Speaker 1: I'll get a champions of taps. Who else would it be?
Speaker 1: I hope you're bloody terrific. So I just wrote a post.
Speaker 1: I just read a post on me keyboard. I am
Speaker 1: having regular conversations. I haven't really thought this through to clearly.
Speaker 1: I know what I want to say, where I want
Speaker 1: to go, But if it's a bit stumbley bumbly, fuck it,
Speaker 1: just go with me because I think the ideas and
Speaker 1: I think the subject matter is really relevant and important
Speaker 1: and interesting. And I feel like, so what am I talking?
Speaker 1: But you probably know because you read the post or
Speaker 1: you read the synopsis or the title, So of course
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the weaponization of the term science tells us.
Speaker 1: I feel like, I don't know how you feel, but
Speaker 1: I feel like, in twenty twenty five, we've never fucking
Speaker 1: heard that statement, that cliche, that expression, that's sentence. More often,
Speaker 1: where people to shut something down, or to manipulate someone
Speaker 1: or control someone, or to win an argument or end something,
Speaker 1: they go, well, science tells us. And then when you
Speaker 1: do dig a little deep, you go which science, And
Speaker 1: invariably they don't know which science? And if even if
Speaker 1: I'm trying to be smart ass, here I just think
Speaker 1: that we need to be really clear about what we're
Speaker 1: saying and what we're listening to, and what we give
Speaker 1: our time and energy and focus. Because when someone says
Speaker 1: something to you, even including me, I always say, don't
Speaker 1: don't trust me or believe me just because I say something,
Speaker 1: Go and put it under the microscope. If you think
Speaker 1: what I say is interesting or maybe relevant or even
Speaker 1: wildly mind blowing, still go test it. You still need
Speaker 1: to learn for yourself. You still need to understand things
Speaker 1: and think critically and make decisions and discuss your own
Speaker 1: purpose path through all of that. With that in mind,
Speaker 1: the whole kind of I don't know that the habit
Speaker 1: that seems to be sweeping through social media or the
Speaker 1: regular occurrence of people just not just social media, but
Speaker 1: in conversations and mainstream media, out and about, you know,
Speaker 1: everywhere where people kind of just think that they're going
Speaker 1: to win or prove that they're right by prefacing or
Speaker 1: ending something with you know, science tells us or that
Speaker 1: science well, that's what we know, or that's what the
Speaker 1: research says. But when pressed, people generally can't cite the research.
Speaker 1: People generally can't tell you how many people were in
Speaker 1: the study, Where was the research done, who did the research,
Speaker 1: who funded the research, When was the research. Was it
Speaker 1: done in nineteen seventy four or was it done last week?
Speaker 1: Tell me about the research, tell me about the science.
Speaker 1: And the truth is ninety nine percent? Maybe the truth.
Speaker 1: See that's me making sit up. My feeling is that
Speaker 1: probably around ninety nine percent of people don't actually know
Speaker 1: who did the research, where the research was done, what
Speaker 1: the protocol was, if it was funded, if the researchers
Speaker 1: or the investors in the research, or the funders of
Speaker 1: the research had a particular commercial interest in the outcome. Well,
Speaker 1: of course they do. That's why they fucking fund it. Mostly,
Speaker 1: And so I don't think and this is not me
Speaker 1: disrespecting science. I love science. I'm finishing a science doctorate.
Speaker 1: You know that, I've got another degree in exercise science.
Speaker 1: I love science. But guess what science is flawed. Science
Speaker 1: is not a perfect thing. People do science. People do
Speaker 1: science who have got agendas. People do science who get
Speaker 1: things wrong. People do science who then interpret the data
Speaker 1: the way that they think the data should be interpreted,
Speaker 1: because quite often they might want the data or the
Speaker 1: results to align with their initial hypothesis. So that their theory,
Speaker 1: their idea, their intention has proven correct, because that gives
Speaker 1: them more credibility, makes them feel better about themselves. Of course,
Speaker 1: now am I saying everyone who does science is unethical
Speaker 1: and selfish and not at all, not at all. But
Speaker 1: what I am saying is that we need to be
Speaker 1: more aware and conscious. And you may not be a
Speaker 1: scientific person. I suggest most of my listeners, not particularly
Speaker 1: which is not good or bad, but probably don't have
Speaker 1: a science degree or a science background. I know some
Speaker 1: of you do, some of you don't. Doesn't matter either way,
Speaker 1: and whether or not you have a science background or not,
Speaker 1: the same applies. You know. In twoenty twenty five, science
Speaker 1: tells us like science tells us. That's not just a statement.
