Commonsensianism--If it Makes Sense to Pierce Morgan, it is good Science!

Summary

In this thought-provoking debate, Piers Morgan and Richard Dawkins delve into the concept of evolution and the existence of a higher power. Dawkins critiques the 'sky daddy' notion of God as a human construct, while Morgan argues for the plausibility of a divine creator. They discuss the limits of scientific understanding, the role of inference in forming scientific theories, and the philosophical implications of the origin of the universe. The conversation challenges the reliance on common sense in scientific discourse and highlights the complexities in defining what constitutes a scientific explanation.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The debate revolves around the existence of a higher power, with Richard Dawkins suggesting that God is a personification of human desires, while Piers Morgan argues for the existence of God based on personal comfort and the inexplicability of certain phenomena.
• 🧐 Dawkins is criticized for overstepping the boundaries of science by making definitive statements about the nature of God, which some argue is not within the realm of scientific inquiry.
• 🔬 Piers Morgan's belief in God is based on the idea that it provides comfort and explanations for things that science cannot, although this is challenged as not being a valid scientific argument.
• 📚 The concept of 'inference to the best explanation' is discussed, where scientists and philosophers reason from evidence to the most plausible cause, which is used to argue for the existence of a higher power.
• 🤨 The debate touches on the limitations of human understanding and the brain's ability to comprehend complex phenomena like the origin of the universe, suggesting that our perceptions may not align with reality.
• 🌌 The discussion includes the idea that the origin of matter and the universe might be explained by something external to the material universe, which is not bound by time and space.
• 🧠 The role of the brain in simplifying complexity is highlighted, with the suggestion that our cognitive limitations might distort our perception of reality.
• 🔍 The debate critiques the use of common sense as a criterion for truth, especially in the context of scientific theories that defy common sense, such as those in quantum physics.
• 📈 The script also points out the potential fallacy in assuming that the universe must have a beginning or that matter must be caused by something non-material, suggesting that these are not necessarily scientific truths.
• 📚 The importance of evidence in scientific theories is emphasized, contrasting the collection of evidence with the concept of absolute proof, and how scientific theories are built on the best available evidence rather than irrefutable proof.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the debate between Piers Morgan and Richard Dawkins?

The main topic of the debate is the concept of God and the existence of a higher power in relation to human desires and the theory of evolution.

How does Richard Dawkins view the personification of God according to the transcript?

Richard Dawkins views the personification of God as a 'supernatural Sky daddy' and suggests it is a product of human desires and cultural constructs, not necessarily reflective of a higher power.

What does the speaker criticize about Dawkins' approach to discussing God?

The speaker criticizes Dawkins for overstepping the boundaries of science by making definitive statements about what God 'really is,' which is not within the domain of scientific inquiry.

What is Piers Morgan's stance on the existence of God and why does he hold this belief?

Piers Morgan believes in God and an afterlife, finding the idea comforting and explaining things that would otherwise be inexplicable.

How does the speaker evaluate the argument that belief in God provides comfort as evidence for God's existence?

The speaker argues that comfort does not provide evidence for the truth of God's existence, comparing it to false beliefs people might hold for comfort, such as believing they don't have cancer.

What is the 'inference to the best explanation' mentioned in the transcript?

The 'inference to the best explanation' is a method of reasoning where scientists and philosophers use the most plausible explanation for a phenomenon, invoking a cause with the required powers to explain the observed effects.

What does the speaker suggest about the nature of scientific theories and their development?

The speaker suggests that scientific theories are not always clear or simple, and that they often involve complex inferences and the collection of evidence over time, as seen in the development of Darwin's theory of evolution.

What is the 'genetic Book of the Dead' mentioned by Piers Morgan, and what does it signify?

The 'genetic Book of the Dead' is a reference to a book by Richard Dawkins that discusses the continuity of life through genetics, suggesting that each part of existence feeds into the next.

How does the speaker address the concept of 'common sense' in the context of scientific theories?

The speaker argues that common sense is not always a reliable criterion for evaluating scientific theories, as many scientific concepts, like those in quantum physics, defy common sense yet are supported by evidence and mathematical reasoning.

What is the significance of the discussion about the Big Bang and the concept of 'before' in the context of the debate?

