1
00:00:03,040 --> 00:00:06,760
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of iHeartRadio.

2
00:00:13,560 --> 00:00:15,360
Speaker 2: Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My

3
00:00:15,440 --> 00:00:16,599
Speaker 2: name is Robert Lamb.

4
00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:19,680
Speaker 3: And I'm Joe McCormick, and we're back with the follow

5
00:00:19,760 --> 00:00:23,479
Speaker 3: up to last week's episode called the Doomsday Water, which

6
00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:28,920
Speaker 3: was about a totally non existent but historically very interesting

7
00:00:29,440 --> 00:00:34,479
Speaker 3: hypothetical substance called polywater. Now, if you haven't heard or

8
00:00:34,520 --> 00:00:37,520
Speaker 3: watched the last episode yet, this is one where I'd

9
00:00:37,560 --> 00:00:40,160
Speaker 3: really recommend you do the series in order you should

10
00:00:40,159 --> 00:00:42,239
Speaker 3: go back and check that one out. Today, I think

11
00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:45,360
Speaker 3: we're going to add a few more details on the

12
00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:49,599
Speaker 3: history of polywater and then have some discussion about ideas

13
00:00:49,640 --> 00:00:52,319
Speaker 3: that kind of bloom out of the ashes of this

14
00:00:52,560 --> 00:00:54,040
Speaker 3: failed scientific project.

15
00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:55,680
Speaker 2: All right, let's do it.

16
00:00:56,200 --> 00:00:59,440
Speaker 3: Yeah, So, to start with the condensed refresher on the

17
00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:03,800
Speaker 3: timeline of polywater, the story begins with some isolated chemistry

18
00:01:03,800 --> 00:01:06,319
Speaker 3: research taking place in the Soviet Union in the early

19
00:01:06,400 --> 00:01:09,240
Speaker 3: nineteen sixties, and this was carried out by a scientist

20
00:01:09,360 --> 00:01:15,720
Speaker 3: named Nikolai Fedyakin. Fedyakin discovers that by condensing samples of

21
00:01:15,760 --> 00:01:19,200
Speaker 3: what he believes to be pure water pure H two

22
00:01:19,800 --> 00:01:25,000
Speaker 3: inside extremely tiny glass capillary tubes. Under just the right conditions,

23
00:01:25,600 --> 00:01:29,680
Speaker 3: he can somehow cause the water to appear to separate

24
00:01:29,800 --> 00:01:33,440
Speaker 3: into two different substances. You've got regular water and then

25
00:01:33,800 --> 00:01:38,520
Speaker 3: something else, this other anomalous form of water which seems

26
00:01:38,600 --> 00:01:42,360
Speaker 3: to be denser than normal water and have weird properties

27
00:01:42,480 --> 00:01:45,760
Speaker 3: like an extremely high boiling point and a very low

28
00:01:45,800 --> 00:01:49,559
Speaker 3: freezing point. So this is kind of hard to imagine

29
00:01:49,600 --> 00:01:53,360
Speaker 3: because we normally think of water as just water. But

30
00:01:53,560 --> 00:01:56,720
Speaker 3: maybe the easiest way to do it is imagine another

31
00:01:57,400 --> 00:01:59,800
Speaker 3: phase of water that you've never seen before. So you

32
00:01:59,800 --> 00:02:03,640
Speaker 3: can think of liquid water, ice and steam, and no

33
00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:07,800
Speaker 3: imagine the same exact substance also has a form that

34
00:02:08,040 --> 00:02:13,639
Speaker 3: is something like the consistency of wax or vacilline. Rob

35
00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:16,239
Speaker 3: I was actually thinking about it in between when we

36
00:02:16,360 --> 00:02:20,960
Speaker 3: recorded the last episode and this one, Like, why is

37
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:25,600
Speaker 3: it so hard to imagine this hypothetical alternative form of

38
00:02:25,639 --> 00:02:29,400
Speaker 3: water Because we watch phase transitions of water all the time.

39
00:02:29,480 --> 00:02:33,080
Speaker 3: It's like totally normal to observe that liquid water becomes

40
00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:36,120
Speaker 3: ice and then you boil it and become steam. These

41
00:02:36,320 --> 00:02:40,200
Speaker 3: different phases don't look or feel like each other at all,

42
00:02:40,280 --> 00:02:42,320
Speaker 3: and we would just watch them shift back and forth

43
00:02:42,360 --> 00:02:45,440
Speaker 3: and nothing is strange about that, But trying to imagine

44
00:02:45,480 --> 00:02:49,680
Speaker 3: this other phase is just kind of impossible. It feels like, well,

45
00:02:49,720 --> 00:02:52,040
Speaker 3: if it was this other way, if it had this

46
00:02:52,120 --> 00:02:55,920
Speaker 3: other consistency and feeling and appearance, it just wouldn't be water.

47
00:02:57,880 --> 00:03:00,239
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is interesting to think about. I mean, a

48
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:03,000
Speaker 2: big part of it is just how mundane the realities

49
00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:05,960
Speaker 2: of the phases of water are. Like I think already today,

50
00:03:06,040 --> 00:03:10,200
Speaker 2: I've encountered water in and all three of its forms.

51
00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:14,440
Speaker 2: You know, I've put ice in my thermos, I've heated

52
00:03:14,520 --> 00:03:18,000
Speaker 2: up water for coffee and tea and produced steam, and

53
00:03:18,040 --> 00:03:22,240
Speaker 2: of course I've had liquid water and am mostly liquid water.

54
00:03:22,840 --> 00:03:25,520
Speaker 2: So yeah, I guess it's just part of it is

55
00:03:25,560 --> 00:03:27,600
Speaker 2: the world we live in, in the world we are.

56
00:03:27,840 --> 00:03:30,400
Speaker 3: I think maybe that's right, And maybe it's because water

57
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:33,960
Speaker 3: is so fundamental and central to our lives and we

58
00:03:34,040 --> 00:03:38,920
Speaker 3: encounter it so much that trying to imagine this other

59
00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:40,760
Speaker 3: form of it doesn't feel like it makes sense in

60
00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:43,320
Speaker 3: the way that it would be much easier to imagine

61
00:03:44,040 --> 00:03:46,840
Speaker 3: alternate forms of chemicals that we have less day to

62
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:51,240
Speaker 3: day interaction with. But so anyway, this initial result by

63
00:03:51,360 --> 00:03:55,040
Speaker 3: Nikolai fed Yakin gets the attention of an esteemed Soviet

64
00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:59,240
Speaker 3: chemist named Boris de Yagan, who replicates the procedure for

65
00:03:59,360 --> 00:04:03,160
Speaker 3: making this anomalist water and then starts publishing papers on

66
00:04:03,200 --> 00:04:07,640
Speaker 3: it in Russian language journals. Derriagan believes this alternative, this

67
00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:12,280
Speaker 3: alternate form of water could be immensely important, of immense

68
00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:16,559
Speaker 3: scientific and technological significance, and then in roughly the years

69
00:04:16,680 --> 00:04:21,400
Speaker 3: nineteen sixty six to sixty eight, Derriogan gives presentations on

70
00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:25,920
Speaker 3: the anomalous water at international conferences and gradually starts to

71
00:04:25,960 --> 00:04:29,360
Speaker 3: get the attention of Western scientists, especially in Great Britain

72
00:04:29,400 --> 00:04:33,200
Speaker 3: and the United States. Several of these scientists begin their

73
00:04:33,279 --> 00:04:37,880
Speaker 3: own anomalous water research program, copying the initial methods for

74
00:04:37,960 --> 00:04:40,760
Speaker 3: making it from the Soviet Union, and then in the

75
00:04:40,839 --> 00:04:45,720
Speaker 3: year nineteen sixty nine, the anomalist water has a breakout moment.

76
00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:49,039
Speaker 3: There is one paper by a group of American scientists

77
00:04:49,520 --> 00:04:54,320
Speaker 3: showing infrared spectroscopy results from the substance that appear to

78
00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:58,320
Speaker 3: show a different signature than that of regular water, which

79
00:04:58,400 --> 00:05:01,880
Speaker 3: is interpreted to mean that well, it is water, but

80
00:05:02,040 --> 00:05:05,120
Speaker 3: it's got a different molecular structure than normal water, which

81
00:05:05,160 --> 00:05:09,680
Speaker 3: is what gives it this different spectrum. It is hypothesized

82
00:05:09,800 --> 00:05:13,159
Speaker 3: to be something like a polymer form of water. So

83
00:05:13,240 --> 00:05:16,839
Speaker 3: a polymer is a long, long or large molecule made

84
00:05:16,839 --> 00:05:21,320
Speaker 3: out of repeating units, and they hypothesize that maybe there

85
00:05:21,400 --> 00:05:26,240
Speaker 3: is a hexagonal arrangement of water molecules forming these kind

86
00:05:26,279 --> 00:05:29,800
Speaker 3: of like sheets or long, long structures. And here's where

87
00:05:29,800 --> 00:05:32,440
Speaker 3: you get the name polywater. It's like a polymer of water.

88
00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:36,839
Speaker 3: We also talked a bit last time about how important

89
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:40,400
Speaker 3: it might have actually been in the reception of this

90
00:05:40,640 --> 00:05:44,640
Speaker 3: hypothetical substance, that it got a cool name, that it

91
00:05:44,680 --> 00:05:47,240
Speaker 3: was no longer being called just like you know, anomalous

92
00:05:47,760 --> 00:05:51,680
Speaker 3: anomalist behavior of water or various descriptive phrases. That it

93
00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:55,440
Speaker 3: got a name, and the name sounded interesting, that it's polywater.