Speaker 1: It's not just a statement. It's a sales pitch. It's
Speaker 1: a power play. It's a psychological Jedi mind trick all
Speaker 1: rolled into one, trying to coerce or manipulate or convince
Speaker 1: someone of something. People don't say science tells us to
Speaker 1: invite a conversation. They say it to end a conversation.
Speaker 1: They don't say it to explore complexity and nuance, but
Speaker 1: rather to shut it down. They don't say it to
Speaker 1: illuminate truth, but rather to wear a lab coat of
Speaker 1: credibility while often peddling an ideology, an influence, or even
Speaker 1: to sell you a fucking shake, or to sell you
Speaker 1: a product or a program or a pill. Science tells us,
Speaker 1: Science tells that we need more of this, and I'm
Speaker 1: selling this, and statistics tell us that this. Many people
Speaker 1: are undernourished because they're not having this, or they're whatever.
Speaker 1: It is right. It's like the ultimate mic drop. Science
Speaker 1: tells us this is the best. Therefore I'm right, you're wrong,
Speaker 1: you should do this. Translation, I've outsourced my thinking to
Speaker 1: an article I didn't read, from a study I didn't
Speaker 1: really understand by researchers. I don't know any uni I've
Speaker 1: never heard of. But nonetheless, I'm going to say this thing,
Speaker 1: and it makes me sound credible. It makes me sound smart. Now,
Speaker 1: is everybody who says that that. No, Some people go
Speaker 1: science tells us and they know they've done. That's cool
Speaker 1: and good on them. But I think that many of
Speaker 1: us who are consumers, many of us who are students,
Speaker 1: many of us who are on the journey. It is
Speaker 1: really easy when you want something to be true. You know,
Speaker 1: when you live in an echo chamber of belief or
Speaker 1: idea or ideology or philosophy or behavior. You live in
Speaker 1: an echo chamber that is moving in a certain direction
Speaker 1: or embracing certain like I said, ideas or philosophies, then
Speaker 1: it's very likely that you will pay attention to the
Speaker 1: science in inverted commas that suits your argument. And while
Speaker 1: that is very understandable and I'm not being critical, that
Speaker 1: is part of the human experience. We want to be right.
Speaker 1: We don't want to be wrong. We want to belong
Speaker 1: to a group. Part of the cost of belonging to
Speaker 1: the group is that we all align and conform and
Speaker 1: think the same. But the truth is that science is
Speaker 1: not much of science is not set in stone. It's evolving.
Speaker 1: It's the way that we analyze it and understand it
Speaker 1: and interpret it and test it is dynamic, you know.
Speaker 1: It's if we're being honest, science tells us is often
Speaker 1: almost like a rhetorical sleight of hand to impress people,
Speaker 1: to impress the uninformed, or to manipulate the undecided, or
Speaker 1: to win an argument with confidence and haughty words like
Speaker 1: that word, haughty words not evidence, to sell products that
Speaker 1: wouldn't stand up without the white coat. Cosplay and to
Speaker 1: deceive or manipulate people who trust the word scientific more
Speaker 1: than they do their own gut or intuition or understanding.
Speaker 1: And people use it to control narratives by masking authority
Speaker 1: as objectivity. But the truth is that science is not that.
Speaker 1: Science is not dictatorial. Science is curious, Science is messy sciences.
Speaker 1: Some of science is uncertain and evolving, as I said,
Speaker 1: whereas fake science speak is rigid. It's convenient, and it
Speaker 1: often comes with a call to action or an offer
Speaker 1: or a discount code. So when someone says the science
Speaker 1: tells us we need to pause, We need to go
Speaker 1: what science? Which science? Who did that? Whose interpretation of
Speaker 1: the data? How strong is the evidence? How many people
Speaker 1: were in the study? Did it have ethical approval? Were
Speaker 1: there twelve people in the study? Were there twelve thousand
Speaker 1: people in the study? Is there a conflict of interest?
