1. Comment #197762 by decius on June 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm

I thought this was recorded at the philarmonic and not in a tuberculosis asylum. Or was there an outbreak of pertussis in Liverpool?

Other Comments by decius

2. Comment #197764 by HourglassMemory on June 22, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Oh, I think I've seen this one.
I'll watch it again anyway.

Something I do quite often is wander around Youtube and Google Video and search for new videos with Dawkins in it, or Hitchens or Dennett or Sam or anything that has to do with Science or religion or just critical thinking.

If anyone could tell me how I could send suggestions to the people responsible for putting new videos and such on here I think I woul suggest a few videos from time to time.

I find that I watch some video on Youtube and only a week or two later does it show up here.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

3. Comment #197804 by LaTomate on June 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg8lCLumByw

That's one I wanted to share :)

Other Comments by LaTomate

4. Comment #197809 by SmartLX on June 22, 2008 at 5:42 pm

No, hang on, it's not the one from a while back. It's the same lecture, but delivered in a different place, to a different audience. I realised when he didn't announce that it was the largest audience he'd ever addressed, like he did in the previous recording.

That means the Q&A will be all new, and this is definitely worth watching.

Other Comments by SmartLX

5. Comment #197812 by HourglassMemory on June 22, 2008 at 5:46 pm

to La Tomate

I just hope that he still keeps this way of thinking at the present time.

Yes, he might have spoken about his faith and so on, so he could have the support of believers, but if he thinks what he says on this talk when he's alone, when he doesn't have to be pandering to religious people, then all power to him.

What he says on that video makes me really not care if he believes in god or not.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

6. Comment #197822 by gyokusai on June 22, 2008 at 5:54 pm

SmartLX, exactly; that's what I was about to post after I watched for 20 minutes or so.

But why is it that people who postproduct such "webcasts," as it was indeed called in the introduction, for the, *gasp*, Web, are often so singularly inept at doing so? The sound quality is abysmal, there are gaps, the format (ratio) is all wrong, the sound trails subtly at times (especially so in the youtube version), and they not only show Richard's slides at the wrong times, but go unfailingly fullscreen on them as soon as Richard is about to deliver something funny via gestures or facial expression.

This is really driving me mad. But anyways, I heard a recording of that lecture before, maybe it was the one from Arizona, and the lecture itself is just phantastic.

^_^J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

7. Comment #197825 by LaTomate on June 22, 2008 at 6:00 pm

Hmmm, true it IS a different lecture. Watching...

HourglassMemory: I agree. I have loads to say about this, but I just wanted to share the vid (I don't know how to submit new articles and videos to be posted here). I did not want to hijack the thread :)

Other Comments by LaTomate

8. Comment #197831 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I have a question about string theory.

We generally start with a hypothesis, run tests to confirm the hypothesis, write a paper, have it peer reviewed, repeated by other scientists and then it becomes a theory.

String "theory" is an hypothesis. It's never even been tested.

So why is it called a theory?

Other Comments by TeraBrat

9. Comment #197841 by GodoftheGeeks on June 22, 2008 at 6:30 pm

That is the largest crowd I have ever seen Dawkins lecture to. Way to go!

Other Comments by GodoftheGeeks

10. Comment #197843 by equivocal20 on June 22, 2008 at 6:46 pm

TeraBrat,

Here is the Wikipedia link. Go to the problems and controversy section.

Keep in mind that occasionally, people will use theory in place of hypothesis. This is incorrect, but quite common. This occurs for the same reason as people will say they weigh so many pounds, but they should instead be measured in newtons. (Pounds is a measure of mass and the newton is a measure of force). The same principle applies here to the string hypothesis.

Other Comments by equivocal20

11. Comment #197844 by Cobalt on June 22, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Wonderful lecture- Great Job Dawkins!! Thanks for sharing!

Other Comments by Cobalt

12. Comment #197845 by Quine on June 22, 2008 at 6:48 pm

TeraBrat:

So why is it called a theory?

Because in Theoretical Physics the development of models runs ahead of available experimental data. They get to call it a "theory" so long as it is not contradicted by known observation. Your point is correct, if they wanted to be logically consistent with the rest of science they would have to start with "hypothesis" and then wait for the experimentalists to test predictions.

Many are grumbling against "string theory" because of alleged intrinsic untestability.

Other Comments by Quine

13. Comment #197847 by sanjiv on June 22, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Comment #197764 by HourglassMemory

Something I do quite often is wander around Youtube and Google Video and search for new videos with Dawkins in it, or Hitchens or Dennett or Sam or anything that has to do with Science or religion or just critical thinking.

LOL....exactly what I do everyday, but I also look for anything from Dan Barker.

Other Comments by sanjiv

14. Comment #197848 by andreww on June 22, 2008 at 7:01 pm

Thanks LaTomate!

