15 comments

  1. Thomas Buchovecky Thomas Buchovecky

    Dave are you ever going to have smart people on the show again? Or just right wing blowhards from here on out?

    first
  2. Brodie McGrath Brodie McGrath

    Gad is a different shade of brown in every video I see him in.

    second
  3. Karl Hiramanek Karl Hiramanek

    Wow the things he's talking about sound really interesting and cool. Why people interact the way they do and it's relevance to evolution is really intriguing.

    third
  4. Shadow Hedgehog Shadow Hedgehog

    That question about forbidden knowledge is interesting. If I am not mistaken, Sam Harris is a proponent of forbidden knowledge – like that it should be banned to research race differences. At least I think he hinted this line of reasoning. I think he actually said it on Rubin Report.
    I don't like this idea. Sure, being mindful of consequences seems nice. Not being an absolutist also sounds nice. But the idea of forbidden knowledge reminds me too much of Christianity against which the proponents of this idea themselves fight. You can eat from every tree in the science paradise, just don't pick up apples from the race tree.
    And while it seems that the principle of banning research in dangerous areas is actually a fail-safe mechanism against dangerous thinking, I think it in itself produces dangerous thinking. Because if we are forbidden to study those race differences for example, I think that there is a hidden implication that "we couldn't handle the truth". It sounds like if we learned the "wrong" answer, our society would have to stop functioning. And that implicates that it's very possible that our society can only function because we base it on a lie. That's hardly a scientific approach.
    And like prof. Saad said, it's the same thinking that forced us to deny that there are sex differences. Because if there were differences between men and women, it would have to mean that one is (or even should) oppress the other or something like that. So the only way our society can work is if perfect equality exists.

    If we cannot live with the actual reality, if we cannot accept that reality is sometimes unfair and we need to pretend it's not… then science can't really exist in that environment.

    4th
  5. Oh Baby Oh Baby

    I'm surprised that Gad doesn't mention that social sciences have way more variables to consider. A question like "Are progressive taxes better than flat taxes?" has so many variables to control. The sorts of claims and findings you can make in the social sciences are clearly not as definite in hard sciences.

    5th
  6. MrLemonbaby MrLemonbaby

    Thank you both. I enjoyed the discussion and the topics you covered. But you two brought up so many areas of irrationality in Western Civ. at the present time that I think that should have been the main topic. And how perfect a person you would be, Gad, to address it.

    If, as per the discussion, the push toward new irrational foundations for viewing the world has been going on for some fifty years it seems a very thin reed indeed to expect Joe at the corner bar to turn this around wouldn't you say?

    Gad, you can drop the hammer on me for this next sentence but what you should have replied when accused of genocide by a legislator was to have said, "I'm not going to change anything in my classes and if you think I teach genocide than arrest me right now". If you had, and if the legislator had, and the citizens of Canada had allowed it to happen then we would know that we have moved past the tipping-point where rational discussion has sufficient gravitas.

    6th
  7. Steve Mccarthy Steve Mccarthy

    Can human kind enter a post evolutionary time?

    7th
  8. Iwan Mucipto Iwan Mucipto

    Gal Saad is a contra revolutionary running dog of capitalism. He should spend time in a re education camp.

    8th
  9. thelittlegumnut thelittlegumnut

    Gad Saad and other purists are unknowingly still ethical consequentialists. They just see the consequential effects of spreading scientific truth to be more valuable in the long-term, as opposed to the short-term consequential effects of appeasing easily-offended people. As soon as we start talking about what people "should" do, we're talking about the intent to change others' minds — and that intent arises because we feel we will be better off for it.

    9th
  10. mytubeaccount mytubeaccount

    This guy looks like xerxes from "meet the spartans"

    10th
  11. Frank Bech Frank Bech

    I very much sympathize with what Gad Saad says about gender identity and Islam, but when it comes to explaining his own profession, sociology I think he is less than honest.

    A science should be judged on what it is and not how it ideally could be.
    A science should be judged by what they who practice it produce of evidence to support a theory.

    From this, it is easy to come to the conclusion that sociology is not a science, but a subject at school where women can rant away without any fair of being wrong.

    Btw, we, the scientists, we don't consider chemistry a real science, but something that sort between biology (which has very little to do with science) and physics. Sociology sort in the same class as economy where economists try to anticipate human actions, but completely fail to predict crisis, small or huge.

    I don't think Gad Saad is doing sociology when he speaks to the advantage of his point of view, but simply using calculus predicate on the most important, easy to get by facts about a topic and then draw the conclusion. This has nothing to do with science, but logic and he should be proud of this because his conclusions then receive absolute rigour. If you agree to the premises the conclusion follows with necessity.

    Ex.
    His conclusion about Islam goes like this: There is no such thing as radical Islam (as a distinction to moderate Islam). This conclusion he arrives at by showing that the Koran can not offer love for Jews.

    He didn't need to make a single observation. All necessary observations were already done. He didn't have to make a single experiment. All the necessary experiments were already done. All he had to do is to take a text, preferably translate it into symbolic logic, and extract the answer to the question he had asked.

    Very much the same thing he does in question about gender.

    11th
  12. Mel C Mel C

    This makes me wonder if Dave is taller than David, and who paid on their first date.

    12th
  13. GuessWho GuessWho

    I'm hopefully for the West…….but as with any inflationary state, there will be a crash.

    13th
  14. GuessWho GuessWho

    RE: the review boards……can you frivolously create AI? Something to think about….

    14th
  15. GuessWho GuessWho

    The homosexual talk was extraordinarily fascinating. I'm straight and do not agree with the lifestyle, though I am very curious about the psychological state and learning more.

    15th

Leave a Reply