94
00:05:56,160 --> 00:05:58,479
Speaker 3: You know, of course, poly means many, so it almost

95
00:05:58,560 --> 00:06:01,280
Speaker 3: implies a kind of mini splendor water, water that can

96
00:06:01,360 --> 00:06:05,080
Speaker 3: do many things or has maybe can do anything. And

97
00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:08,000
Speaker 3: in fact, lots of people in the media kind of

98
00:06:08,120 --> 00:06:10,680
Speaker 3: ended up treating it like it could do anything. There

99
00:06:10,680 --> 00:06:14,440
Speaker 3: was a frenzy of attention in the popular media, so

100
00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:18,040
Speaker 3: people start imagining all kinds of wild ways that polywater

101
00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:20,719
Speaker 3: could be applied. Maybe it's going to be the next

102
00:06:20,720 --> 00:06:23,560
Speaker 3: steam engine. It'll just you know, change everything in technology.

103
00:06:23,600 --> 00:06:28,719
Speaker 3: It'll do machine lubrication and nuclear power. It'll unlock the

104
00:06:28,760 --> 00:06:33,880
Speaker 3: secret of eternal youth. There is one article that was

105
00:06:33,960 --> 00:06:36,240
Speaker 3: quoted in one of our sources last time that was like, Hey,

106
00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:38,960
Speaker 3: your living room furniture, it's gonna be made out of water.

107
00:06:40,480 --> 00:06:42,320
Speaker 3: We never got to the bottom of how that works,

108
00:06:42,360 --> 00:06:47,560
Speaker 3: but I like it. But so there would be arguments

109
00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:52,320
Speaker 3: between polywater proponents and polywater skeptics. In these arguments, of course,

110
00:06:52,400 --> 00:06:56,080
Speaker 3: began in the scientific community and scientific literature, but this

111
00:06:56,279 --> 00:06:59,480
Speaker 3: eventually spilled out into the popular media around the year

112
00:06:59,520 --> 00:07:03,359
Speaker 3: nineteen s six nine, and it became a subject of

113
00:07:03,400 --> 00:07:06,800
Speaker 3: controversy that was being covered by the mainstream press, not

114
00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:11,400
Speaker 3: just in scientific literature. Also in nineteen sixty nine you

115
00:07:11,480 --> 00:07:14,640
Speaker 3: get this letter published in the journal Nature by a

116
00:07:14,720 --> 00:07:19,160
Speaker 3: chemist and named F. J. Donaho of Wilkes College in Pennsylvania,

117
00:07:19,200 --> 00:07:23,240
Speaker 3: which sketches out this really alarming idea. He says, maybe

118
00:07:23,280 --> 00:07:27,360
Speaker 3: polywater is not just a revolutionary discovery, it might be

119
00:07:27,680 --> 00:07:32,080
Speaker 3: the most dangerous substance on Earth, because, according to Donnaho,

120
00:07:32,640 --> 00:07:36,800
Speaker 3: it's possible that like the fictional Ice nine in the

121
00:07:36,800 --> 00:07:41,080
Speaker 3: novel Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. If a seed crystal

122
00:07:41,160 --> 00:07:45,160
Speaker 3: of polywater were to escape into the natural environment and

123
00:07:45,240 --> 00:07:47,800
Speaker 3: get deposited in the soil or the ocean, even if

124
00:07:47,800 --> 00:07:49,440
Speaker 3: you just flush it down the toilet, it's going to

125
00:07:49,520 --> 00:07:53,840
Speaker 3: end up in the in the environment, it could provide

126
00:07:53,920 --> 00:07:57,640
Speaker 3: a nucleation point that would cause all of the water

127
00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:02,000
Speaker 3: in the world to become polywater, which I admit is

128
00:08:02,040 --> 00:08:06,040
Speaker 3: a to me, a gripping image, a truly grotesque and

129
00:08:06,200 --> 00:08:11,160
Speaker 3: bizarre and amazing image, a vasaline apocalypse, or a kind

130
00:08:11,200 --> 00:08:13,000
Speaker 3: of like wax end of the world.

131
00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:17,040
Speaker 2: Yeah, and also like kind of the ultimate technological whip

132
00:08:17,080 --> 00:08:21,560
Speaker 2: see like, oops, we broke water. Everyone water is now broken.

133
00:08:22,160 --> 00:08:25,760
Speaker 2: It doesn't work anymore, not the way that we were

134
00:08:25,760 --> 00:08:27,240
Speaker 2: accustomed to you.

135
00:08:27,280 --> 00:08:29,880
Speaker 3: Now, it's very important to note that this is not

136
00:08:30,000 --> 00:08:34,239
Speaker 3: like the mainstream opinion on polywater at the time. Immediately

137
00:08:34,280 --> 00:08:40,360
Speaker 3: after this, several prominent pro polywater scientists respond to the

138
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:43,280
Speaker 3: letter in Nature. They argue with good reasons, it seems

139
00:08:43,559 --> 00:08:47,079
Speaker 3: that this is not likely. For one thing, if polywater exists,

140
00:08:47,200 --> 00:08:50,760
Speaker 3: it must occur sometimes in nature. So if it could

141
00:08:50,880 --> 00:08:53,160
Speaker 3: turn Earth into a vacilline world, it would have already

142
00:08:53,240 --> 00:08:57,280
Speaker 3: done that. And you know, they had other arguments too.

143
00:08:57,320 --> 00:09:00,880
Speaker 3: Of course, the whole thing is made pointless by the

144
00:09:00,920 --> 00:09:03,439
Speaker 3: fact that we would later discover polywater does not exist.

145
00:09:04,120 --> 00:09:07,600
Speaker 3: But while this big frenzy of excitement and enthusiasm and

146
00:09:07,679 --> 00:09:12,199
Speaker 3: fear is going on in the mainstream media in popular culture,

147
00:09:12,720 --> 00:09:16,120
Speaker 3: there are also lots of skeptical scientists just chipping away

148
00:09:16,200 --> 00:09:19,640
Speaker 3: at the polywater project. The most common objection is, are

149
00:09:19,679 --> 00:09:23,600
Speaker 3: you sure you're not just seeing the effects of impurities

150
00:09:23,640 --> 00:09:28,080
Speaker 3: in your water samples. Derriagan and the polywater proponents were

151
00:09:28,080 --> 00:09:31,760
Speaker 3: always quick to say, no, that is not what's happening.

152
00:09:31,800 --> 00:09:35,600
Speaker 3: Maybe your samples of water are contaminated, but ours are pure,

153
00:09:36,520 --> 00:09:38,160
Speaker 3: And that's kind of hard to argue with. I mean,

154
00:09:38,320 --> 00:09:39,920
Speaker 3: all you can do is test the ones you have

155
00:09:40,000 --> 00:09:42,280
Speaker 3: access to. If somebody is saying the ones you don't

156
00:09:42,280 --> 00:09:45,080
Speaker 3: have access to are the good ones, that's like, oh,

157
00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:45,800
Speaker 3: that's a problem.

158
00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:47,640
Speaker 2: But yeah.

159
00:09:47,679 --> 00:09:51,520
Speaker 3: So by the early nineteen seventies, the skeptical undermining of

160
00:09:51,520 --> 00:09:55,480
Speaker 3: the polywater project has made a lot of progress. It

161
00:09:55,559 --> 00:09:58,880
Speaker 3: starts to look more and more like the anomalous water

162
00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:02,840
Speaker 3: is anomal because it isn't water. It's a bunch of

163
00:10:02,880 --> 00:10:08,760
Speaker 3: contamination with leading candidates for the contamination being well. Some

164
00:10:08,800 --> 00:10:11,720
Speaker 3: people talked about particles of silica leaching from the glass

165
00:10:11,760 --> 00:10:14,200
Speaker 3: into the water and forming a kind of gel. Another

166
00:10:14,240 --> 00:10:19,600
Speaker 3: big contender is human sweat biological contamination from the probably

167
00:10:19,640 --> 00:10:22,400
Speaker 3: from the researchers themselves who were carrying out the experiment.

168
00:10:23,280 --> 00:10:27,600
Speaker 3: And then one famous blow to the polywater project comes

169
00:10:27,679 --> 00:10:31,400
Speaker 3: in the early seventies when an American researcher named Dennis L.

170
00:10:31,520 --> 00:10:36,280
Speaker 3: Rousseau does analysis on a bunch of sweat and gets

171
00:10:36,400 --> 00:10:39,840
Speaker 3: almost the exact same pattern that had famously appeared in

172
00:10:39,880 --> 00:10:43,800
Speaker 3: the big polywater spectroscopy paper in nineteen sixty nine. So

173
00:10:43,880 --> 00:10:47,080
Speaker 3: at this point, consensus starts to turn heavily against the

174
00:10:47,080 --> 00:10:51,760
Speaker 3: existence of polywater, and roughly nineteen seventy seventy one, most

175
00:10:51,880 --> 00:10:55,760
Speaker 3: scientists that were initially curious or open minded about it

176
00:10:55,800 --> 00:10:58,840
Speaker 3: start saying, no, I don't think this is real. It

177
00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:02,360
Speaker 3: takes the hardcore or polywater boosters a little more time

178
00:11:02,400 --> 00:11:06,719
Speaker 3: to come around, but by roughly nineteen seventy three, basically everybody,

179
00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:10,520
Speaker 3: including Boris de Riyagan, realizes and admits that it was

180
00:11:10,679 --> 00:11:15,320
Speaker 3: probably all just various types of contamination All along. The

181
00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:18,439
Speaker 3: stuff was not acting like water because it wasn't water.

182
00:11:20,240 --> 00:11:22,640
Speaker 3: So that's the story we talked about in the last episode.