Your video link of Barack Obama talking religion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg8lCLumByw

has MADE MY DAY. He has really thought about this.
I liked the acknowledgement that non-believers (less threatening name for atheists) are ranked equal amongst the various religious groups.

It gives me (English) some hope that the US might just become a nation to look up to again if he is elected. (Of course, my lot aren't much better, but at least we don't do torture, offshore concentration camps, etc. yet.).

WEBMASTERS: this video link deserves a top level listing on this website.

Other Comments by andreww

15. Comment #197850 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Many are grumbling against "string theory" because of alleged intrinsic untestability.

I agree with them.

I also think it's way too complicated to be right. Occums razor.

Information theory makes more sense to me.

I'm not a physicist but I know that a lot of physicists think that way.

Thank you for explaining.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

16. Comment #197854 by SmartLX on June 22, 2008 at 7:15 pm

It's also the largest crowd Dawkins ever saw to lecture to. He couldn't actually see the other one, the lights were too bright.

Good Q&A session, mostly giving RD a chance to mention stuff he didn't get to. The last question's about Haggard, and the audience quite enjoyed it.

TeraBrat, string theory has been tested in a way. The tests so far have generally been purely mathematical exercises to determine whether known phenomena are accurately predicted, but that's still a test.

What makes it a theory, however, is the fact that rather than a simple hypothesis it's an entire system, a complete set of mechanics that can be applied to the physical world. You can make predictions with it, you can model it in a computer, you can stick it into a calculator.

I should mention that there are actually five different string theories, which explain and match various phenomena with varying degrees of accuracy. A new "M-theory" aims to unify them all, and good luck to it.

Other Comments by SmartLX

17. Comment #197870 by RightWingAtheist on June 22, 2008 at 7:53 pm

LaTomate :

The obama video is thrilling, but what he says is a really easy argument to make. It feels so relieving to hear a politician say anything against theocracy, but he isn't holding himself to much. Is it really so revolutionary for him to speak out against murdering children?

Don't forget that Obama is still a Christian who goes to a "rock and roll church" as Hitchens calls it. He can go there for 20 years, and leftist atheists will dismiss it as political posturing, but when he says we should report child murder to the police, in ONE short video, suddenly he's the first secularist ever?

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

18. Comment #197888 by Zaphod on June 22, 2008 at 8:32 pm

I also think it's way too complicated to be right. Occums razor. "

Occam's razor isn't a law of nature. It basically states that you shouldn't make unnecessary assumptions. It is a heuristic for producing the most parsimonious hypothesis or theory. Quantum Theory isn't simple but it is highly accurate.

String theory could be correct but could never be testable. How amusing would that be. We would never be amused though because we would never know.

Occam's razor doesn't mean SIMPLE=BETTER. If you have two hypotheses that both explain observations then you should keep the hypothesis with the least assumptions.

Other Comments by Zaphod

19. Comment #197889 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Occums razor- A rule of thumb stating that in the presence of alternative, adequate explanations for a phenomenon , the simpler one is the more likely to be correct.

Simon Singh
The Big Bang, p. 504

Other Comments by TeraBrat

20. Comment #197891 by dragonfirematrix on June 22, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Outstanding lecture!

Wayne (Forest, VA)

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

21. Comment #197906 by robotaholic on June 22, 2008 at 9:32 pm

Richard Dawkins is a superstar and my hero.

Other Comments by robotaholic

22. Comment #197909 by mmurray on June 22, 2008 at 10:00 pm

@TeraBrat.

Occums razor- A rule of thumb stating that in the presence of alternative, adequate explanations for a phenomenon , the simpler one is the more likely to be correct.

It's not clear that there are alternative theories which cover the same ground.

@HourglassMemory. Email your suggestions to articles@richarddawkins.net

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

23. Comment #197937 by ridelo on June 23, 2008 at 1:08 am

If simplicity was the criterion in Occam's razor then goddidit would be the best theory ever. Even with a walnut brain you can memorize that.

Other Comments by ridelo

24. Comment #197940 by epeeist on June 23, 2008 at 1:26 am

Comment #197937 by ridelo

If simplicity was the criterion in Occam's razor then goddidit would be the best theory ever.

There are other requirements though, like accuracy, testability and falsifiability. Goddidit doesn't meet these.

Plus the fact that you are introducing an incredibly complex entity, which goes against the razor.

Other Comments by epeeist

25. Comment #197944 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 1:41 am

I should mention that there are actually five different string theories, which explain and match various phenomena with varying degrees of accuracy.

