EEVblog + The Signal Path Discussion

[josecamoessilva]

Let’s take the theory of evolution for example. Have you or anyone here actually read the “On the Origin of Species”. Do you fully understand it in all its detail? I mean, do you also have a degree in biology?

I've read it, but mostly for historical reasons. What is this, literary critique of original texts as if that means anything? What you mean to ask is: who here has read Molecular Biology of the Cell (I did) and Molecular Biology of the Gene (I did)?

No need for a degree in Biology, just $400 for the textbooks (US textbook prices are ridiculous), a lot of time to read and think, and an interest in deeply understanding the subject. (Also, knowing chemistry, biochemistry, physics, math, and how to take notes and learn new material. Nerd, who, me?)

[retrolefty]

...never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. 

Yup, I fully agree, I mean, for sure you don’t mean than only stupid people can be religious, there could be a group of atheists that happened to be stupid, and their power grows as their stupidity grows, right? ‘stupid people’ such a nice term.

The origin of this saying is lost in time (circa the 1990s), but the story goes someone asked a well-known business consultant why management consulting had so many fads, so many of them so obviously stupid (after the fact); his response was "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."

 A lesson well learned by politicians around the world. They know the power that this group can give them, it just requires so little pandering to their ignorance.

[mtdoc]

I know one or two who like the view from Mt. Stupid, but getting them off that peak is sometimes impossible - especially via internet communications.

The problem with D-K is that each side thinks the other suffers from it.

Yes, very true.

And let's be honest, all of us have climbed Mt. Stupid at times. I know that I have several times.  But after you've had the experience of descending into the valley of despair and the climbing the slope of enlightenment a few times - looking back and seeing where you've been - it becomes easier to recognize and avoid climbing that mountain over and over. 

There are paths around.  One is listening and giving respect to those who have years of experience in a given field. In general, with age comes wisdom and the hopefully the ability to recognize when one is standing on that false summit or better, how to avoid it all together. The main exception that I've seen is when religion or politics are involved in which case  Mt Stupid becomes a permanent home for some, whatever their age or view.

And given how the side of knowledge has changed tactics since the 80s, from "let's persuade and educate the ignorant" to "let's monetize our echo chamber by mocking the ignorant," it's really no surprise.

It doesn't help that those on the side of knowledge sometimes (often, massively, overwhelmingly, choose your adverb) are lacking in that same knowledge. Like people who "love science," but can't answer 7th-grade science questions; or "debunkers" who make crass, freshman-year engineering mistakes; or best-selling authors of anti-religion books who keep using their hopelessly outdated 1970s-vintage model of evolution and sidestepping its socially inconvenient implications.

Carl Sagan's most misunderstood sentence was "extreme claims require extreme evidence," by which he meant that to persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person. Mental midgets following in Sagan's footsteps took that sentence to  mean that "anyone whom I disagree with must prove to me that they're right," which is the opposite of how persuasion works.

As I said, opportunists monetizing their echo chamber, riding on real scientists' work.

Yes, all excellent observations.

[mtdoc]

Let’s take the theory of evolution for example. Have you or anyone here actually read the “On the Origin of Species”. Do you fully understand it in all its detail? I mean, do you also have a degree in biology?

Well I have a couple of degrees in biology but that in itself does not mean much.  Sure, an undergraduate degree in biology hopefully means you have better than a laymen's understanding of evolution but I've met some with that degree who do not.

Personally, I don't think I fully understood evolution until I was a graduate student and had to read and discuss Dawkin's The Selfish Gene - which should be required reading for every high school student IMO. (And no, I am not a fan of Dawkin's athiest zealotry - it's not much better than religious zealotry IMO).

The more important point is that everyone, including those with degrees in a scientific field, should respect and value the opinion of working scientists with years of experience in any field.  That doesn't mean blindly accept everything they say,  but it does mean not assuming you know more because you have some knowledge of the topic or because someone on the internet posted an impressive sounding critique.  Unless that person is an expert in that field, with similar level of experience, they should not be assumed to be accurate -even if what they say seems right to you.  And has been pointed out here (and by Shahriar in the video) - any credible critique of published science will itself be submitted for peer review and publication. If it is not, then that in itself makes it suspect.  It's a false claim to say one is "pro science" while not demanding that critique of published research meet the same standard.