183
00:11:23,040 --> 00:11:24,880
Speaker 3: Like I did in the previous episode, I want to

184
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:27,120
Speaker 3: mention a couple of major sources here at the top.

185
00:11:27,320 --> 00:11:31,760
Speaker 3: One is an article called case Studies in Pathological Science,

186
00:11:31,840 --> 00:11:34,720
Speaker 3: published in American Scientists in the year nineteen ninety two

187
00:11:34,800 --> 00:11:38,360
Speaker 3: by Dennis L. Rousseau. This article is great because it

188
00:11:38,600 --> 00:11:42,840
Speaker 3: provides a historical overview of the polywater affair, a short one,

189
00:11:43,720 --> 00:11:45,439
Speaker 3: but from the point of view of someone who was

190
00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:49,280
Speaker 3: actually involved in it. Rousseau was initially very interested in

191
00:11:49,320 --> 00:11:52,560
Speaker 3: the possibilities of polywater, as he talks about in the article.

192
00:11:52,640 --> 00:11:56,079
Speaker 3: He's like, he and a collaborator of his, we're like, oh,

193
00:11:56,120 --> 00:11:58,920
Speaker 3: could it be the fountain of youth? Could it unlock

194
00:11:59,040 --> 00:12:03,280
Speaker 3: you know, longevity. But he eventually becomes very skeptical about it.

195
00:12:03,880 --> 00:12:06,600
Speaker 3: He becomes a polywater skeptic, and he leads some experiments

196
00:12:06,640 --> 00:12:09,760
Speaker 3: showing how it is almost certainly just caused by impurities.

197
00:12:10,600 --> 00:12:13,520
Speaker 3: Another big source I wanted to mention is an excellent

198
00:12:13,600 --> 00:12:16,600
Speaker 3: chapter in a book called H two O. A Biography

199
00:12:16,600 --> 00:12:19,480
Speaker 3: of Water by the British science writer Philip Ball, first

200
00:12:19,520 --> 00:12:23,760
Speaker 3: published in nineteen ninety nine. And to kick things off today,

201
00:12:23,880 --> 00:12:26,840
Speaker 3: I wanted to mention another article I was reading. Actually

202
00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:29,160
Speaker 3: I was reading this one in between when we recorded

203
00:12:29,160 --> 00:12:33,680
Speaker 3: the two episodes. This was a piece in Distillations magazine

204
00:12:33,720 --> 00:12:36,120
Speaker 3: from February twenty twenty called the Rise and Fall of

205
00:12:36,160 --> 00:12:40,839
Speaker 3: Polywater by the material scientist and science communicator Anissa Ramirez.

206
00:12:41,559 --> 00:12:44,959
Speaker 3: And this piece raised a few details about the story

207
00:12:44,960 --> 00:12:46,839
Speaker 3: that we didn't talk much about last time, but I

208
00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:49,000
Speaker 3: think would be good to dwell on for a moment

209
00:12:49,360 --> 00:12:51,760
Speaker 3: because they might inform the rest of our discussion today.

210
00:12:52,880 --> 00:12:58,120
Speaker 3: So one thing that Ramirez's account brings up is how

211
00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:02,160
Speaker 3: a lot of the early obsess about the weird properties

212
00:13:02,200 --> 00:13:07,680
Speaker 3: of polywater were visual observations made through a microscope. So

213
00:13:07,800 --> 00:13:10,640
Speaker 3: not getting a sample of this stuff, putting it in

214
00:13:10,679 --> 00:13:15,800
Speaker 3: a machine and getting a numerical readout on it, it

215
00:13:15,840 --> 00:13:19,400
Speaker 3: would be people looking through a microscope. So fed Yakin's

216
00:13:19,440 --> 00:13:22,880
Speaker 3: original experiments. They generated only a tiny amount of the

217
00:13:22,920 --> 00:13:26,800
Speaker 3: anomalous water. It was far less than a droplet, and

218
00:13:26,920 --> 00:13:30,199
Speaker 3: he had to study it through a relatively low resolution

219
00:13:30,480 --> 00:13:35,000
Speaker 3: optical microscope. When he made the original observations of properties

220
00:13:35,200 --> 00:13:38,560
Speaker 3: like the alleged greater density than normal water that was

221
00:13:38,640 --> 00:13:42,560
Speaker 3: like an inference made based on looking at how it

222
00:13:42,600 --> 00:13:46,320
Speaker 3: behaved through a microscope. And then once der Yoggan's team

223
00:13:46,360 --> 00:13:50,200
Speaker 3: took over, they also used microscope observation rather than bult

224
00:13:50,280 --> 00:13:52,560
Speaker 3: measurement to note a lot of things. They used that

225
00:13:52,679 --> 00:13:56,760
Speaker 3: to find that it allegedly expanded more than regular water

226
00:13:56,800 --> 00:13:59,960
Speaker 3: when it was heated, that it had a different pattern

227
00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:04,480
Speaker 3: of light refraction than normal water, and because of how

228
00:14:04,520 --> 00:14:08,920
Speaker 3: tiny the quantities of available anomalous water were, these were

229
00:14:09,080 --> 00:14:14,800
Speaker 3: visual observations of behavior through the optical microscopes in strange conditions,

230
00:14:14,840 --> 00:14:19,680
Speaker 3: like in these extremely tiny glass containers. So that's something

231
00:14:19,680 --> 00:14:21,760
Speaker 3: to remember for later. We'll come back to that later

232
00:14:21,800 --> 00:14:35,040
Speaker 3: in the episode. Another thing that we should dwell on

233
00:14:35,120 --> 00:14:36,960
Speaker 3: for a minute. We did sort of mention this in

234
00:14:37,000 --> 00:14:41,040
Speaker 3: the last episode, but it's worth revisiting is the strange

235
00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:43,600
Speaker 3: fact that while all of this frenzy was going on

236
00:14:43,680 --> 00:14:48,600
Speaker 3: in the late sixties, nobody had ever published a high

237
00:14:48,680 --> 00:14:53,120
Speaker 3: quality chemical analysis of a polywater sample to prove that

238
00:14:53,200 --> 00:14:57,000
Speaker 3: it was actually one hundred percent water. Philip Ball highlights

239
00:14:57,000 --> 00:14:59,600
Speaker 3: this in his chapter. Ramirez highlights this in the article too,

240
00:15:00,600 --> 00:15:04,160
Speaker 3: that this was in part due to how little polywater

241
00:15:04,320 --> 00:15:08,040
Speaker 3: could be made you're making these microscopic amounts of it

242
00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:11,920
Speaker 3: at a time, and so some researchers reported that they

243
00:15:11,960 --> 00:15:15,560
Speaker 3: just couldn't make enough of it that a reliable chemical

244
00:15:15,560 --> 00:15:19,720
Speaker 3: analysis was possible with their instruments. You know, as we

245
00:15:19,960 --> 00:15:23,040
Speaker 3: know from a lot of different domains, like you need

246
00:15:23,120 --> 00:15:27,640
Speaker 3: a reasonable sample size in order to have a reliable result.

247
00:15:28,320 --> 00:15:30,440
Speaker 3: You know, we often think about this in the context

248
00:15:30,520 --> 00:15:34,320
Speaker 3: of much higher levels of abstraction in the sciences, like

249
00:15:34,880 --> 00:15:37,720
Speaker 3: psychology studies. You know, if you have a psychology study

250
00:15:37,760 --> 00:15:41,000
Speaker 3: that's got twenty participants, that's usually not going to be

251
00:15:41,000 --> 00:15:43,400
Speaker 3: a very powerful result. You don't have a lot of

252
00:15:43,440 --> 00:15:46,360
Speaker 3: confidence that the same patterns would show up in the

253
00:15:46,360 --> 00:15:50,600
Speaker 3: general population. And you can say, in a way the

254
00:15:50,640 --> 00:15:54,120
Speaker 3: same thing about physical sciences, though obviously you're dealing with

255
00:15:54,280 --> 00:15:58,080
Speaker 3: different types of quantities there, but like extremely tiny quantities

256
00:15:58,400 --> 00:16:02,440
Speaker 3: are harder to measure reliable. Ramirez writes in our article,

257
00:16:02,520 --> 00:16:06,600
Speaker 3: quote chemicals, like humans, have unique fingerprints, and instruments called

258
00:16:06,640 --> 00:16:10,920
Speaker 3: spectrometers can identify the elements and molecules from a chemical

259
00:16:10,960 --> 00:16:14,760
Speaker 3: fingerprint or spectrum. Yet success hinges on the size of

260
00:16:14,800 --> 00:16:18,640
Speaker 3: the sample, where bigger is better. In published papers, anomalous

261
00:16:18,640 --> 00:16:22,360
Speaker 3: water believers lamented that there just wasn't enough of it,

262
00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:26,360
Speaker 3: certainly not enough to identify its molecular makeup. And I

263
00:16:26,360 --> 00:16:29,120
Speaker 3: think in the last episode we talked about the quote

264
00:16:29,120 --> 00:16:31,800
Speaker 3: from one of the guys who was working on polywater

265
00:16:31,840 --> 00:16:34,920
Speaker 3: at the time, one of the students of John Desmond Bernal,

266
00:16:35,360 --> 00:16:40,960
Speaker 3: who said, if only we had a thimbleful. So, while

267
00:16:41,040 --> 00:16:45,720
Speaker 3: this polywater research project was going on, because you couldn't

268
00:16:45,760 --> 00:16:48,120
Speaker 3: make enough of it to really get a good answer

269
00:16:48,200 --> 00:16:51,760
Speaker 3: to these core questions about it, the core questions like

270
00:16:52,440 --> 00:16:56,120
Speaker 3: is this really water, scientists kept nibbling around the edges.