Maybe I have been reading too much Peter Woit, but I don't know of a single phenomenon that has been explained with any physical precision by any form of String Theory. There have been things that look like insights (especially with regard to black holes), but nothing more.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

26. Comment #197947 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 1:44 am

Comment #197937 by ridelo

To expand on epeeist's point, God is problematic when considered to be a person of some kind. Minds are the most complex things we know of. Invoking some vast eternal mind fails Ockham's Razor in almost every possible case.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #197954 by MPhil on June 23, 2008 at 1:51 am

Occam's Razor simply means "do not multiply entities beyond necessity".

At the dawn of human intellect, where no real explanations of natural phenomena were available, it was to be expected that intentionality was thought to be behind phenomena - and since intentionality requires a mind, people postulated a mind behind the growing of crops, lightning, thunder, rain etc...

...religion is stuck in this infantile notion. But we now have real explanations - we can describe the meachanisms, the causation-chains behind phenomena. These are explanations. "Goddidit" never is - it cannot describe the causal chains. It postulates direct fulfilment of the intentions of a non-spatiotemporal super-mind. Which is just a ludicrous concept. We need causality to explain intentionality and its fulfilment, not the other way around. It has no explanatory value whatsoever.

And since we can agree on the entities and phenomena in the spatiotemporal world, postulating a deity is never parsimoneous. If we can even conceive of naturalistic explanations for something, invoking a deity is always a multiplication of entities beyond necessity. And since it never has any explanatory value - it is always the worst possible "explanation".

Other Comments by MPhil

28. Comment #198019 by Dhamma on June 23, 2008 at 4:03 am

February 25th?

Has the internet slowed down lately?

Other Comments by Dhamma

29. Comment #198038 by clatz on June 23, 2008 at 5:05 am

HouglassMemory:

If anyone could tell me how I could send suggestions to the people responsible for putting new videos and such on here I think I woul suggest a few videos from time to time.

Try sending an email to articles@richarddawkins.net

Other Comments by clatz

30. Comment #198066 by shad0w on June 23, 2008 at 6:31 am

Steve Zara:
That's why every physicist is awaiting for LHC to go online. It could provide the first evidence of string theory.

There are predictions of string theory that can be tested by LHC(like small dimensions, that particles dissapear to for example).

This is a very exciting time to be alive indeed! The LHC could provide an insight into the Universe that we have not had since General Relativity came about.

Other Comments by shad0w

31. Comment #198069 by Steve Zara on June 23, 2008 at 6:43 am

Comment #198066 by shad0w

There are predictions of string theory that can be tested by LHC(like small dimensions, that particles dissapear to for example).

Those aren't really evidence of string theory. They would be discoveries that would be compatible with string theory. That is quite a different thing. They are also compatible with other theories.

This may sound a bit mean of me, but I detect a sort of mild desperation regarding string theory, in which anything that is found will be labelled as "evidence for string theory!"

Other Comments by Steve Zara

32. Comment #198121 by Stephen Maxwell on June 23, 2008 at 8:51 am

RightWingAtheist:

Don't get your hopes up too much about Obama. Sure, it's great that he's coming across as a staunch secularist regarding the United States. I'm glad.

But after he won the nomination, I read this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/obama.victory/index.html

Just another Zionist with regards to the Middle East. It sometimes just makes me want to vomit.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

33. Comment #198124 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 23, 2008 at 8:55 am

But after he won the nomination, I read this:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/04/obama.victory/index.html

And name a president who hasn't taken this position apart from Carter and that was post-presidency.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

34. Comment #198126 by Edamus on June 23, 2008 at 8:57 am

There was a bar there?


Damn...

Any-who, good lecture; I still find that comedian part hilarious even though I've heard it multiple times.

Speaking of comdians: George Carlin died yesterday... A sad day, indeed.

Other Comments by Edamus

35. Comment #198136 by Apathy personified on June 23, 2008 at 9:13 am

A major drawback with string theory is the 10^500 solutions - It also needs many dimensions (10 or 11 at last count) that we don't see and it doesn't always come up with satisfactory explanations as to why we don't see these dimensions normally (curled at up every point in space is one attempt).
It also needs over 100 experimental constants (whose values have to be measured - can't be derived), which can be problematic.

For those interested, 'The Trouble with Physics' by Lee Smolin is a reasonably objective overview and critique of string theory. Peter Woit's 'Not Even Wrong' is a firmer critique and a bit less objective - his blog is good though.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

36. Comment #198148 by Stephen Maxwell on June 23, 2008 at 9:28 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad,

Exactly. That's the problem! Hypocrisy.

Obama sounds like a secularist in that clip, yet with regards to the Middle East he's a Zionist. According to Jimmy Carter, Israel have over 150 nuclear weapons but Iran are still labelled as the greatest threat to the Middle East. It'd be funny if it wasn't serious.