[Hugoneus]

Let’s take the theory of evolution for example. Have you or anyone here actually read the “On the Origin of Species”. Do you fully understand it in all its detail? I mean, do you also have a degree in biology?

I have read:
The blind watchmaker
Selfish gene
The greatest show on earth
On the origin of species

As well as many other studies which have been references in these books. After a few years it all makes sense.

[Fungus]

"how would you tell the difference between God and a really powerful alien?"

A really powerful alien wouldn't write a book as stupid and inconsistent as The Bible.

[Fungus]

Carl Sagan's most misunderstood sentence was "extreme claims require extreme evidence," by which he meant that to persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person. Mental midgets following in Sagan's footsteps took that sentence to  mean that "anyone whom I disagree with must prove to me that they're right," which is the opposite of how persuasion works.

a) It wasn't Sagan's claim, although he used it a lot.
b) The rest of the world disagrees with you, it's the believers who need to provide proof.

Think: the people who are arguing against religion (or whatever) aren't actually making any claims at all!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

You're right that arguing against believers isn't easy though. Their beliefs aren't based on evidence so they don't see evidence as proof of anything. Getting them to admit they were wrong about ONE thing can be classed as a victory. Changing their belief? Only if they were half way over the fence anyway.

If you want to see real experts arguing with believers you can watch channels like .

As you can see, it's entertaining to watch but they're not converting many people.

(and it's quite depressing to think that the people phoning in represent about 50% of the population).

Edit: changed video to a calm-discussion one. You can find the real nutcase callers by yourselves.

[TheAmmoniacal]

Any natural explanation, however absurd, has to be more probable than magic. Any rational person has to take this position.

I can help clarify your misconceptions and misunderstandings about evolution here if you want.


Very much enjoy your content Shahriar (and Dave), thanks.

[mc172]

Dave – you seem very unsecure trying not to say something stupid, acting silly, if you watch the videos again you will see, you’ve interrupted Shahriar several time with nonsense, drinking, coughing and generally being agitated like a child on sugars. Also I’ve never noticed this before, you have very feminine mannerisms, you acted like a woman talk show host, who is not very familiar with the topic, trying to laugh at everything … just watch the videos again, you will not be able to unsee it, once you realize it.

I completely agree. I really do enjoy 99% of the videos on the EEVblog channel but this interview really is cringey.

[Fungus]

Dave – you seem very unsecure trying not to say something stupid, acting silly, if you watch the videos again you will see, you’ve interrupted Shahriar several time with nonsense, drinking, coughing and generally being agitated like a child on sugars. Also I’ve never noticed this before, you have very feminine mannerisms, you acted like a woman talk show host, who is not very familiar with the topic, trying to laugh at everything … just watch the videos again, you will not be able to unsee it, once you realize it.

I completely agree. I really do enjoy 99% of the videos on the EEVblog channel but this interview really is cringey.

Yeah, Dave's a nervous interviewer. It was the same thing when he interviewed the boss of Siglent.

(I can forgive it though).

[RGB255_0_0]

Some people aren't natural interviewers. Dave does his best. Maybe he tries too hard. You can read the body language and expressions of some of the interviewees when he interrupts them.

Not trying to be harsh but Dave needs to relax a little and bite his tongue and let the other person finish their sentence.

Norm is the same on Tested.

I'd like to see David do an interview as he seems very laid back. Sometime.

[Brumby]

So much crap - so little time.

I wasn't going to get involved in this absurd little rant, but seeing you have put in such an effort....

..armchair warriors..

– that supposed to be an insult? As opposed to what, regular warriors? I don't know… like Conan the barbarian or Xena the warrior princess? I agree, it is irritating.

It would only be an insult to people who are afraid of being called out on it.  It wasn't directed AT you at all - but if the shoe fits....

In your opinion why did Dave mention religion, what was the point of that?

I have no opinion about why religion was mentioned.  I don't particularly care, since it had no real bearing on the discussion. So, in relation to these videos, is why it "doesn't matter".  The videos were unscripted, Dave rambles, get over it.

..especially when they refuse to listen..

If this is not closed mindedness, I don't know what is. Because not you, but always the other has to lissen, never you, right? Your task is to set them straight.Becase there is no way that you can ever be even slightly wrong.

Ah ... here is your greatest fail.  The (I need to get the upper hand) character assassination.

