW!

and im still waiting for that cat to come wondering in.

[Clausfarre]

Quite.

[fctchk]

"and im still waiting for that cat to come wondering in."

What a delightful freudian slip manifesting itself as a typo revealing the anthropomorphization of the cats behaviour: he would come wandering in wondering what those two old chaps are up to. Superb!

[Treyb3yond]

@sylviabombs15 We are English technically.