I'm not surprised a presidential nominee has said those words about Israel, but when you contrast it with his apparent support of secularism, it's just hypocrisy. I would've expected it from a Republican, since they're generally less interested in secularism it seems.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

37. Comment #198225 by PrexicKehdaki on June 23, 2008 at 11:55 am

I've uploaded two less-than-10-minute highlights of the lecture

here on the labeling of children:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkd6CBBxmec

and here on science vs religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxcWNoxO7qs

Other Comments by PrexicKehdaki

38. Comment #198271 by BigC on June 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Is the full Obama speech available anywhere?

I'd quite like to see the full version of that. I do get paranoid when watching youtube videos if the videos are edited like the one posted.

Other Comments by BigC

39. Comment #198284 by gr8hands on June 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm

And Obama's stated main reason for not supporting same-sex marriage is his religion. He was quite clear about that in the misnamed "debate" with the candidates on gay television.

Other Comments by gr8hands

40. Comment #198288 by gr8hands on June 23, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Watch for yourself: http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/2007/08/10/video-the-presidential-forum/

Other Comments by gr8hands

41. Comment #198291 by Count von Count on June 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm

HourglassMemory and sanjiv -

Me too! I'll check out Dan Barker. You should search for Bill Hicks too. Check out this for starters.

TeraBrat -
String theory works just fine as a mathematical theory. When people talk about, say, group theory or graph theory, they don't ask, "Where's the evidence," because that question is irrelevant. String theory is a correct body of mathematical knowledge, and hence we may call it a theory. The hypothesis is that string theory reflects any physical phenomena.

Don't get me wrong though, I am not defending string theory. It needs to be put on the shelf for the time being, preferably at the back of a very large warehouse. It has already wasted the time of so many minds.

Other Comments by Count von Count

42. Comment #198299 by mordacious1 on June 23, 2008 at 2:16 pm

I had high hopes for string theory, I wish it could be shown that it was very likely. It would mean GUT could be just around the corner. Unfortunately, wishing in science gets you absolutely nowhere. I still like to read about string theory though. Maybe parts of the 5 theories can eventually become one theory (m theory). Some brilliant people are working in this area. I won't hold my breath though. And I agree with Steve, about the mild desperation.

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #198302 by SilentMike on June 23, 2008 at 2:22 pm

What are the chances of a download link?

Other Comments by SilentMike

44. Comment #198345 by Conny on June 23, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Just finished watching this. As always a pleasure to hear Prof. Dawkins. After having heard this lecture in different variations, I always look forward to the Q A portion.
This time something "jumped out at me" at about 109 minutes, where Prof. Dawkins used the term "our future president" when he meant the USA future president. Somebody, please remind him of his citizenship. :-))

Other Comments by Conny

45. Comment #198352 by drbreakfast on June 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm

17. Comment #197870 by RightWingAtheist on June 22, 2008 at 7:53 pm

LaTomate :

The obama video is thrilling, but what he says is a really easy argument to make. It feels so relieving to hear a politician say anything against theocracy, but he isn't holding himself to much. Is it really so revolutionary for him to speak out against murdering children?

Don't forget that Obama is still a Christian who goes to a "rock and roll church" as Hitchens calls it. He can go there for 20 years, and leftist atheists will dismiss it as political posturing, but when he says we should report child murder to the police, in ONE short video, suddenly he's the first secularist ever?

--------------------------------------------------
True, Obama is a self-declared Christian and his observations during this speech are facile. However, I cannot think of any recent American politician who has run for president to voice so directly that religious belief should NOT drive public policy. The closest that I've seen is when Edwards stated that he did not believe in "the power of prayer."

Yes, I suspect that if Obama (like many other politicians) were being totally candid, they would reveal themselves to be agnostic or atheist, but we know that such candor would cost him the White House for sure.

And yes, it is a sad day that George Carlin passed away. Thankfully, we have his recordings and writings to remember his great wit. Thank you George.

P.S. -- Great lecture by RD!

Other Comments by drbreakfast

46. Comment #198373 by MarcLindenberg on June 23, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Another great lecture from Dawkins!


Keep it up!

Other Comments by MarcLindenberg

47. Comment #198409 by spoo on June 23, 2008 at 7:44 pm

"What are the chances of a download link?"

Just use http://www.keepvid.com and type in the Google vids url there and you should be able to save it locally.

Other Comments by spoo

48. Comment #198442 by SilentMike on June 24, 2008 at 1:08 am

47. Comment #198409 by spoo

Thank you. I'm downloading.

Other Comments by SilentMike

49. Comment #198450 by tony1865 on June 24, 2008 at 1:46 am

I can't make the link on google video to this lecture work. Is there a problem w/it?

This is the err I'm getting:

We're sorry, but this video may not be available.

If this video was recently uploaded, it may still be processing.
If this video is yours, you can check its status.

To see more videos visit our home page.

Other Comments by tony1865

50. Comment #198508 by RevJimBob on June 24, 2008 at 7:10 am

I get the same error message as tony1865

Other Comments by RevJimBob