Speaker 1: Who was financing it? And does it actually apply to me?
Speaker 1: Because in the wrong hands, science really becomes less about
Speaker 1: truth and knowledge and discovery more about disguised persuasion and manipulation.
Speaker 1: When I first started my PhD, I was early days,
Speaker 1: and I'm still not a great academic or researcher. By
Speaker 1: the way, but early days, I mean, you know, most
Speaker 1: of you know what my study is about. It's about
Speaker 1: metaperception and metaacuracy, understanding how people see us. But it
Speaker 1: really insects with all mind stuff, meta meta cognition, thinking
Speaker 1: about thinking, theory of mind, thinking about or understanding or
Speaker 1: having an insight into how other people think. And then metaperception,
Speaker 1: understanding how others see us, and all of that stuff.
Speaker 1: But it's all around mind stuff, and it's all it
Speaker 1: all falls loosely under the banner of social awareness, self awareness,
Speaker 1: situational awareness. And so in the first week also I
Speaker 1: can't remember, but it was very very early days. I
Speaker 1: mean this was twenty nineteen November one I started. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to say in the first week or weeks,
Speaker 1: I decided that I would see what the research, what
Speaker 1: the literature said. Remember, and I'm looking at papers and
Speaker 1: research up to about fifty years old, So from the
Speaker 1: seventies until now, I tried to get a definition of
Speaker 1: or clarity around self awareness. And I thought, what is
Speaker 1: I have my own idea of what self awareness is,
Speaker 1: but what does the science say? What does the science
Speaker 1: say about self awareness? So I had to look in
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of different kind of areas of psychology
Speaker 1: and human behavior, and organizational psych and social psych and
Speaker 1: clinical psych and all the psychs and all the different
Speaker 1: kind of departments or areas that are researched, and I
Speaker 1: reckon in an hour, I found in the science, in
Speaker 1: the science, in the research, in the highest level PhD
Speaker 1: and post doc research, ten definitions, give or take, of
Speaker 1: self awareness, and none of them were the same. There
Speaker 1: was intersecting kind of ideas, and there was some consistency,
Speaker 1: some inconsistency, some familiarity between the definitions. But what was
Speaker 1: an Of course, now I look back and I go
Speaker 1: I was naive to think that there would be one
Speaker 1: unifying kind of definition of self awareness that everyone in
Speaker 1: science and everyone in research, no matter which area of
Speaker 1: research they are in, what area of research they're in,
Speaker 1: everybody uses, Oh, Craig, here's the definition that. Well, of course,
Speaker 1: it doesn't work like that. And so even when we
Speaker 1: look at something which is really fundamental, and all of
Speaker 1: us have an idea, we all have heard the term
Speaker 1: self awareness, we all have a somewhat of an understanding
Speaker 1: of what self awareness is. And even with something as
Speaker 1: common and familiar as that term, the science says different things.
Speaker 1: The science says different things, so you go, well, fuck,
Speaker 1: if we can't even have a total convergence or consensus
Speaker 1: on what the fuck self awareness is, no wonder everything
Speaker 1: else is fucking messy. So you know the the just
Speaker 1: trust the science, that idea, just just trust the science. Well,
Speaker 1: who's fucking science? And by the way, nah, there's a
Speaker 1: big fat nah, like, listen to the science, but make
Speaker 1: sure it's science. Make sure or read the science, but
Speaker 1: make sure it's science. Make sure that it's not someone
Speaker 1: else's story about someone else's research, or someone else's idea
Speaker 1: of someone else's research. And by the time you get it,
Speaker 1: it's fifteenth hand and it's not science at all. It's
Speaker 1: a story about something that that person is fifteen steps
Speaker 1: away from what started as research ended up fifteen versions
Speaker 1: later as something else, with the person still telling us
Speaker 1: this is what the science says. So we need we
Speaker 1: need to keep in mind a few things that I
Speaker 1: want to share with you, so one in a particular
Speaker 1: order of importance. So trust the science needs an asterisk
Speaker 1: because science evolves. So what's true today? We go, well,
Speaker 1: this is scientifically valid today, but tomorrow it might not
Speaker 1: be because it might be partially or totally disproven, and
Speaker 1: that's not a flaw, that's actually a strength of science.
