In Depth with Steven Pinker pt. 5/18

No description available.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• language
• psychology
• evolutionary
• blank
• slate
• how
• the
• mind
• works
• human
• nature
• determinism
• free
• will
• morality
• evolution
• darwin
• Stephen
• Jay
• Gould
• Richard
• Dawkins
• harvard
• MIT
• Chomsky
• Noam
• genetics
• philosophy
• discrimination
• racism
• egalitarianism
• equality
• materialism
• responsibility
• ten
• commandments
• bible
• scripture
• religion
• family
• values
• political
• correctness
• swearing

[pawsoned]

@laborwage Good, then I reckon we're on the same page

[laborwage]

@pawsoned And I think that's why Pinker speaks in such generalities. Outside of his specialty in language development, he can only speak broadly if he wants to avoid error, which is why he prefaces his responses to callers with an explanation that he is not a clinician. And this is why he is so famous, he eloquently summarizes and explains, in a general way, broad categories of science. I see your critique, but I think Pinker would be the first to agree with you: he's no expert on everything.

[laborwage]

@pawsoned Hmmm... how would you apply the Chinese Room paradox to the situation of educational improvement in children with developmental disorders? On this issue of substance in intellectuals, I think any intellectual that speaks beyond a certain depth on very broad topics will necessarily err many, many times. No one human can have such specific knowledge of so many fields. Trying to do so is committing the intellectual fallacy (believing you can be an expert on more than a couple topics).

[pawsoned]

@laborwage I would give the same answer as John Searle and His "Chinese Room".

That said - I admit my bloody-mindedness towards Pinker. I don't think he is bad etc. However, I look for substance in intellectuals and when I read/watch/listen Pinker I get my knickers in a twist. He's sooo opaque, but I kind of like him though

[laborwage]

@pawsoned What practical answer would you have given? Are you a research scientist? Just curious. I think I could shed some light on why Pinker answers the way he does on many of the questions depending on your personal experience in research. That is, I think he is trying to avoid what Thomas Sowell has dubbed "the intellectual fallacy."

[pawsoned]

@SpookyAction123 I'm dissapointed that behind the hype, the glamor and glitter of his appearance there's not much proverbial food for thought left, only empty words and rhetorical gimmicks :3P

[pawsoned]

0:21 "In fact, in many ways our computers already are intelligent" - Yeah, even more than this egghead, who just after arguing for the studies on the DNA on fruit flies, bears, etc, shuns the practical answer at 6:49. If I'm not mistaken his purported experimental work was on how children develop (e.g. Children Language acquisition). What a sham from this phony pundit!

[SpookyAction123]

I'm dissapointed only two thousand odd views and no comments ...

Mr. Pinker, you are always amazing to listen to.

LEGEND.