The discussion about the Big Bang and the concept of 'before' highlights the limitations of human understanding and the challenge of applying everyday concepts like time to phenomena that are beyond common experience, such as the origin of the universe.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ Debate on Evolution and God's Existence

The paragraph introduces a debate between Piers Morgan and Richard Dawkins on the topic of evolution. Dawkins critiques the concept of God as a 'sky daddy' and a human desire, suggesting that while cultures may invent God for their purposes, it doesn't negate the possibility of a higher power. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of scientific caution in making definitive statements about God, and it points out that Dawkins may have overstepped the boundaries of science by making such assertions. It also highlights Piers Morgan's belief in God and his reasons, which are based on personal comfort and the idea that belief in God explains phenomena that science cannot.

05:01

🧠 The Role of Inference in Science and Theism

This section delves into the scientific method, particularly the use of 'inference to the best explanation,' which is a method of reasoning from evidence to the most plausible explanation. It discusses how scientists, like Darwin, use this method to formulate theories. The paragraph also touches on the limitations of relying solely on plausibility and the potential for confirmation bias. It contrasts this with the argument for a theistic explanation, suggesting that a divine creator is a sufficient cause for the origin of the universe, which is external to the material world and not bound by time and space.

10:02

🌌 The Plausibility Fallacy and the Origin of the Universe

The paragraph critiques the 'plausibility theory' by pointing out that logical or plausible arguments do not necessarily equate to truth. It discusses the assumption that the universe consists of matter and that matter requires a cause, questioning the need for a divine creator and considering alternative explanations such as a probabilistic universe. The paragraph also addresses the concept of 'before' in relation to the Big Bang, suggesting that the idea of a beginning is not necessarily a given and that the traditional understanding of causality may not apply to the origins of the universe.

15:02

🧬 The Complexity of Evolution and the Limits of Human Understanding

This section discusses the complexity of evolutionary theory and how it is supported by evidence rather than mere logical plausibility. It highlights the difficulty in observing evolutionary processes due to their timescale and the need for a mathematical synthesis to understand them. The paragraph also addresses the limitations of human understanding and the brain's ability to simplify reality, suggesting that our perception of the universe may be distorted. It touches on the debate between internalism and externalism in philosophy and the idea that common sense is not always a reliable criterion for truth, especially in the context of scientific theories that defy intuition.

20:03

📚 The Relevance of Common Sense in Science

The final paragraph reflects on the role of common sense in scientific discourse, contrasting Piers Morgan's reliance on it with his acceptance of non-intuitive scientific theories. It points out the irony of using common sense to critique scientific concepts while also benefiting from their advancements. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the importance of questioning popular positions and understanding the nature of scientific inquiry, suggesting that common sense is not a definitive measure of a theory's validity.

Keywords

💡Evolution

Evolution refers to the process by which species of organisms change over time through genetic variation and natural selection. In the video, the concept of evolution is central to the debate, with the participants discussing its scientific validity and philosophical implications. The script mentions 'Modern Sciences' and 'evolution' as key components of the scientific worldview that is being debated against the existence of a higher power.

💡God

God, in this context, represents a higher power or deity, often associated with religious beliefs and theism. The script discusses the concept of God as a 'supernatural Sky daddy' and debates whether the idea of God is a product of human desires or if there is a real reference point beyond human culture and brain functions.

💡Science

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The video script touches upon the nature of science, its methods, and its limitations. It discusses how science operates with 'inference to the best explanation' and the role of evidence in scientific theories.

💡Intelligent Design

Intelligent Design is a concept that suggests certain features of the universe and living organisms are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. The script mentions a guest, Professor Stephen Meyer, who supports the idea of intelligent design as an alternative to naturalistic explanations for the complexity of life.

💡Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. The script warns about the dangers of confirmation bias in scientific reasoning, particularly when seeking evidence to support a preconceived notion rather than objectively evaluating all available data.

💡Big Bang

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the origin of the universe as a singularity that expanded approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The script discusses the philosophical and scientific implications of the Big Bang, including the concept of 'before' the Big Bang and the limitations of human understanding in the context of physics.

💡Materialism

Materialism, in philosophy, is the view that everything in the universe is made of material and that everything, including mental states and consciousness, can be explained in terms of material interactions. The script contrasts materialistic explanations with those invoking a non-material or divine cause, particularly in discussions about the origin of the universe and life.