Speaker 1: But it also means that we shouldn't treat our current
Speaker 1: findings as gospel, as unequivocal as we well, we might
Speaker 1: find out. We might find out one day that this
Speaker 1: is this is partially true, but there's more to it
Speaker 1: than we originally thought. As we tend to, we tend to.
Speaker 1: I guess there are some areas of science if we're
Speaker 1: talking about physics and so on. But even like when
Speaker 1: we think about what we used to go, oh, this
Speaker 1: is how the brain works. Even twenty years ago, people
Speaker 1: are like no, Like that was hard science, that was neuroscience.
Speaker 1: There was like this is what the brain does, this
Speaker 1: is what it doesn't do, this is how it works.
Speaker 1: Now in twenty five we're going fark on hell, hands
Speaker 1: in the air, emoji, who knew that the brain does
Speaker 1: all this other shit as well? And by the way,
Speaker 1: have you heard about the gut biome? Oh my god, right,
Speaker 1: what was science around how our gut now microbiome worked
Speaker 1: twenty years ago is completely different now, And it's not
Speaker 1: because anyone had bad intentions necessarily. Twenty years ago, But
Speaker 1: now a light's been turned on more research, more funding,
Speaker 1: more understanding, more awareness, and what we currently know about
Speaker 1: the brain and the gut, biome and the human body
Speaker 1: broadly speaking, and physiology broadly speaking, and medicines and dare
Speaker 1: I say it, even fucking vaccines right what we currently
Speaker 1: think to be absolute science. Some of that may be
Speaker 1: much of that in fifty years or even five years,
Speaker 1: but definitely in fifty years, twenty years, people will look
Speaker 1: back and go, what the fuck were those dummies thinking?
Speaker 1: What were they fucking thinking? Now that's people who are
Speaker 1: currently running around beating their chest and pointing their finger
Speaker 1: and telling the world that the science says this. Science
Speaker 1: is important, Science matters, Science is crucial. But we need
Speaker 1: to we need to also be open minded and aware
Speaker 1: and understanding and humble in the way that we research
Speaker 1: and talk and think. Knowing that much of what and
Speaker 1: I've said this before, but wind the clock back two
Speaker 1: hundred years and all of the stuff or much of
Speaker 1: the stuff that we know and do and understand today
Speaker 1: with science and research and technology and medicine, it would
Speaker 1: have it would have been completely fucking in their minds
Speaker 1: two hundred years ago, impossible, not like not improbable, impossible, inconceivable,
Speaker 1: inconceivable that I can be sitting in my office today
Speaker 1: talking to you, and then you have a device and
Speaker 1: tomorrow you're listening to me. You've got this little thing
Speaker 1: in your ear and you're hearing me, and you're being
Speaker 1: inspired or confused or educated or informed or whatever the
Speaker 1: fuck you're being by me. Well, that can't happen. But
Speaker 1: it happens, right because as technology and science and understanding
Speaker 1: and researching all of these things evolve, there now understanding
Speaker 1: of what is possible, what is right, what humans have
Speaker 1: the potential to do, be create, It changes, It changes,
Speaker 1: So science evolves, understanding evolves. Number two why we shouldn't
Speaker 1: trust the science. Cherry picking is like rampant people often
Speaker 1: cite a study or part of a study that suits
Speaker 1: their agenda while ignoring the full body of evidence or
Speaker 1: contradictory findings. I remember years ago reading two books simultaneously.
Speaker 1: I think one was called from Memory. This is a
Speaker 1: long time ago. It was about two thousand, so twenty
Speaker 1: five years ago, fucking you fuck. One was called protein Power.
Speaker 1: I think that's what it was called. And I forget
Speaker 1: the other one. But essentially I back in the old days,
Speaker 1: I was often reading two or three books at once, right,
Speaker 1: i'd have a book work, I'd have a book at home.