271
00:16:56,440 --> 00:16:59,440
Speaker 3: They would measure what they could with the amounts available,

272
00:17:00,080 --> 00:17:04,680
Speaker 3: including physical characteristics like boiling point and viscosity, but even

273
00:17:04,720 --> 00:17:08,359
Speaker 3: these results were probably hampered in reliability by the tiny

274
00:17:08,359 --> 00:17:11,919
Speaker 3: amounts that could be tested at a time. Some skeptics

275
00:17:11,920 --> 00:17:15,840
Speaker 3: of polywater were sort of brought around to believing in

276
00:17:15,880 --> 00:17:18,600
Speaker 3: it by a paper that we mentioned last time. This

277
00:17:18,800 --> 00:17:21,800
Speaker 3: was the one published in the journal Science in June

278
00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:25,359
Speaker 3: nineteen sixty nine, which showed the work of scientists named

279
00:17:26,160 --> 00:17:30,320
Speaker 3: Robert Stromberg, Elis Lippencott, and Warren Grant, and they had

280
00:17:30,359 --> 00:17:35,480
Speaker 3: produced what looked like a high quality spectrometry result that

281
00:17:35,560 --> 00:17:39,840
Speaker 3: showed the absorption spectrum of polywater did not match that

282
00:17:40,000 --> 00:17:43,520
Speaker 3: of normal water or they claimed of any known substance.

283
00:17:43,960 --> 00:17:47,040
Speaker 3: But this was taken to indicate not that the sample

284
00:17:47,280 --> 00:17:50,879
Speaker 3: was not water, but that the water had a different

285
00:17:50,960 --> 00:17:54,159
Speaker 3: molecular structure than normal water, hence the idea of polywater.

286
00:17:55,280 --> 00:17:57,600
Speaker 3: Funny thing here is they also tried to do a

287
00:17:57,680 --> 00:18:01,359
Speaker 3: chemical analysis of polywater and they found some contaminants. They

288
00:18:01,359 --> 00:18:04,560
Speaker 3: found like sodium and silicon, but they were like, those

289
00:18:04,600 --> 00:18:07,840
Speaker 3: are there in the quantities observed are too small for

290
00:18:07,880 --> 00:18:09,840
Speaker 3: it to matter, so we don't have to worry about that.

291
00:18:10,680 --> 00:18:13,480
Speaker 3: And this is when you get that letter from Donahoe

292
00:18:13,560 --> 00:18:17,080
Speaker 3: to Nature writing about the dangers of polywater. Ramirez mentions

293
00:18:17,119 --> 00:18:19,200
Speaker 3: a detail here that I didn't encounter in any of

294
00:18:19,240 --> 00:18:21,560
Speaker 3: the other sources I was reading, where she says that

295
00:18:21,680 --> 00:18:24,000
Speaker 3: Robert Stromberg, you know, one of the authors of the

296
00:18:24,080 --> 00:18:27,840
Speaker 3: sixty nine paper, started getting angry letters from people who

297
00:18:27,840 --> 00:18:29,800
Speaker 3: said he was bringing about the end of the world.

298
00:18:29,880 --> 00:18:34,320
Speaker 3: So that's the public engagement we crave, you know. And

299
00:18:34,400 --> 00:18:37,280
Speaker 3: also I think this is maybe important. We didn't talk

300
00:18:37,280 --> 00:18:41,560
Speaker 3: about this enough last time. Ramirez mentions briefly how this

301
00:18:41,760 --> 00:18:44,720
Speaker 3: was affected by the Cold War context. We talked about

302
00:18:44,760 --> 00:18:49,760
Speaker 3: the Cold War context in the idea of the exchange

303
00:18:49,800 --> 00:18:53,800
Speaker 3: of information between East and West being limited in some ways,

304
00:18:53,880 --> 00:18:55,800
Speaker 3: not to say that there was no exchange of information,

305
00:18:55,840 --> 00:18:58,399
Speaker 3: because clearly the ideas were making it across. There were

306
00:18:58,400 --> 00:19:02,239
Speaker 3: international conferences, journals to get translated back and forth, but

307
00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:05,320
Speaker 3: there were, you know, just awkward things about how information

308
00:19:05,480 --> 00:19:07,639
Speaker 3: was shared around the world at the time because of

309
00:19:07,640 --> 00:19:12,880
Speaker 3: the Cold War context. Ramirez mentions that there are indications

310
00:19:12,920 --> 00:19:16,040
Speaker 3: that by nineteen sixty nine, the CIA was trying to

311
00:19:16,119 --> 00:19:19,439
Speaker 3: keep a close eye on polywater research in the Soviet Union,

312
00:19:20,240 --> 00:19:23,040
Speaker 3: and according to reports published in the Wall Street Journal,

313
00:19:23,080 --> 00:19:27,560
Speaker 3: the Pentagon started trying to fund polywater research. So it's

314
00:19:27,720 --> 00:19:31,120
Speaker 3: you know, it's like Doctor Strangelove, like, we cannot allow

315
00:19:31,160 --> 00:19:34,639
Speaker 3: a polywater gap. And people made this joke at the time,

316
00:19:34,760 --> 00:19:36,679
Speaker 3: you know, playing up on the idea of a missile

317
00:19:36,680 --> 00:19:40,200
Speaker 3: gap from the nuclear arms race. Now it's like, well,

318
00:19:40,240 --> 00:19:42,480
Speaker 3: if this is maybe going to be the most important

319
00:19:42,480 --> 00:19:46,000
Speaker 3: technology in the world, whether that's for good or for ill,

320
00:19:46,080 --> 00:19:48,159
Speaker 3: and the people were saying it could be for both,

321
00:19:48,640 --> 00:19:49,679
Speaker 3: we better get it first.

322
00:19:50,240 --> 00:19:52,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I mean, hindsight is twenty twenty. We can

323
00:19:52,600 --> 00:19:55,680
Speaker 2: look back and see this as the race to become

324
00:19:55,720 --> 00:19:59,520
Speaker 2: the masters of sweaty water. But again, at the time,

325
00:19:59,680 --> 00:20:05,080
Speaker 2: if it's seemed like an adversary would have mastery over

326
00:20:05,720 --> 00:20:08,240
Speaker 2: some sort of new form of water that had all

327
00:20:08,320 --> 00:20:13,200
Speaker 2: these applications, then yeah, it was worth keeping an eye on. Yeah,

328
00:20:13,560 --> 00:20:16,080
Speaker 2: even though we know how it ended up.

329
00:20:16,359 --> 00:20:19,480
Speaker 3: Right, So we know now for multiple reasons that polywater

330
00:20:19,600 --> 00:20:22,240
Speaker 3: was not actually dangerous. First of all, it didn't exist,

331
00:20:22,320 --> 00:20:24,920
Speaker 3: and even at the time people who thought it did

332
00:20:24,960 --> 00:20:28,000
Speaker 3: exist had good arguments against the idea that it was dangerous.

333
00:20:28,080 --> 00:20:31,719
Speaker 3: But if you strip yourself of hindsight, and you strip

334
00:20:31,720 --> 00:20:35,520
Speaker 3: yourself of access to the good arguments against the danger,

335
00:20:36,600 --> 00:20:41,000
Speaker 3: if you allow yourself to inhabit the vasilyne apocalypse mindset,

336
00:20:41,560 --> 00:20:45,160
Speaker 3: it creates, at least for me, a very familiar feeling, actually,

337
00:20:45,720 --> 00:20:51,199
Speaker 3: the feeling that people somewhere are doing something obscure that

338
00:20:51,359 --> 00:20:54,159
Speaker 3: could be very dangerous. It could even be the end

339
00:20:54,200 --> 00:20:56,840
Speaker 3: of the world, and I have no power to stop it,

340
00:20:56,920 --> 00:21:01,000
Speaker 3: except like trying to write letters or you know. Yeah,

341
00:21:01,040 --> 00:21:04,879
Speaker 3: And add to that the knowledge that there's pressure operating

342
00:21:04,920 --> 00:21:08,840
Speaker 3: in the opposite direction that's like driving toward this result

343
00:21:08,920 --> 00:21:11,400
Speaker 3: that you're now afraid of and that you don't have

344
00:21:11,560 --> 00:21:13,840
Speaker 3: power to stop that pressure, Like there's some amount of

345
00:21:13,920 --> 00:21:18,520
Speaker 3: international great power competition that is making people think, even

346
00:21:18,560 --> 00:21:20,840
Speaker 3: if this stuff is dangerous, we've got to have it first.

347
00:21:20,920 --> 00:21:24,119
Speaker 3: They can't have it first. Feel similar to the nuclear

348
00:21:24,200 --> 00:21:27,800
Speaker 3: arms race, of course, and also feel similar to if

349
00:21:27,800 --> 00:21:30,120
Speaker 3: people have talked about this a lot where we might

350
00:21:30,240 --> 00:21:34,600
Speaker 3: be with AI. You know, there are I'm constantly struck

351
00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:36,200
Speaker 3: by the idea that there are a lot of people

352
00:21:36,240 --> 00:21:39,440
Speaker 3: in the United States who used to argue that AI

353
00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:43,200
Speaker 3: is potentially very dangerous. We might need to make absolutely

354
00:21:43,320 --> 00:21:45,639
Speaker 3: sure it's safe before developing it, and it might not

355
00:21:45,760 --> 00:21:49,000
Speaker 3: be possible to make sure that it's absolutely safe. And

356
00:21:49,080 --> 00:21:51,119
Speaker 3: now some of the same people are saying, well, you

357
00:21:51,119 --> 00:21:53,359
Speaker 3: can't let China build it first. We've got to build

358
00:21:53,359 --> 00:21:57,920
Speaker 3: it first. So that consciousness we have of these pressures

359
00:21:58,200 --> 00:22:02,320
Speaker 3: pushing in the opposite direction against caution in these scenarios

360
00:22:02,320 --> 00:22:05,159
Speaker 3: where we don't know exactly how dangerous something could be.