💡Inference to the Best Explanation

Inference to the best explanation is a method of reasoning used in both science and philosophy to select the hypothesis that provides the best explanation of the available evidence. The script discusses this method as a common approach in scientific reasoning, where scientists infer causes that have the necessary powers to explain phenomena of interest.

💡Genome

The genome refers to the complete set of genetic information of an organism, typically stored in the DNA. The script mentions 'the genetic Book of the Dead,' which is a metaphorical reference to the comprehensive genetic information that influences the development and characteristics of living organisms, and how this information feeds into the evolutionary process.

💡Common Sense

Common sense is the basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by most people. The script discusses the tension between common sense and scientific theories that may seem counterintuitive, such as the nature of time and space as described by Einstein's theory of relativity, and how reliance on common sense can sometimes conflict with scientific understanding.

Highlights

Dawkins suggests that the concept of God is a personification of human desires and a cultural construct.

The debate discusses the limitations of science and the need for caution in scientific assertions about the existence of a higher power.

Piers Morgan expresses his belief in God and an afterlife, citing personal comfort as a reason.

Morgan argues that belief in God provides explanations for phenomena that science cannot yet explain.

The conversation touches on the idea that just because a belief is comforting or plausible does not make it scientifically valid.

Stephen Meyer's perspective on intelligent design is mentioned, advocating for a cause with the powers necessary to explain phenomena.

Dawkins is criticized for overstepping the boundaries of science by making definitive statements about God.

The debate highlights the difference between evidence and proof in scientific theories, using evolution as an example.

The concept of 'inference to the best explanation' is discussed as a method scientists use to reason from evidence.

The conversation questions the necessity of a divine creator, considering alternative explanations for the universe's origin.

Dawkins discusses the limitations of human understanding and the brain's ability to comprehend reality.

The debate challenges the idea that common sense is a reliable criterion for truth, especially in the context of scientific theories.

The discussion addresses the philosophical question of the origin of the universe and the concept of 'before' the Big Bang.

Piers Morgan is critiqued for relying on common sense while also accepting non-intuitive scientific theories.

The debate concludes with a call for a more nuanced understanding of science and its methods, beyond simplistic notions of common sense.

