Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss and Massimo Pigliucci discuss The Limits Of Science @ Het Denkgelag

48 thoughts on “Daniel Dennett, Lawrence Krauss and Massimo Pigliucci discuss The Limits Of Science @ Het Denkgelag”

1. This is intellectual cancer. Why do people take these guys seriously?

   You want serious intellectual discourse? Look at geniuses like Logician and Mathematician, Kurt Gödel and Bertrand Russel. The Physicist, Einstein (Gödel's close friend) and Philosopher, Aristotle.

   These guys are simply "celebrity scientists" who have conveniently forgotten and undermine the epistemological basis of their discipline.

   Sad.

2. Krauss: I don't have faith in anything…

   Well except for science

3. Lawrence needs to learn how to shut up and let others speak. All he does is talk over everyone and tries to finish their sentences. Lawrence, you don't learn anything new of you only listen to your own voice!

4. First time I've seen this Lawrence character and probably the last. He's an annoying creature that is so stuck up his own arse.

   He'll never reach his potential because he rejects anything that doesn't fit in his box and only listens to his own voice.

5. I like how Krauss doesn't know the most simple difference of empirical knowledge and thinking.

6. Couldn't they find a man to moderate this discussion. It's insulting to the guests to be interrupted by this nobody.

7. My favorite term in science is…yet. I enjoy a scientist answers we don't know yet…it instantly provides me optimism the answer is coming!

8. Abiogenesis is just as unlikely

9. side step the hard question.

10. Once upon there was a space bar, where four riders of apocalypse had an interesting debate.
    Host was arguing limits of knowledge come with conquest, biologist said plaque is final answer, atheist thought starvation prevent us reaching higher awareness and philosopher decided war will end us all.
    Host drink was coffee without a cream biologist ordered espresso, atheist was drinking decaffeinated coffee and philosopher wanted to try new canned brand.
    Waitress was black woman from Africa, bar owner was some dude from Asia and space bar was located in asteroid field between Mars and Jupiter.

11. I haven't see this whole debate, but Stephen Hawking also brought forth this view that philosophers are behind and that science is everything. I don't agree. Both science and philosophy are equally important.

12. Krauss' apparant lack of wisdom and general attitude towards philosophy seduces me to indulgence in online trashing. I've never met him though. He's probably a good guy who means well. Bless his heart.

13. Wow Krause is frustrating

14. Philosophy is not bs. Philosophy detects bs.

15. Are they all getting pissed on stage?

16. Science is description of the world same waya s language is description of what body language had proven to be true. Yet language is not identical to body's experiences, saying " it burns" does not equal the feeling of being burnt. It's like sending shadows down, shadows are athe product of light but they are not light.

17. Is science payed for the fact that scientists do not ever prove mathematically which sort of society works best for humanity? It seems science touches anything and everything but politics.

18. Why then banks can't make money out of no money? Why do they have to ruin peope's destinies?

19. It seems that humans or scientists feel overwhelmed to face such truth as something can come from nothing, even though we observe a child born that came almost from nothing, from a speck of genetic material that is not visible by plain sight. That nothing of which we are guessing, perhaps is nothing in a human skope of mental sharpness, incomprehensible, because to know it was never necessary for our survival on planet Earth, so we did not develop an understanding of what that nothing is/ was. We sort of imagine the vast, neverending space, but we deem it useless in our Earthly terms.

20. @32:00 So Krauss is a consequentialist,huh?

    How does he propose going about calculating all consequences of each act for every person for all time?

21. Krauss: "Time may not arise until AFTER the big bang." I don't understand this, does he mean until the moment of the big bang? But what does until mean? Until implies some time before that. I think what he meant was time started when the big bang happened. That doesn't make any sense to me though.

22. All participants were good with the exception of Krauss. Just not in the same class as Dennett or Pigliucci, and also showed poor breeding with his frequent, irritating interruptions.

23. 5:20 actually starts

24. I would love to hear Krauss try to elaborate on how mathematical proofs and axioms are empirical.

25. I hate thesefucking long ass introductions. Anyone watching this knows who these people are. We don't need expositions on their entire CV.