361
00:22:06,000 --> 00:22:09,240
Speaker 3: You know, you've got these international competitive pressures, You've got

362
00:22:10,040 --> 00:22:14,280
Speaker 3: money making pressures. Money making incentives, of course, are leading

363
00:22:14,440 --> 00:22:18,400
Speaker 3: people down trails that we don't know could turn out

364
00:22:18,440 --> 00:22:21,440
Speaker 3: to be okay, could turn out to be disastrous and

365
00:22:21,720 --> 00:22:24,600
Speaker 3: we can't really know in advance. It's a maddening feeling.

366
00:22:25,160 --> 00:22:29,600
Speaker 2: Absolutely yeah, this is this is going to be at

367
00:22:29,600 --> 00:22:33,240
Speaker 2: times fun to reflect on, at times maybe concerning, but

368
00:22:33,440 --> 00:22:38,679
Speaker 2: it is absolutely you know, a reality of our modern

369
00:22:38,720 --> 00:22:42,400
Speaker 2: age and our technological anxiety, and some of our anxiety

370
00:22:42,480 --> 00:22:47,440
Speaker 2: is about about science. A lot of it does come

371
00:22:47,520 --> 00:22:51,280
Speaker 2: down to this idea of containment, Like, if something is

372
00:22:52,000 --> 00:22:54,080
Speaker 2: we create something that is pidentially dangerous, how do we

373
00:22:54,200 --> 00:22:57,160
Speaker 2: keep it from getting out and getting places it shouldn't

374
00:22:57,160 --> 00:22:58,919
Speaker 2: be and falling into the hands of people who shouldn't

375
00:22:58,960 --> 00:23:02,080
Speaker 2: have it right? And then there's that added realization that,

376
00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:06,560
Speaker 2: no matter what, containment might not be possible for these things,

377
00:23:07,119 --> 00:23:09,359
Speaker 2: certainly not in the long run or in the short run.

378
00:23:09,400 --> 00:23:14,080
Speaker 2: And I keep coming across examples of this, you know,

379
00:23:14,160 --> 00:23:18,320
Speaker 2: the idea that you could look at a new technology

380
00:23:18,359 --> 00:23:21,520
Speaker 2: and think about like the absolute realization of the thing,

381
00:23:22,080 --> 00:23:25,280
Speaker 2: and how that could present some sort of existential risk

382
00:23:25,720 --> 00:23:29,639
Speaker 2: and some sort of huge danger to everything that we know.

383
00:23:30,000 --> 00:23:32,520
Speaker 2: But then there are also these short term possibilities where

384
00:23:32,600 --> 00:23:35,320
Speaker 2: the thing is not very advanced at all, It is

385
00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:38,760
Speaker 2: just advanced enough to get out of our hands and

386
00:23:39,640 --> 00:23:44,919
Speaker 2: quickly get out of control. So we'll look at some

387
00:23:45,000 --> 00:23:46,840
Speaker 2: examples of some of these, and a lot of it

388
00:23:46,880 --> 00:23:49,520
Speaker 2: also just comes back to the I think it's impossible

389
00:23:49,560 --> 00:23:51,800
Speaker 2: not to think of the tale of Pandora's Box in

390
00:23:51,840 --> 00:23:55,480
Speaker 2: all of this that there is there's except in the

391
00:23:55,520 --> 00:23:58,280
Speaker 2: sense that there's almost this certainty that these boxes will

392
00:23:58,280 --> 00:24:01,159
Speaker 2: be opened, and then once they are opened, we know

393
00:24:01,200 --> 00:24:05,199
Speaker 2: how it goes. Then the the the ill factors that

394
00:24:05,240 --> 00:24:07,879
Speaker 2: were contained within cannot be put back in the box.

395
00:24:08,119 --> 00:24:10,480
Speaker 2: The only thing that remains in the box is hope,

396
00:24:11,800 --> 00:24:16,320
Speaker 2: or at least we hope that's the case. Yeah, So, yeah,

397
00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:18,359
Speaker 2: I wanted to roll through some of these. We can

398
00:24:18,400 --> 00:24:22,000
Speaker 2: we can chat about these. A number of these involves

399
00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:27,159
Speaker 2: some form of runaway reaction, much like the hypothetical polywater

400
00:24:27,240 --> 00:24:31,879
Speaker 2: reaction or the fictional Ice nine reaction. We'll get to

401
00:24:31,920 --> 00:24:34,720
Speaker 2: some examples of that that are you know, a certain

402
00:24:34,720 --> 00:24:39,440
Speaker 2: amount of concern. We have any number of hypothetical apocalypses

403
00:24:39,520 --> 00:24:43,560
Speaker 2: based on science gone wrong, of science that could go wrong,

404
00:24:43,720 --> 00:24:45,800
Speaker 2: or science that could just get out out of our hands.

405
00:24:46,280 --> 00:24:48,640
Speaker 2: And yeah, like we've been saying, AI is certainly one

406
00:24:48,640 --> 00:24:51,399
Speaker 2: of the big ones, clearly the one that resonates the

407
00:24:51,400 --> 00:24:54,800
Speaker 2: most as we are currently living through the realization of

408
00:24:55,040 --> 00:24:58,720
Speaker 2: the thread, and we're going to cover a few specific

409
00:24:58,800 --> 00:25:02,240
Speaker 2: AI related scenario, but ultimately there are so many different

410
00:25:02,240 --> 00:25:07,239
Speaker 2: angles to take on AI and its threat, especially as

411
00:25:07,320 --> 00:25:11,959
Speaker 2: far as the democratization of AI tools goes for various

412
00:25:12,000 --> 00:25:17,159
Speaker 2: nefarious purposes. Many of these pose a significant contemporary threat.

413
00:25:17,640 --> 00:25:20,520
Speaker 2: And that's in addition to all of the various highly

414
00:25:20,560 --> 00:25:24,679
Speaker 2: observable ways that AI is impacting industries and ways of

415
00:25:24,760 --> 00:25:27,560
Speaker 2: life and hurting people's jobs already.

416
00:25:28,240 --> 00:25:32,199
Speaker 3: Right, I mean, because AI is so broad as a

417
00:25:32,240 --> 00:25:36,600
Speaker 3: technology class, its effects could end up being so broad,

418
00:25:36,680 --> 00:25:40,280
Speaker 3: so it's almost harder to narrow the focus of the

419
00:25:40,320 --> 00:25:42,240
Speaker 3: conversation like it would be for some of these other

420
00:25:42,320 --> 00:25:47,480
Speaker 3: hypothetical substances or real substances that people have worried about

421
00:25:47,520 --> 00:25:51,520
Speaker 3: being a kind of runaway reaction or containment danger. But

422
00:25:51,800 --> 00:25:54,439
Speaker 3: it is also funny that if you go back, just

423
00:25:54,600 --> 00:25:59,040
Speaker 3: like ten or twenty years, you can regularly find people

424
00:25:59,800 --> 00:26:03,920
Speaker 3: in imagining the future of AI as AI is something

425
00:26:03,920 --> 00:26:07,000
Speaker 3: that would be developed in containment and then there would

426
00:26:07,040 --> 00:26:10,680
Speaker 3: be a question about is it safe to let it out? Yeah,

427
00:26:10,760 --> 00:26:13,160
Speaker 3: And that's just not what we got at all. It's

428
00:26:13,200 --> 00:26:16,000
Speaker 3: just like it's just it's out from the moment it exists.

429
00:26:16,040 --> 00:26:18,880
Speaker 3: It's all you know, it's just set loose always it's

430
00:26:18,920 --> 00:26:19,480
Speaker 3: been loose.

431
00:26:19,840 --> 00:26:22,240
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was kind of a vision of AI and

432
00:26:22,320 --> 00:26:26,080
Speaker 2: its use in creative endeavors that I was exposed to

433
00:26:26,720 --> 00:26:29,680
Speaker 2: years back. You know. It's probably at a I want

434
00:26:29,720 --> 00:26:32,120
Speaker 2: to say, this was maybe a panel at the World

435
00:26:32,200 --> 00:26:35,680
Speaker 2: Science Festival in New York, and it presented this optimistic

436
00:26:35,800 --> 00:26:38,400
Speaker 2: idea of like in the future, in the near future,

437
00:26:38,480 --> 00:26:41,879
Speaker 2: and to a certain extent, contemporary examples you'll have certain

438
00:26:42,000 --> 00:26:49,280
Speaker 2: artists using AI and working alongside it to create new

439
00:26:49,320 --> 00:26:51,919
Speaker 2: forms of art or music or what have you, but

440
00:26:52,000 --> 00:26:55,120
Speaker 2: in a very collaborative way and in a way that

441
00:26:55,119 --> 00:26:59,960
Speaker 2: does that wouldn't feel icky. Instead, we have, like you know,

442
00:27:00,080 --> 00:27:04,320
Speaker 2: everybody out there using these tools, uh, creating a lot

443
00:27:04,359 --> 00:27:06,200
Speaker 2: of material that is that is ikey, a lot of

444
00:27:06,240 --> 00:27:09,600
Speaker 2: AI slop as we've come to call it, you know,

445
00:27:09,760 --> 00:27:13,800
Speaker 2: which is not to say that that original vision is

446
00:27:13,800 --> 00:27:17,359
Speaker 2: is isn't a possibility and there's not a lot of

447
00:27:17,960 --> 00:27:20,560
Speaker 2: value in it. I mean, especially since the tools are

448
00:27:20,560 --> 00:27:23,320
Speaker 2: not going away. I hope that that is what we

449
00:27:23,400 --> 00:27:25,280
Speaker 2: come back to and that is something that we can

450
00:27:25,600 --> 00:27:29,840
Speaker 2: return to. But but yeah, it is. It is alarming

451
00:27:29,880 --> 00:27:33,119
Speaker 2: to watch in real time all around us. Now not

452
00:27:33,240 --> 00:27:39,600
Speaker 2: everything regarding machines and AI is current or near term.