Transcripts

hello everyone I want to watch a debate

between Piers Morgan and Richard doring

regarding Evolution so let's listen into

it there has to be a power that is

greater than the human brain God is just

a a personification of human desires a

supernatural Sky daddy you so that's an

interesting utterance here by Dawkin

right because that's basically an

assumption

that can be traced back to some evidence

of how we work in our cultures but I

don't think it's ultimately secured so

it is for sure that some cultures use

God as a sky daddy as a Divine Garden Of

Evolution or whatever uh but just

because we invent God for our own

purposes or we have a fantasy product of

God doesn't mean that there isn't a

higher power but this is not my point

here of the discussion

so I very much believe in

evolution I very much believe

in what we call Modern Sciences although

it's unclear what that ultimately is a

lot of people say like ah science is

clear science is clear we know what we

do no I don't think like science has yet

found its final form to use a hegelian

phrase um but yeah I think that also

people who Proclaim themselves to be

scientists have to be careful with their

utterances if they are really scientific

ific and I think Dawkin here in these

statements actually

extends the or he

passes over the boundaries that are

drawn for Science and that is explicitly

to

make statements determined statements

about what God really is now can you say

something like that God that human

cultures use images of God sure is it

like somehow bound to our how our brain

works how our anxieties work sure um but

does it mean that the reference to God

has no real reference point well I mean

that's much more complicated but this is

not the major Point here of the debate I

actually find way more interesting how

Piers Morgan argues and I think we can

learn something about science if we look

into that so let's come to the first

utterance he makes in that regard so

okay the first point here is that P

Morgan clarifies his position that he

believes in God and gives us some

reasons why let's look if these reasons

that he gives us are good reasons I do

believe uh for what it's worth I do

believe in God I do believe in an

afterlife I find it comforting I also

find so is the idea of

comfort giving us any hints about the

truth of God obviously not right uh we

may betray ourselves say we don't have

cancer where we actually have cancer we

may say it's good to believe in God

therefore God exists not a good argument

so but I think his argument goes a bit

further let's listen

more I said to you last time I find it

explains things which are otherwise

completely

inexplicable so okay believing in God

explains things which are otherwise

inexplicable so I think if I have a

medical condition in my body uh I might

come up with a theory that sounds

plausible

but which is not true let's say sugar

nourishes cancer or you have to

do rinsing of the body because you ate

too much basil stuff and therefore you

have all these conditions like these are

theories that are plausible they may

even be coherent and logical but that

doesn't make them true so just because

we have an explanation for something why

we cannot find another explanation

is not a good model of how to do

sciences we need something that confirms

it with evidence although and I talk

about that later we also have to be

careful about possible confirmation

biases but this is a very difficult

Topic in the theory of

science um and we had a a guest on

recently Professor Stephen C Meyer who's

a pro prominent believer in intelligent

design or what he calls a god hypothesis

he watched our last interview that you

and I had and this is what he said about

it dawet wants to portray theistic

belief as if it's equivalent to belief

in fairies and and he'll concede that

well it's possible but I think there's a

stronger argument for the the the

theistic case and that is that when

scientists and philosophers reason from

evidence they typically use a method of

reasoning that has a technical name it's

called inferring to the best explanation

where the best explanation is one that

where you're invoking a cause which has

the kind of powers that would be

required to explain the phenomenon of

Interest so I always have a lot of

commentators who say well nowadays we

have science and we know how science

work Sciences work well I don't think

it's that clear so I think we observe

indeed that scientists every off

every or often do something that is

inferenced to the best cause and then

use that as an hypothesis to either

falsify it

which seems to be a very productive

method or to build a theory on the basis

of confirmation with regard to this best

CA which is not such a good attempt but

which usually works to build new

theories if we for example look for

Darwin uh he first falsified a lot of

other theories of Lamar and maybe also

under the influence of Li um but then he

tried to formulate a theory that was

like something like the inference to the

best cause and he sought a lot of

evidence that would support his theory

so he tried to make his hypothesis

lining up uh with the evidence that was

available at that time now this may be

exposed to a confirmation hypothesis

which is a fallacy in inductive

reasoning and which never gives us

necessary knowledge so this is

especially problematic if you try to

prove for example that climate change

does not exist and then you go to Google

and you just find like a lot of examples

that climate change does not exist or

let's say you wanted to show that Santa

Claus exists and you come up with ideas

like that a lot of children get presen

the next day on uh Christmas day now is

that inference to the best cause well

that is debatable but here is like

something that we can say is a

confirmation bias that plays a role so I

think in that regard science has many

problems s and for I have forgotten his

name stating that scientists usually

simply do an inference to the best CES

largely oversimplifying the way Sciences

work and you correctly pointed out in

your conversation with him that when you

get back to that what physicists of

often call The Singularity the point

where matter space time and energy begin

to exist the materialist is really up

against a huge conundrum because prior

to the origin of matter there is no