Speaker 1: I remember on the same day reading something in the
Speaker 1: first book Protein Power, and something in the second book,
Speaker 1: which basically these two books had almost diametrically opposed viewpoints
Speaker 1: or science. And I remember reading one saying essentially, I
Speaker 1: think we need two to two point five grams of
Speaker 1: protein per kilo of body weight or something like that.
Speaker 1: I can't exactly remember what, and then reading later in
Speaker 1: the day in this other book that essentially the opposite
Speaker 1: or very very different ideas or recommendations or science. And
Speaker 1: then when I went to the back of the book,
Speaker 1: they both were references, they both had site, they're both referenced,
Speaker 1: they both had citations. I went into the back of
Speaker 1: the book and I went and I found the research.
Speaker 1: I'm like, wow, both of these things that these authors
Speaker 1: are saying are very different. Firstly, they're talking about the
Speaker 1: same thing but with completely different science, and both of
Speaker 1: their claims are backed with science. And that was one
Speaker 1: of the first times for me as a young scientist
Speaker 1: and trainer and want to be researcher and understander of
Speaker 1: stuff that I went ah, it's like somebody pulled back
Speaker 1: a curtain because I was probably a little bit in.
Speaker 1: The science says that, So that's what it is. Just
Speaker 1: like for a long time, and you've heard this way
Speaker 1: too many times, but it doesn't go away and it
Speaker 1: doesn't stop being true. I taught the food pyramid for
Speaker 1: a decade or more, maybe two decades, I don't know,
Speaker 1: way too fucking long, because I believe the science and
Speaker 1: the science was, well, this is the best way to eat.
Speaker 1: You know, there's been lots of work and research done
Speaker 1: on this, and blah blah blah bah and high high carbohydrate,
Speaker 1: low fat, you know, high sugar at times. You know,
Speaker 1: a lot of this and a little of that, and
Speaker 1: have it in this order and have this much of that.
Speaker 1: That that's the way to eat. And by the way,
Speaker 1: we know it's the way to eat because the science
Speaker 1: tells us. Now in twenty twenty five, we know different,
Speaker 1: we know different, and maybe in two thousand and thirty
Speaker 1: five that there will be I'm almost certain there'll be
Speaker 1: a change in thinking or a change in understanding or awareness,
Speaker 1: or there will be new data or new interpretations of data. Okay,
Speaker 1: Idea number three around this trusting the science you know
Speaker 1: carefully is is the space between correlation and causation. And
Speaker 1: so causation is obviously if I do this, then that happened.
Speaker 1: So I cause that if I if I jump out
Speaker 1: the window now and I jump onto the concrete and
Speaker 1: I'm upper floor and in my sixty year old body, I
Speaker 1: land in my bare feet, well I'm probably going to
Speaker 1: break an ankle or create a stress fracture, you know.
Speaker 1: So that's I did this thing and I created this outcome.
Speaker 1: That's causation. Correlation is most of you know, this of course,
Speaker 1: is where two things might be linked. They might be
Speaker 1: related or associated, but it doesn't mean that one causes
Speaker 1: the other. But what a lot of people will do
Speaker 1: in the interests of convincing people, or selling people, or
Speaker 1: coercing or manipulating people, or let's be honest, bullshitting deceiving people,
Speaker 1: is that they will use something which might be correlated,
Speaker 1: but instead of talking about correlation, they will talk about causation.
Speaker 1: They will say, people who do this up in this state,
Speaker 1: inferring that if you do that, like if you don't
Speaker 1: need enough of this, then this then you will have
Speaker 1: low bone density. Well, maybe there's a correlation, but maybe
Speaker 1: low bone density is about twenty six variables, not the
Speaker 1: one single one that you're talking about. So we need
Speaker 1: to be really mindful of and careful of understanding the
Speaker 1: space between causation and correlation. Number four on our list
Speaker 1: is scientific literacy varies, and so often people who are
Speaker 1: talking about stuff, or even people who are analyzing research,
Speaker 1: lack the I need to be careful here, but the
Speaker 1: training I guess to evaluate to evaluate research quality, so
Speaker 1: often dodgy or poorly designed studies can be used to
Speaker 1: justify claims. I remember, so there was a I won't
Speaker 1: say what it is, but this this is interesting. The
Speaker 1: other day I saw a product which is for old people.