453
00:27:39,640 --> 00:27:42,400
Speaker 2: We also have the likes of the gray goo scenario.

454
00:27:42,680 --> 00:27:45,320
Speaker 2: This is, it's gray goo, not grey goose. That would

455
00:27:45,640 --> 00:27:50,639
Speaker 2: involve some sort of catastrophic event concerning vodka obviously, but

456
00:27:50,680 --> 00:27:55,200
Speaker 2: the gray goo scenario the idea here by which molecular

457
00:27:55,280 --> 00:27:59,800
Speaker 2: self replicating nanotechnology ends up consuming the entire biomass of

458
00:27:59,800 --> 00:28:03,000
Speaker 2: Earth and turning it into itself, so kind of like

459
00:28:03,040 --> 00:28:08,919
Speaker 2: a global T one thousand mass in its most literal sense,

460
00:28:08,960 --> 00:28:11,200
Speaker 2: you know, the idea that it would just turn everything

461
00:28:11,240 --> 00:28:12,680
Speaker 2: into silvery goo.

462
00:28:13,320 --> 00:28:18,200
Speaker 3: Kind of similar to the Eisneine scenario or the vaseline

463
00:28:18,240 --> 00:28:23,800
Speaker 3: apocalypse in that it represents a consumption of the natural

464
00:28:23,920 --> 00:28:29,120
Speaker 3: environment around us, a transformation of substances in our environment,

465
00:28:29,160 --> 00:28:33,200
Speaker 3: substances we need, or the substances of ourselves, into something

466
00:28:33,280 --> 00:28:35,960
Speaker 3: that is not useful to us or is actively harmful

467
00:28:36,000 --> 00:28:39,479
Speaker 3: to us. And so yeah, it has that in common

468
00:28:39,520 --> 00:28:44,239
Speaker 3: with the Donahoe scenario or the Vonnegut scenario, except the

469
00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:48,080
Speaker 3: way I understood people imagining the gray goo obviously, this

470
00:28:48,200 --> 00:28:51,280
Speaker 3: was always just like a speculative, Yeah, kind of science

471
00:28:51,280 --> 00:28:54,520
Speaker 3: fiction thing because we don't have nanotechnology of this type.

472
00:28:55,560 --> 00:28:59,960
Speaker 3: But the way I understood it was that because you

473
00:29:00,040 --> 00:29:04,000
Speaker 3: would have these little tiny robots, nanotechnology robots that would

474
00:29:04,240 --> 00:29:07,680
Speaker 3: be designed to make copies of themselves or to turn,

475
00:29:08,560 --> 00:29:11,560
Speaker 3: you know, molecules into something that they're trying to produce,

476
00:29:11,640 --> 00:29:14,200
Speaker 3: if that ever got out of hand, there really wouldn't

477
00:29:14,240 --> 00:29:16,200
Speaker 3: be a good way to stop it. Is that the idea?

478
00:29:16,760 --> 00:29:19,480
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, you know. Obviously this idea has been around

479
00:29:19,480 --> 00:29:21,840
Speaker 2: for number of decades at this point. The term was

480
00:29:21,880 --> 00:29:26,920
Speaker 2: coined by molecular nanotechnology pioneer kay Eric Drexler and Engines

481
00:29:26,960 --> 00:29:30,240
Speaker 2: of Creation back in nineteen eighty six, and we could

482
00:29:30,240 --> 00:29:34,320
Speaker 2: easily do an entire episode on it. It's fascinating, I think,

483
00:29:34,360 --> 00:29:37,360
Speaker 2: not only in this kind of like worst case scenario

484
00:29:39,080 --> 00:29:42,800
Speaker 2: and cautionary tale sort of way, but it also feels

485
00:29:44,480 --> 00:29:51,160
Speaker 2: kind of metaphorically sound and intimidating because it is, again,

486
00:29:51,240 --> 00:29:54,120
Speaker 2: like you said, about the transformation of the natural world

487
00:29:54,200 --> 00:29:58,760
Speaker 2: into things, and we do this all the time. It's

488
00:29:58,800 --> 00:30:03,040
Speaker 2: a huge an alarming aspect of human culture. We turn

489
00:30:03,160 --> 00:30:07,240
Speaker 2: things into other substances that we need or we think

490
00:30:07,280 --> 00:30:11,600
Speaker 2: we need, and then those become garbage. And we take advantage,

491
00:30:11,600 --> 00:30:13,720
Speaker 2: of course of a lot of the resources of our

492
00:30:13,760 --> 00:30:18,360
Speaker 2: earth that are not easily replaced or are irreplaceable.

493
00:30:18,040 --> 00:30:22,040
Speaker 3: Massively speeding up and automating something we do, you know,

494
00:30:22,120 --> 00:30:24,160
Speaker 3: from an alien's point of view, we do, which is,

495
00:30:24,160 --> 00:30:28,000
Speaker 3: we take natural substances and turn them into trash.

496
00:30:27,600 --> 00:30:32,320
Speaker 2: Right right. And you know, we've in various ways always

497
00:30:32,400 --> 00:30:35,040
Speaker 2: done this. But we've also observed the way that technology

498
00:30:35,080 --> 00:30:38,320
Speaker 2: and technological advancements have taken something that has been a

499
00:30:38,360 --> 00:30:40,680
Speaker 2: part of human culture and made it even more destructive

500
00:30:40,720 --> 00:30:44,120
Speaker 2: and more problematic, which is, you know, not again not

501
00:30:44,160 --> 00:30:45,840
Speaker 2: to say the technology is bad, but it's about what

502
00:30:45,880 --> 00:30:49,200
Speaker 2: we do with the technology. So the other interesting thing

503
00:30:49,240 --> 00:30:54,040
Speaker 2: when you go back to T. Drexler's original idea for

504
00:30:54,160 --> 00:30:57,240
Speaker 2: the gray goose scenario is that the threat wouldn't be

505
00:30:57,280 --> 00:30:59,760
Speaker 2: bound to some sort of ultimate highly evolved version of

506
00:30:59,760 --> 00:31:03,400
Speaker 2: the thing, but rather, to quote early as similar based replicators,

507
00:31:04,480 --> 00:31:08,720
Speaker 2: they get out and wind up of supplanting advanced organisms

508
00:31:09,440 --> 00:31:10,440
Speaker 2: in the ecosystem.

509
00:31:10,880 --> 00:31:15,320
Speaker 3: So is the idea that people working on this technology

510
00:31:15,600 --> 00:31:19,280
Speaker 3: in this sort of science fiction scenario, they would eventually

511
00:31:19,320 --> 00:31:22,800
Speaker 3: be able to make the nanotechnology safe, but before they

512
00:31:22,840 --> 00:31:26,160
Speaker 3: get to the fully refined safe version. An early version

513
00:31:26,400 --> 00:31:30,200
Speaker 3: breaks containment and gets out of hand and it's making copies.

514
00:31:31,040 --> 00:31:33,360
Speaker 3: So yeah, it's kind of a problem to do the

515
00:31:33,400 --> 00:31:36,600
Speaker 3: safety steps last, especially if you're dealing with something that

516
00:31:37,160 --> 00:31:40,200
Speaker 3: you know, if it broke containment could destroy everything.

517
00:31:40,560 --> 00:31:44,920
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's my understanding that this has become less

518
00:31:45,000 --> 00:31:49,000
Speaker 2: of a realistic threat in the eyes of many technologists.

519
00:31:49,640 --> 00:31:51,320
Speaker 2: But it also, at the same time is taken on

520
00:31:51,360 --> 00:31:53,160
Speaker 2: a life of its own, such as in science fiction,

521
00:31:54,320 --> 00:31:56,440
Speaker 2: in the culture novels of the and m Banks, you

522
00:31:56,520 --> 00:32:01,479
Speaker 2: have the hegemonizing swarms, whereas just occasionally the culture and

523
00:32:01,600 --> 00:32:04,320
Speaker 2: or other interstellar powers have to deal with the fact

524
00:32:04,360 --> 00:32:08,600
Speaker 2: that machines will start doing this and decide and basically

525
00:32:08,640 --> 00:32:11,000
Speaker 2: treat it like life form. Like there's a lot of

526
00:32:11,000 --> 00:32:13,600
Speaker 2: the ethical discussions, like at what point does it make

527
00:32:13,640 --> 00:32:19,080
Speaker 2: sense to wipe it out? So you know, in science fiction, again,

528
00:32:19,080 --> 00:32:20,520
Speaker 2: there are a number of takes on it that are

529
00:32:20,600 --> 00:32:24,920
Speaker 2: rather fascinating. You also have these different spin offs their concepts,

530
00:32:25,000 --> 00:32:28,840
Speaker 2: like green Goo, in which engineered organic matter ends up

531
00:32:28,880 --> 00:32:31,520
Speaker 2: taking it ends up taking the place of the nanotech

532
00:32:31,600 --> 00:32:32,760
Speaker 2: in this particular scenario.

533
00:32:33,000 --> 00:32:36,800
Speaker 3: Okay, so something that would be based on organic chemistry

534
00:32:36,880 --> 00:32:39,560
Speaker 3: or maybe cells or something like that instead of just

535
00:32:39,600 --> 00:32:40,480
Speaker 3: tiny machines.