Not that you deserve it - but I'll clear this up for you... Yes, I have an opinion and I will air it on occasions.  But here is a little fact that you have not bothered researching ... if I have been wrong about something - whether by being shown or having discovered myself - I have freely admitted it AND apologised.  You can even find examples here on the EEVblog forum.


I would like to suggest that you save yourself further embarrassment - but I would be rather surprised if you did.

[BU508A]

That the person does not believe their position to be uninformed only adds to the stupidity of their attitude - especially when they refuse to listen to any argument which will would show their existing knowledge is lacking.

Exactly. And this is one of the major reasons, why the The Vatican in Rome put lightning arresters on the St. Peter's Basilica (and other churches as well, of course)   

They do not know, what they are believing into.

Franz Buggle: Denn sie wissen nicht, was sie glauben (sorry, seems to  be available only in German)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Buggle (only in German, sorry)
http://www.ibka.org/artikel/miz92/buggle.html

[ggchab]

Why would there not be a place for both science and religion? Scientists observe the world and then try to imagine more or less complex mathematical formulas to describe a specific behavior of the nature. They repeat experiments until the formula seems to be always verified and it becomes a law. A law can then be manipulated to predict undiscovered behaviors. If they can be verified again by new experiments, this enforces the law and the mathematical techniques used to manipulate it. This is impressive because those laws can be used to produce wonderful things, to discover a bit more our world,… But these laws and mathematics are “only” models, not the fundamental explanations! And what would be a fundamental explanation? Why does the nature seem to follow mathematical formulas? I could never read a good answer to that question.

If scientists found a relationship between mass and energy, what are mass and energy? We only know forms of energy. At the university, a physics teacher told us “We’ve never seen a force. We only see its effects and we guess there is a force …”.

Science is made of facts described (not explained) by models, mathematics,… and this does not prevent people to believe there are some unknown reasons for all this and those reasons will remain unknown forever (by us, as human beings). Some great scientists believed in the existence of a god (like Albert Einstein) and others did not (like Christian de Duve). I am sure they were both clever and well educated people …

[BU508A]

Why would there not be a place for both science and religion? Scientists observe the world and then try to imagine more or less complex mathematical formulas to describe a specific behavior of the nature. They repeat experiments until the formula seems to be always verified and it becomes a law. A law can then be manipulated to predict undiscovered behaviors. If they can be verified again by new experiments, this enforces the law and the mathematical techniques used to manipulate it. This is impressive because those laws can be used to produce wonderful things, to discover a bit more our world,… But these laws and mathematics are “only” models, not the fundamental explanations! And what would be a fundamental explanation? Why does the nature seem to follow mathematical formulas? I could never read a good answer to that question.

Probably you'll find this a good answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
I recommend also to read the part about Karl Popper.

If scientists found a relationship between mass and energy, what are mass and energy? We only know forms of energy. At the university, a physics teacher told us “We’ve never seen a force. We only see its effects and we guess there is a force …”.

Science is made of facts described (not explained) by models, mathematics,… and this does not prevent people to believe there are some unknown reasons for all this and those reasons will remain unknown forever (by us, as human beings). Some great scientists believed in the existence of a god (like Albert Einstein) and others did not (like Christian de Duve). I am sure they were both clever and well educated people …

Nope. This thing about Albert Einstein is an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

[mtdoc]

Nope. This thing about Albert Einstein is an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.

It's a fundamental error to conflate science with the existence or non existence of God.

Many excellent scientists believe in God and many do not. They are not mutually exclusuve. The existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis and therefore not in the realm of science.

[ggchab]

Thanks for the proposed references.

There is Hubert Reeves who seems to believe there is "something else" that cannot be proven.
(in French, sorry)
And probably François Englert. He does not believe in a god protecting him but thinks also there is "something else". I can't remember his exact words, but that's what I understood from what he said in a television program after he received the Nobel Prize.

I forgot to say that I found this "The Signal Path Discussion" video very interesting.

[BU508A]

Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.

Nope. "He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[6]"
And "believe in God" =! Agnostic, Agnostic means ins this respect: I can / will not decide, if there is a god, many gods or no one.

It's a fundamental error to conflate science with the existence or non existence of God.

Nope. Everybody who is stating, that there is something like a god has to bring proof.
This can be done. [Edit] In the sense: "For epistemic reasions. Falsifiability, Karl Popper wrote about that." [/Edit]
The claim "God is not existing." cannot be proofed for epistemic reasons.