Speaker 1: I mean old people, I mean people in their eighties
Speaker 1: and beyond. And it was a it was a product,
Speaker 1: it was a food supplement, and it said this increases
Speaker 1: muscle mass by something like two to three percent in
Speaker 1: eight weeks. Increases And I'm like, well, what what so
Speaker 1: drinking something builds muscle And I'm thinking, what about all
Speaker 1: the other variables? And so I went down the whole
Speaker 1: chat GPT and Claude rabbit hole trying to find the
Speaker 1: science behind that claim. And it was a and was
Speaker 1: there any research? Oh my god, like was the research it?
Speaker 1: It was so dodgy, it was so it was so
Speaker 1: inadequate for what we would call scientifically valid research and
Speaker 1: data and interpretation, you know, of the data. And if
Speaker 1: ten out of ten is great science, this was a
Speaker 1: one out of ten research thing. There were very few
Speaker 1: people involved in the study most scientific studies, depending on
Speaker 1: the kind of study. But we want at the bare minimum,
Speaker 1: we want one hundred people involved in research if we're
Speaker 1: going to be using humans in our research to make
Speaker 1: it somewhat valid. Hopefully more, but you know, so we
Speaker 1: just need to be careful of and aware of the
Speaker 1: size of the research or the number of participants in research.
Speaker 1: Who did it, where it was done, and it was
Speaker 1: an academic institution or was it Brian at Hisloody Personal
Speaker 1: Training Center in Bundua shout out to Brian. I wonder
Speaker 1: if there is a Brian who has a pet center
Speaker 1: in Bundua or Scott doesn't matter who it was. But
Speaker 1: you know, what I'm saying Number five is that science
Speaker 1: is often used as a weapon, right And I spoke
Speaker 1: about that before, where people weaponize these things to win
Speaker 1: basically to win to shut down a conversation or to
Speaker 1: shut down any other kind of thinking or perspective. And
Speaker 1: part of that I think is well, obviously because they win,
Speaker 1: they want to control. They want to win, control, manipulate.
Speaker 1: And also you find that with some people, their science,
Speaker 1: like what they think, what they espouse, what they preach,
Speaker 1: is very intertwined with their identity. Now, if you have
Speaker 1: a scientific perspective or viewpoint that is strong, and you
Speaker 1: are a big advocate for that, then your identity, your
Speaker 1: sense of self and confidence and who you are and
Speaker 1: what you're teaching and how you're perceived is intertwined with that. Well,
Speaker 1: when a particular scientific viewpoint is intertwined with your identity,
Speaker 1: then that makes you pretty much unteachable. That makes you
Speaker 1: pretty much unteachable when it comes to unlearning and relearning
Speaker 1: should something new or different or better arise on the
Speaker 1: scientific horizon. But in truth, real science encourages critical thinking.
Speaker 1: It encourages us to consider the fact that maybe we
Speaker 1: got it wrong, that maybe our protocol wasn't awesome, that
Speaker 1: perhaps we're partly right but also partly wrong. And my
Speaker 1: experience as an academic and a pro academic is that
Speaker 1: I have consistently got things gotten, consistently gotten things. I've
Speaker 1: consistently got things wrong. Then I've got so many fuck
Speaker 1: on things wrong. I have consistently gotten things wrong. This
Speaker 1: is what the only child does when he's in a
Speaker 1: room by himself, talking to no one in particular at
Speaker 1: this point in time. But you're getting it. I've gotten
Speaker 1: so many things wrong back on target, And I think
Speaker 1: that's part of the liberation of being truly or trying
Speaker 1: to be open minded while also thinking critically, also loving
Speaker 1: the science and doing the research. But also we don't
Speaker 1: want blind obedience or conformity. So the next thing we
Speaker 1: want to possibly consider it, and you've probably heard about
Speaker 1: this most people have, is that, of course a lot
Speaker 1: of research is funded, often corporate funding. So in other words,
Speaker 1: companies who would really like a particular outcome in the science,
Speaker 1: because if the science is supportive of what it is
Speaker 1: that they do or sell or pedal, then that's going
Speaker 1: to help them with credibility and persuasion and bums on
Speaker 1: seats or products in front doors or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: So being aware that you know there are even researchers
Speaker 1: who are good people with good intentions confine themselves in
Speaker 1: situations where there is a level of expectation and pressure
Speaker 1: to produce certain science, science that is reflective of and
Speaker 1: aligned with what the backers, what the financiers of that
Speaker 1: research would like to see. And you've got to remember
Speaker 1: this too. I didn't really get this until I started
Speaker 1: doing my doctorate, but because I've not really been around
Speaker 1: a lot of people who are so because of their
Speaker 1: job right, spending so much time applying for grants for
Speaker 1: this and that, you know, so we don't really I
Speaker 1: think a lot of us don't realize how much you know,
Speaker 1: staying in the academic game quite often is about can
Speaker 1: you get funding for that research? And there is a
Speaker 1: real level of I guess anxiety and pressure and uncertainty
Speaker 1: for many academics who don't know where the money is
Speaker 1: going to come from. And so when someone shows up
Speaker 1: with some dough to fund or support research. We're all human.