536
00:32:40,600 --> 00:32:43,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, like it would be gray goo, except Crone and Burgie,

537
00:32:43,880 --> 00:32:46,720
Speaker 2: you know that sort of thing life gou.

538
00:32:46,840 --> 00:32:56,720
Speaker 3: Yeah.

539
00:32:57,120 --> 00:33:00,560
Speaker 2: Now, coming back to AI, there is all also something

540
00:33:00,600 --> 00:33:04,360
Speaker 2: called information gray goo, a term that I believe was

541
00:33:04,400 --> 00:33:09,120
Speaker 2: coined by British technology journalist Ian Betteridge. Also, I've seen

542
00:33:09,120 --> 00:33:13,480
Speaker 2: it referred to as the text apocalypse. And this one,

543
00:33:13,560 --> 00:33:15,800
Speaker 2: this one feels a lot, a lot closer and a

544
00:33:15,800 --> 00:33:21,880
Speaker 2: lot more fearsome. In this scenario, AI generated content overwhelms

545
00:33:21,960 --> 00:33:22,800
Speaker 2: human discourse.

546
00:33:24,440 --> 00:33:25,680
Speaker 3: That'll never happen.

547
00:33:27,160 --> 00:33:29,120
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, this one feels a lot more like

548
00:33:29,160 --> 00:33:31,400
Speaker 2: a real world threat because we already see the impact.

549
00:33:31,800 --> 00:33:34,160
Speaker 2: I mean, this has just become part of our just

550
00:33:34,200 --> 00:33:37,440
Speaker 2: like standard informational intake, just having to be on guard

551
00:33:37,520 --> 00:33:43,160
Speaker 2: against AI generated material because you know, is it authentic?

552
00:33:43,280 --> 00:33:45,440
Speaker 2: Is it is it real or not? Like we want

553
00:33:45,440 --> 00:33:45,800
Speaker 2: to know.

554
00:33:46,920 --> 00:33:48,640
Speaker 3: Or do we want to know? I mean, I think

555
00:33:48,680 --> 00:33:52,600
Speaker 3: one of the real danger is is that the the

556
00:33:52,640 --> 00:33:56,880
Speaker 3: scourge of AI slop interacts with our preferences and biases

557
00:33:57,640 --> 00:34:01,680
Speaker 3: such that you when you see something that you don't

558
00:34:02,040 --> 00:34:05,080
Speaker 3: like or don't want to be true, you can recognize

559
00:34:05,160 --> 00:34:08,480
Speaker 3: that it is AI generated garbage and fake and trying

560
00:34:08,480 --> 00:34:11,520
Speaker 3: to manipulate you in some way. And when you see

561
00:34:11,520 --> 00:34:14,600
Speaker 3: something that you do like or do want to be true,

562
00:34:14,680 --> 00:34:16,759
Speaker 3: very often you'll just be like, yeah, that's probably real.

563
00:34:16,920 --> 00:34:18,839
Speaker 2: Yeah, I believe there's a real danger point and it's

564
00:34:18,840 --> 00:34:22,440
Speaker 2: an uneven boundary line because it kind of applies at

565
00:34:22,440 --> 00:34:27,280
Speaker 2: different parts of our life, these different areas where we decide, okay,

566
00:34:27,440 --> 00:34:30,760
Speaker 2: I don't care about authenticity in this area, and it'll

567
00:34:30,760 --> 00:34:33,320
Speaker 2: be something like I see it happening, you know, all

568
00:34:33,360 --> 00:34:36,439
Speaker 2: around me, where someone you know might well say, hey,

569
00:34:36,560 --> 00:34:38,880
Speaker 2: you know, I don't want AI doing this or that.

570
00:34:39,360 --> 00:34:43,840
Speaker 2: But then they might think, well, I'm okay with it

571
00:34:43,920 --> 00:34:46,680
Speaker 2: creating my next head shot. You know, I'm okay that.

572
00:34:46,880 --> 00:34:48,400
Speaker 2: You know. It's like maybe I have some you know,

573
00:34:48,400 --> 00:34:50,479
Speaker 2: I have some some hang ups about how my last

574
00:34:50,520 --> 00:34:54,759
Speaker 2: headshot look and I'm totally okay with AI just creating

575
00:34:54,840 --> 00:34:57,359
Speaker 2: something for me, even though it's not authentic. It's not

576
00:34:57,400 --> 00:35:00,839
Speaker 2: really what I look like, and it's not created via

577
00:35:00,960 --> 00:35:04,160
Speaker 2: authentic means. But you know, you say, all right, I'm

578
00:35:04,160 --> 00:35:06,080
Speaker 2: gonna check that off. But then what's the next thing

579
00:35:06,120 --> 00:35:08,839
Speaker 2: to fall? And then ultimately, what does the boundary line

580
00:35:08,920 --> 00:35:12,360
Speaker 2: end up looking like anyway, I want to read a

581
00:35:12,440 --> 00:35:16,640
Speaker 2: quote here from betteredge, he writes, and you can read

582
00:35:16,680 --> 00:35:18,920
Speaker 2: about this at ianbetterage dot com. He has a whole

583
00:35:18,960 --> 00:35:21,960
Speaker 2: post on the information gray Goo. He says, quote, this

584
00:35:22,040 --> 00:35:24,719
Speaker 2: is the AI grey goose scenario and Internet choked with

585
00:35:24,840 --> 00:35:28,240
Speaker 2: low quality content which never improves, where it is almost

586
00:35:28,280 --> 00:35:32,840
Speaker 2: impossible to locate public, reliable sources for information because the

587
00:35:32,920 --> 00:35:35,520
Speaker 2: tools we have been able to rely on in the past,

588
00:35:35,680 --> 00:35:39,000
Speaker 2: Google social media can never keep up with the scale

589
00:35:39,040 --> 00:35:42,640
Speaker 2: of new content being created, where the volume of content

590
00:35:42,760 --> 00:35:46,880
Speaker 2: created overwhelms human or algorithmic abilities to sift through it

591
00:35:46,960 --> 00:35:49,360
Speaker 2: quickly and find high quality stuff.

592
00:35:50,120 --> 00:35:52,400
Speaker 3: You know, it's funny how when we talk about the

593
00:35:52,719 --> 00:35:57,399
Speaker 3: dangers of AI, people think about the terminator and Skynet

594
00:35:58,200 --> 00:36:01,680
Speaker 3: or I have no mouth that I'm scream And you know,

595
00:36:02,120 --> 00:36:04,680
Speaker 3: as I said earlier, like we can't really know where

596
00:36:04,719 --> 00:36:07,560
Speaker 3: we're gonna end up. You don't even know how likely

597
00:36:07,680 --> 00:36:10,160
Speaker 3: to rate those kinds of outcomes. You hope that they're

598
00:36:10,280 --> 00:36:14,920
Speaker 3: very unlikely because you know, but you don't really know.

599
00:36:15,440 --> 00:36:17,759
Speaker 3: With stuff like this, I almost feel like you could

600
00:36:17,800 --> 00:36:20,680
Speaker 3: make the case that we're already halfway there. We're sort

601
00:36:20,719 --> 00:36:23,160
Speaker 3: of edging into this scenario, are we not?

602
00:36:23,640 --> 00:36:25,799
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, I mean it really does feel like a

603
00:36:25,800 --> 00:36:28,759
Speaker 2: lot of the battle is on, you know, who's going

604
00:36:28,760 --> 00:36:30,880
Speaker 2: to win between like this effort to sort of like

605
00:36:31,600 --> 00:36:34,760
Speaker 2: break down the public to where we don't care about

606
00:36:34,800 --> 00:36:38,279
Speaker 2: authenticity and anything, we don't care about human creation. We're

607
00:36:38,320 --> 00:36:40,480
Speaker 2: just like, it sounds good enough to me, it looks

608
00:36:40,520 --> 00:36:42,200
Speaker 2: good enough to me, it feels good enough to me,

609
00:36:43,280 --> 00:36:46,120
Speaker 2: and then we're just okay with all of the jobs

610
00:36:46,120 --> 00:36:48,520
Speaker 2: that are lost, all of the meaning that is lost

611
00:36:48,560 --> 00:36:53,440
Speaker 2: in people's lives just because a particular image was a

612
00:36:53,440 --> 00:36:56,560
Speaker 2: little more pleasing to us, or a particular piece of

613
00:36:56,560 --> 00:36:59,720
Speaker 2: writing was just a little more calibrated to our tastes

614
00:36:59,800 --> 00:37:02,560
Speaker 2: and so forth, or something was we were able to

615
00:37:02,600 --> 00:37:06,960
Speaker 2: generate it quickly and easily through some sort of online interface.

616
00:37:08,160 --> 00:37:12,000
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's alarming. It's it's frankly terrifying because I

617
00:37:12,040 --> 00:37:15,880
Speaker 2: wish hope was still in the Pandora's box. I'm not

618
00:37:15,880 --> 00:37:19,239
Speaker 2: sure that it is. A lot of it just comes

619
00:37:19,280 --> 00:37:21,600
Speaker 2: down to like, what what are we going to put

620
00:37:21,640 --> 00:37:21,920
Speaker 2: up with?

621
00:37:22,719 --> 00:37:24,799
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I guess the other thing being that the

622
00:37:25,000 --> 00:37:29,239
Speaker 3: example of AI is much more complicated, I think than

623
00:37:29,360 --> 00:37:33,600
Speaker 3: the other examples like so greygu is just essentially a

624
00:37:33,600 --> 00:37:36,560
Speaker 3: science fiction scenario at this point. There's nothing really like

625
00:37:36,640 --> 00:37:39,200
Speaker 3: it going on, at least that we know, So, you know,

626
00:37:39,360 --> 00:37:42,759
Speaker 3: it's just a hypothetical, and it is debatable to what

627
00:37:42,920 --> 00:37:46,799
Speaker 3: extent it is plausible. Polywater, of course was you know

628
00:37:46,840 --> 00:37:50,120
Speaker 3: that the fears about that are totally unfounded. It never existed.