Many excellent scientists believe in God and many do not. They are not mutually exclusuve. The existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis and therefore not in the realm of science.

Wrong. If god is existing: bring here some proof.
If you can't, then see, what Occam's Razor is saying in this respect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

And the fact, that a lot of scientists believe in something like "existance of god" is their choice. Nothing more and it is not a proof for the existing of god.

[ggchab]

Of course, the existence of god or « something else » will never be proven. This would not be god or “something else” anymore  Beliefs are personal things that may be discussed but never imposed. And they are simply good if they help you to live a better life. If not, then just ignore them. Nothing to do with sciences and I totally agree that one of the best things we can offer to people is education, based on facts. This would solve so many problems in the world …

[GK]

Carl Sagan's most misunderstood sentence was "extreme claims require extreme evidence," by which he meant that to persuade someone that their strongest-held beliefs are false, you need to make an overwhelming case to that person. Mental midgets following in Sagan's footsteps took that sentence to  mean that "anyone whom I disagree with must prove to me that they're right," which is the opposite of how persuasion works.

As I said, opportunists monetizing their echo chamber, riding on real scientists' work.

So much for the mental midgetry of anyone else; Google at your finger tips and you still can't even get the quotation verbatim. "Extraordinary", not "extreme". I'll refrain from comment one way or the other about the philosophical correctness of the proposition, principally out of a lack of interest, but for an original Sagan context of usage:

Cosmos
Encyclopedia Galactica [Episode 12]

In the vastness of the Cosmos there must be other civilizations far older and more advanced than ours.
0 min 45 sec

What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
1 min 10 sec

For all I know we may be visited by a different extraterrestrial civilization every second Tuesday, but there's no support for this appealing idea. The extraordinary claims are not supported by extraordinary evidence.
7 min 25 sec
Back reference to UFO abduction claims

In the above, with his quotable line, he is clearly emphasizing the burden of proof that he places upon those who make "extraordinary claims" of phenomenon that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny, not about dissuading the non-scientifically minded from their kooky ideas (such as extraterrestrial visitation) - essentially, it is up to them to prove to him that they are right by coughing up some "extraordinary evidence".

Some might consider equally ridiculous as claims of alien-human interaction claims commonly made for a particular deity. For example a deity that would send Sagan to hell for promoting the theory of evolution, or a deity prone to sending plague to punish the sins of a population, or a deity that doesn't like white people mixing with black people and/or condemns homosexuals to hellfire. Or maybe even just a personal deity that has a special concern for a believers welfare. Sagan himself certainly would have, and must have said so and written as much dozens of times.
     

[Fungus]

Nope. This thing about Albert Einstein is an urban legend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Check your reference. Einstein did in fact believe in God, just not the anthropomorphic god promoted by many religions.

I did. It says he didn't believe in god. Perhaps you could provide evidence that he did.

Whenever Einstein said 'god' he really meant 'nature'. If he used the word 'god' he was just being politically smart.

"Nature does not play dice" was what he would have said if the world wasn't full of religious people.

It's a fundamental error to conflate science with the existence or non existence of God.

No it isn't. Science works well to disprove the specific claims made by the god-believers. Applying science to Earth's religions is a very worthwhile thing to do.

The existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis and therefore not in the realm of science.

You're correct that it's not testable but science can come up with numbers for the probability and/or necessity of a god for the existence of the universe. Stephen Hawking spends a lot of time doing exactly that in his books (he uses the word 'god' a lot as well).

So far the probability/necessity numbers are only going downwards. We've found nothing in the universe that cannot be explained by nature alone.

[Fungus]

In your opinion why did Dave mention religion, what was the point of that?

I have no opinion about why religion was mentioned.

They were discussing "debunking".

Religion is bound to come up whenever you discuss that.

[ggchab]

Why is there a universe 
As long as religion (or anything else) is a personal belief that makes you happy and does not (negatively) influence your interaction with other people, is there any reason to debunk it?

[TheAmmoniacal]

Why is there a universe 
As long as religion (or anything else) is a personal belief that makes you happy and does not (negatively) influence your interaction with other people, is there any reason to debunk it?

Why should there not be a universe? Universes seems to be the default state.

[ggchab]

May be a stupid question but what is a default state if there is no possible comparison ?