matter to do the causing that's what we

mean by the origin of matter that's

where it starts and so we have to say

here one thing the idea that there is an

origin of the universe like the big bang

seems to me a hypothesis that is in line

with a lot of theories uh where as we

have to keep in mind that that is also

one theory that is falsifiable I mean it

seems to be fairly well tested with

regard to all the equations that we have

but there are some caveats and we could

also say that the universe may be

infinite infinite in whatever has

happened before and so therefore like

bringing it down to the straw man of

what we have in science and then

probably pointing out some bad popular

scientists who adamantly defend this

thesis against like let's say

creationists is misleading it it is

really misleading and so I think we

should have the discourse on that in

another way now let's look at the kind

of argument that he does in favor of

sufficient

reason so I'm sorry sufficient reason is

certainly an interesting argument

because we can say that

whenever something gets caused by

something else that which causes it must

be similar in kind so material gets

caused by material but what happens if

we say if we ask what is the sufficient

reason for material well obviously it

cannot be material itself because then

we hadn't

explained where material comes from so

there must be something different than

material if we want to go that far now I

know for a fact that in like the

physical theories nowadays there is a

claim that something can come from

nothing but we also have to keep in mind

that this is not the absolute or

philosophical nothing but the nothing

that is the determined in physical terms

so that we then have an equation where

we can say well that's how matter is

generated from whatever this physical

nothing is so indeed I think we have

here metaphysical problems but to say

that there must be a Divine Creator uh

that is more powerful than us and like

dismissing the hypothesis that it could

also be just chaos that created this

universe and that there is no further

meaning to it

uh like dismissing this thesis is also a

little bit uh sloppy and not

scientific so if you want to invoke a

cause which is sufficient to explain the

origin of matter you can't invoke matter

it's in principle materialistic

explanations are in principle

insufficient so you need to invoke

something which is external to the

material universe and is not bounded by

time and space as well and that starts

to paint so we have a typical problem of

a certain kind of fallacy here let's

call it the plausibility theory where we

have like the Assumption of a few

premises that are taken to be true and

then of course the conclusion uh that

they draw namely that God exists cannot

be false right so it's true by necessity

but it all depends on the uh premises

that they have stated here namely that

the Universe consists of matter whatever

that is and that matter needs a CA I

mean like B back to aquinus for example

he States also that the Universe could

be infinite without a beginning in time

but that time goes infinitely back and

that God is so powerful that he even

creates an infinite Universe of no

beginning so like the assumption that

there must be a beginning is already

problematic in itself and then to say

that matter must be caused by something

that is not matter uh that's like an

operation of plausibility of how causes

work but what about the Universe just

being a probabilistic universe and the

kind of causalities that we assume for

our normal day of life don't work so

yeah so we have here again a

plausibility fallacy and I want to say

just because something is logical or

plausible doesn't mean it's

true a picture of the kind of cause you

would need that has the the sort of

attributes the traditional theist of

traditionally associated with

God you see Rich this is the the n I

think my whole issue with your position

on this and you can respond obviously to

what you just heard in a moment but

given your new book is about the genetic

Book of the Dead and it effectively

takes us from here to in perpetuity on a

genetic Trail where each part of

existence feeds the next and so on and I

totally subscribe to that the Genome of

every body and every uh organization and

so on so he subscribes to the genome and

like basic evolutionary theory maybe

he's not a believer in uh Creative

Design but he says here basically that

it's logical now davin's theory is not

true because it's logical but because

it's like covered by evidence moreover

it is not like a theory that simply

makes sense like in Pierce Morgan's mind

he says it simply makes sense but if we

look into Darwin's biography how

complicated it was to actually come up

with this kind of theory that is not

simply observable but that until the 50s

of the 20th century needed a

mathematical synthesis that also showed

in probabalistic causes that this is

very likely the case until that happened

like that theory was based on

the like complicated very complicated

inference to what is the best cause and

this best cause like in terms of

evolution could not be simply observed

or was not some simply something that is

Meaningful so again why is that the case

because Evolution happens probably I

mean I'm not complete expert on it but

happens in many many millions of years

with many many many tiny mutations and

variations and selection processes that

happen all the time so but these

processes we just cannot observe them

Darin didn't have like uh striking

examples that why that's why he came up

with so many examples in his book The

Origin of Species where many people even

criticized that it was too detailed and

Darin took 15 years to collect this

evidence there was not like

the the the like the the fingerprint of

nature on The Smoking Gun anywhere there

was not like the last kind of proof

there were just like many many tiny

evidences and keep you in mind what's

the difference between evidence and TR

proof right a proof shows without

any doubt that something must be true

evidence is something that is collected

so that we create a complete picture on

the base of that we do the most likely

explanation creates as you say a

comprehensive dossier on all the world

as it moves forward I get it but when

you go back to the very

start what is there before that and that