Speaker 1: We're human who wants to piss off the person that's
Speaker 1: in inverted common from one of a better term, not
Speaker 1: exactly precise, but paying the bills well, and as as
Speaker 1: also humans who want to build rapport and connection with
Speaker 1: people that can help them and they you know, we're emotional, psychological,
Speaker 1: sociological creatures who who want to see certain things, certain outcomes.
Speaker 1: It's it can be tough in the middle of that. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about people's integrity here or lack of integrity.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that it's like having research which is
Speaker 1: funded by a particular organization that would like to see
Speaker 1: a particular outcome or particular results with the research that
Speaker 1: is going to make it tough. That is going to
Speaker 1: make it tough. Two to go. So my second last
Speaker 1: one is falling for like we're talking about here, why
Speaker 1: trusting the science needs an asterisk, falling for the over
Speaker 1: generalization of things, like even good studies usually apply to
Speaker 1: a specific population or conditions, so that the science or
Speaker 1: the data or the research or the findings might be
Speaker 1: absolutely true and relevant and meaningful and helpful and valuable
Speaker 1: to old mate over there, but they might not depending
Speaker 1: on what the research is about, they might not at
Speaker 1: all be relevant or helpful for you. And so knowing
Speaker 1: that a lot of the research is population specific or
Speaker 1: person specific or conditions specific, it doesn't mean it doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that that necessarily applies to you or me or everyone.
Speaker 1: So we need to be careful when we've got research
Speaker 1: that targets specific groups or populations or specific areas, especially
Speaker 1: with certain conditions. You know, there might be something done.
Speaker 1: I'm making this up in the moment, but some let's say,
Speaker 1: some correlation between a certain vitamin or hormone or drug
Speaker 1: or something and its capacity to positively impact or treat
Speaker 1: let's say Parkinson's. And so we know that, well, the
Speaker 1: science seems to tell us that if we do take
Speaker 1: this thing at this dose, there's a positive cognitive association
Speaker 1: for people with partner data. Well that doesn't and may
Speaker 1: that may or may not be true, but also it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that there's a positive cognitive association for you
Speaker 1: or me. Right, So it's just understanding that there is
Speaker 1: so much science that is not relevant to a lot
Speaker 1: of the population, but some of this stuff gets globalized
Speaker 1: and pushed out beyond the initial population that it was
Speaker 1: aimed at and very much over realized. All right. Last one,
Speaker 1: science isn't a person. So when someone says the science says,
Speaker 1: they're usually interpreting or misinterpreting it, like it's almost like
Speaker 1: they are the spokesperson for science. So I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find the gap between the person who's saying this and
Speaker 1: the actual science. Now, by the way, they could be
Speaker 1: absolutely on the money, they could be totally correct. I'm
Speaker 1: not assuming that they're trying to sell or manipulate, or
Speaker 1: coerce or control. I'm not. But like I've said to you,
Speaker 1: what we want to do is we want to perhaps
Speaker 1: consider it, if we choose to consider it, and then
Speaker 1: go and do a little bit of investigating ourselves. So friends,
Speaker 1: things aren't always as they seem, and quite often when
Speaker 1: science tells us, science does and really tell us at all.