26. Lawrence Krauss ..he's COMPLETELY clueless, if one understand psychology and has experience with people then it's a no brainer to know that people doesn't make rational decisions, it's based on compulsions and narcissism etc! i can't believe that people are so stupid to fall flat on their faces for chis charlatan!

27. What I find irritating about Krauss is he doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut and let other speak.

28. Krauss is a arrogant individual with a ego too far up his ass to even debate.

29. I don't care about the exact definitions of science and philosophy or the definition of what falls in domain of science and what falls in domain of philosophy …or the distinction between the two…..I just want to get every question answered..I am ready to take the red pill and know the truth of this Matrix ! Morpheus where are you ?

30. "…Nothing that is complicated enough to be interesting could have an essence," summarizes the host, paraphrasing Dennett. – "And that's the essential message of this debate," quips Pigliucci with almost no hesitation. This was indeed a complicated and interesting discussion, by three geniuses. It made me appreciate the need for a concerted effort by writers, educators, youtube video makers, influencers everywhere to disseminate these sorts of ideas in less technical language, bridging the gap between such intellectuals as these and the masses, because even their popular books (or talks like these) aren't seen by the vast majority, and are often still quite challenging.

    In the political sphere, everything depends on it. Those scientific methods referred to here used by the powers-that-be to manipulate people's votes with almost contentless messages need to be countered or they'll be the death of us. We've been dumbed down to mantra-repeating, emotionally triggered wage slaves for a permanent trans-political elite, and no genuinely moral politics can emerge because to do so it must discuss the complex, it must equivocate, it must be reasonable and humble, and few voters see those as appealing qualities (and they're further manipulated to construe that as weakness and confusion). Simple, brash confident assertions of dubious "essentials" (like "economic growth" or "dangerous immigration" or "freedom") is all their heads can handle. Hence Brexit; hence Trump; hence a world run by the Military-Industrial Complex eagerly constructing Armageddon.

31. Good to hear Krauss as the voice of reason- “other ways of knowing” is a disgustingly dishonest idea.

32. Wtf, I almost can forgive Krauss for not knowing about philosophy, but the guy doesn't even know what is mathematics in the first place.

33. Here Lawrence Krauss exemplifies that knowledge is domain dependent. He might be a great physicist, but he doesn't understand even basic concept within the philosophy of science. Worst is that he seems to believe that he understand these matters as well as the two philosophers, although he clearly does not.

34. Massimo pigliucci is awesome

35. Uhhh uhhh uhh uhhh uhh

36. Love this, Krause gets found out as a fraud in this video. Charlatan

37. Great questions, intelligent guests, poor debate.

38. The facts about "God" don't & cannot be proven. The fact is that humans have evolved to belieeve in a higher power. As with most evolved traits, there is a reason for this "belief". Groovists believe in humans power to accomplish Godlike miracles. Miracles which can only(?) be dreamed of & doubtfully within human means.

39. This is piling on a 5 year old debate, but Krauss doesn't even understand what the other two are saying half the time.

40. Krauss is and ignorant about ethics

41. So.. does the physicist have an equation??

42. 01:08:44 Does anyone else see the big red blinking arrow above Daniel's head pointing to his left?

43. The religious guy paganuchi or whatever is predictably ignorant. Does he really need the basics spelled out to him? Where do they find these clowns.

44. Lol "Does it bother you that there are many physicists who think cosmology is just bad philosophy?" 1:15:39

45. I went to NYC from Boston to hear Lawrence Krauss speak, he was amazing. Caveat: no one was challenging his perceptions. This I couldn't even get through. wii3willRule is right, his dismissive tone and body language was insufferable. Such a disappointment… Massimo is a sweet, brilliant man and Larry treated both men badly. Not to mention the behavior coming to the public about L Krauss unwanted solicitations to pretty young women. It was well known in the circles of science but not really to the general public. Still a brilliant man here acting as a petulant child.

46. Lots of krauss hating in these comments… Guys, chill out. He's a physicist trying to debate two philosophers about philosophy. No surprise he comes across as uninformed. Let's get the other two debating physics and see how well they fare. He's also just not used to being wrong lol

47. Krauss is a fucking idiot. Period. Massimo is infinitely more intelligent.

48. WATCHING IN 2019,IT,S AN AMAZING!

Comments are closed.