I think I asked you last time and

Professor Meer brought that up again as

being the floor in your position

which is oh the FL he

knows starts what is it's possibly the

flaw this is a question for a physicist

not a biologist but what I would answer

to Professor Meer is that we need to

explain complexity in terms of

Simplicity and of course it's true that

I cannot say what was there before the

Big Bang so dkin alludes here to the

fact that we have brains and that our

brains work in a s certain way namely

reducing complexity to Simplicity and so

the limitations of the brain then depict

the reality in a distorted sense now

however I want to point out that we

never know how much of reality we

actually grasp and it could be that we

have a pretty good grasp that our brain

developed in a spiritual sense in a way

that it indeed grasps more than just a

picture that is simplified and has no

resemblance to Nature anymore now

however that's a difficult internalist

externalist debate in philosophy and I'm

on the internalist side that I say we

should um expel the term of Mind

external reality and rather deal with

the position that Dawkin um provides

although I want to say this is not

scientifically secured but it's I think

the pragmatically most wise

decision physicist sometimes tell us

that the word for before doesn't even

mean anything before the Big Bang but

whatever it was it but it has to doesn't

itly invoke doesn't it have to someone

someone as logical as you are I believe

you are logical you know you've think

about this all very logically a logical

surely has to appreciate that before the

Big Bang that has to have been something

before then otherwise what is

nothing a physicist will tell you that

they that what do you what do you tell

tell

you I'm trying to tell you what a

physicist would say first of all he

defeats him and distracts him with pure

logic they would say that you cannot use

the word before for the Big Bang time

began at the Big Bang there was no

before before the Big Bang I know it's

contrary to Common Sense physicists

don't necessarily deal with common sense

so this turns into debate about common

sensan ISM well if it makes no sense

does it and that's what I mean you're a

logical man that cannot make sense to

you the idea not even allowed to use the

word before the Big Bang when everything

every part of both of our brains tells

us that that's obviously nonsensical

doesn't that make you think again we are

not physicists I I like you am

completely baffled by what physicist say

to me which is that you cannot use the

word before for for before the Big Bang

time itself began in at the at the Big

Bang now that is totally

counterintuitive it's counterintuitive

to me it's counterintuitive to you it's

counterintuitive to Steven Meyer but we

are not physicists and you need to talk

to a physicist talk to a physicist about

that and they will tell you that you

cannot use the word before for the Big

Bang Yeah but you think that's as

Preposterous

I I do because I'm not a physicist

you've just written a book as a

biologist called the genetic Book of the

Dead in which you talk about the body

and the g genome comprehensive and so on

so you're prepared to expound a

philosophy based on that as a biologist

which I completely respect and it makes

perfect sense the book the book makes

perfect sense so his Criterion is

something making logical logically

perfect sense but this is not a

Criterion of Truth and he also hints

here to something that I would like to

call common sensan ISM he says like your

points make no sense that contradicts

with common sense

and first of all the problem of Common

Sense is if we all rely on what is

called common sense then what to do if

somebody says well that but that is my

common sense then no this cannot be

common sense so yeah so and let's ask

the question when Einstein Einstein came

up with the theory which I don't

understand completely but the time and

space are not absolute Pierce Morgan

would have said but Professor Einstein

your theory makes no common sense it

doesn't make Common Sense there must be

be of before like time cannot stand

still time must always be absolute and

be the same it must be everywhere at all

time that does not make sense it does

not make sense so this is the problem

with these Mak sense arguments and I

think there are in especially in

Sciences a lot of things that go against

common sense right I mean quantum theory

makes sense in mathematical terms where

we have to train ourselves in using

these logical instruments and accept a

lot of hypothesis but then suddenly it

makes makes sense in terms of

mathematics but not in terms of the

phenomenal qualities of space and time

that surround us so why is pi Morgan so

much insisting here on Common Sense

while he at the same time relies on the

results of a non-common sensical science

anyway we finished this here I think we

learned a lot about common sense by the

way this also reminds me of the article

about Collective knowledge that does not

relate to the individual anymore where

we just produce knowledge that goes

beyond the mind of the individual that

is also something that should be

considered now if you like this uh kind

of debate I think there is a lot to be

learned when we take especially these

popular positions and really dissect

them then maybe you subscribe to the

channel and I do that a little bit more

so this was not assisted reading it was

just assisted watching uh yeah and what

what do you think uh I mean I have to

say about this uh like my first book

that will come out in the brill in

November it somehow discusses like the

question of what is a science and how

does a good science have to start right

so I think like to a certain degree I'm

an expert on that although of course I

don't know any like not everything that

is in the field anymore but I think it's

quite debatable first of all what makes

the sense sorry what makes the signs uh

but I think it's less so debatable that

common sense is not a Criterion of a

good theory anymore so I think Dawkins

just finds himself in the wrong

discussion with P Morgans who says well

everything needs to make sense to me

otherwise it must be wrong okay so thank

you very much for watching uh so live

long uh do more science learn more about

science and prosper bye-bye