629
00:37:50,200 --> 00:37:52,840
Speaker 3: Even if it did exist, it probably wasn't dangerous in

630
00:37:53,920 --> 00:37:57,480
Speaker 3: the ways that we're being imagined. I guess AI is

631
00:37:57,560 --> 00:38:00,319
Speaker 3: different for a number of reasons. I mean, for one, thing,

632
00:38:00,520 --> 00:38:02,960
Speaker 3: like it actually exists and is here. I guess you

633
00:38:03,000 --> 00:38:06,440
Speaker 3: could debate in terms of its existence. You can have

634
00:38:06,480 --> 00:38:09,319
Speaker 3: a debate about whether or not it actually constitutes intelligence

635
00:38:09,400 --> 00:38:12,200
Speaker 3: or not, and people do have that philosophical debate and intelligence.

636
00:38:12,239 --> 00:38:14,279
Speaker 2: It's an AI that the term is sometimes used a

637
00:38:14,320 --> 00:38:16,640
Speaker 2: little loosely with what we're talking about.

638
00:38:16,760 --> 00:38:19,480
Speaker 3: Yeah, so people argue about that, but there's no denying

639
00:38:19,560 --> 00:38:23,560
Speaker 3: that it is here and it's doing something. It's doing

640
00:38:23,600 --> 00:38:25,319
Speaker 3: a lot of things that I mean, I don't want

641
00:38:25,320 --> 00:38:27,000
Speaker 3: to sound too negative about it, like it does a

642
00:38:27,040 --> 00:38:29,240
Speaker 3: lot of things that are very useful. It's very useful

643
00:38:29,239 --> 00:38:33,080
Speaker 3: as a you know, as a search engine, as Yeah,

644
00:38:32,920 --> 00:38:38,400
Speaker 3: that kind of thing, like it makes information processing tasks

645
00:38:38,480 --> 00:38:40,640
Speaker 3: easier in a lot of ways. Of course, it's still

646
00:38:40,680 --> 00:38:43,359
Speaker 3: you know, has a lot of hallucination problems and all that.

647
00:38:43,440 --> 00:38:48,719
Speaker 3: But it is not an imaginary thing like like polywater

648
00:38:49,040 --> 00:38:51,759
Speaker 3: or like or you know, just a fully science fiction

649
00:38:51,840 --> 00:38:54,920
Speaker 3: speculative thing like gray goo. It's here. It does some

650
00:38:55,000 --> 00:38:58,640
Speaker 3: things that are undeniably useful, and it's integrated into the economy,

651
00:38:59,040 --> 00:39:02,359
Speaker 3: which makes it you know, harder to I guess it

652
00:39:02,400 --> 00:39:06,239
Speaker 3: makes the question of thinking about its potential danger is

653
00:39:06,280 --> 00:39:07,359
Speaker 3: even more fraud.

654
00:39:07,560 --> 00:39:10,960
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I would agree. I want to throw out,

655
00:39:11,120 --> 00:39:14,960
Speaker 2: as is always the case, listeners, if you have differing

656
00:39:15,000 --> 00:39:16,960
Speaker 2: opinions on any of this and you would like to

657
00:39:17,440 --> 00:39:19,960
Speaker 2: rationally discuss them with us, you know, write in. We'll

658
00:39:19,960 --> 00:39:22,200
Speaker 2: have that email address at the end of this episode.

659
00:39:22,360 --> 00:39:25,759
Speaker 2: We're always happy to discuss. Now, I'm going to turn

660
00:39:25,760 --> 00:39:29,200
Speaker 2: the page a little bit, get away from the from

661
00:39:29,239 --> 00:39:32,960
Speaker 2: from the the AI concerns. Don't worry, they're not going away.

662
00:39:33,000 --> 00:39:34,839
Speaker 2: They'll be They'll be there when we come back to them.

663
00:39:35,280 --> 00:39:39,399
Speaker 2: But I want to turn to some examples of potential

664
00:39:39,680 --> 00:39:44,200
Speaker 2: you know, chain reaction catastrophes tied to advancements in science

665
00:39:44,520 --> 00:39:48,320
Speaker 2: that have turned out to not be the case cases

666
00:39:48,400 --> 00:39:51,520
Speaker 2: much like poly water, where someone was like, this might

667
00:39:51,600 --> 00:39:54,600
Speaker 2: happen and we need to be wary of it, and

668
00:39:54,640 --> 00:39:57,880
Speaker 2: then for a variety of reasons, that worst case scenario

669
00:39:57,960 --> 00:40:01,880
Speaker 2: turned out to not be the case. Yeah, so we

670
00:40:01,960 --> 00:40:06,680
Speaker 2: already mentioned atomic weaponry, like the advent of atomic weaponry

671
00:40:06,719 --> 00:40:11,600
Speaker 2: being being something that helped inform the understanding of the

672
00:40:11,600 --> 00:40:16,000
Speaker 2: potential threats of poly water and also ends up casting

673
00:40:16,000 --> 00:40:19,880
Speaker 2: a long shadow over any technology to come out after

674
00:40:20,280 --> 00:40:25,960
Speaker 2: the advent of nuclear weaponry, especially and the one I

675
00:40:25,960 --> 00:40:27,840
Speaker 2: want to focus on here is one that I believe

676
00:40:27,880 --> 00:40:30,440
Speaker 2: this I have not actually seen the Oppenheimer film, but

677
00:40:30,480 --> 00:40:32,440
Speaker 2: I believe this actually comes up in the film, and

678
00:40:32,480 --> 00:40:37,279
Speaker 2: that is the idea that, Okay, when we carry out

679
00:40:37,280 --> 00:40:41,839
Speaker 2: this first atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device, it might

680
00:40:42,160 --> 00:40:46,400
Speaker 2: ignite the atmosphere, resulting in a global chain reaction of

681
00:40:46,520 --> 00:40:47,640
Speaker 2: atmospheric fire.

682
00:40:48,000 --> 00:40:51,239
Speaker 3: This is addressed in the movie. The characters do talk

683
00:40:51,280 --> 00:40:53,759
Speaker 3: about the possibility. It's been a while since I've seen it,

684
00:40:53,800 --> 00:40:57,840
Speaker 3: so I don't remember the specific scene, but my understanding

685
00:40:58,080 --> 00:41:02,719
Speaker 3: is that in reality and history they did consider this

686
00:41:02,760 --> 00:41:06,040
Speaker 3: as a possibility, but most of the experts who did

687
00:41:06,040 --> 00:41:12,400
Speaker 3: the calculations on it, rated the likelihood as very low. Again,

688
00:41:12,440 --> 00:41:14,479
Speaker 3: that raises the question of I don't know how low

689
00:41:14,600 --> 00:41:17,200
Speaker 3: does the likelihood of something like this have to be

690
00:41:17,320 --> 00:41:18,680
Speaker 3: for you to feel okay?

691
00:41:18,719 --> 00:41:23,560
Speaker 2: Continuing, Yeah, yeah, especially when in this case where obviously

692
00:41:23,719 --> 00:41:27,480
Speaker 2: the goal is the creation of a weapon of mass destruction,

693
00:41:28,080 --> 00:41:31,520
Speaker 2: a weapon that's going to cast this long shadow over

694
00:41:32,400 --> 00:41:37,320
Speaker 2: human societies for ages and ages to come. A similar

695
00:41:37,360 --> 00:41:41,800
Speaker 2: possibility was apparently explored for underwater detonation as well, and again,

696
00:41:41,880 --> 00:41:45,759
Speaker 2: like you said, while technically possible, scientists of the day

697
00:41:45,880 --> 00:41:50,000
Speaker 2: agreed that it was terribly unlikely, and our current understanding

698
00:41:50,200 --> 00:41:52,400
Speaker 2: of it seems to fall in the idea that the

699
00:41:52,440 --> 00:41:55,400
Speaker 2: density of Earth's atmosphere is just much too low for

700
00:41:55,440 --> 00:41:58,720
Speaker 2: this to take place, as is the atmosphere of Venus.

701
00:41:58,760 --> 00:42:02,239
Speaker 2: Even jennif Flgarris did a nice write up on this

702
00:42:02,440 --> 00:42:05,520
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four for Advanced Science News, I believe

703
00:42:05,560 --> 00:42:09,239
Speaker 2: in response to the Oppenheimer movie, interviewing a pair of

704
00:42:09,360 --> 00:42:13,319
Speaker 2: nuclear astrophysicist on the topic, and that seemed to be

705
00:42:13,600 --> 00:42:16,160
Speaker 2: where they landed on it. It's like, it's just, as

706
00:42:16,200 --> 00:42:18,920
Speaker 2: far as we understand it, this is not possible in

707
00:42:19,000 --> 00:42:22,120
Speaker 2: Earth's atmosphere. And of course all of this is just

708
00:42:22,160 --> 00:42:25,760
Speaker 2: in addition to the other obvious concerns over the potential

709
00:42:26,000 --> 00:42:29,560
Speaker 2: for the rollout of nuclear weaponry to enable humans to

710
00:42:29,719 --> 00:42:34,280
Speaker 2: destroy each other through devastating warfare, fallout, wide ranging fires,

711
00:42:34,320 --> 00:42:37,800
Speaker 2: and the chilling grip of nuclear winter. This is, of course,

712
00:42:37,800 --> 00:42:40,880
Speaker 2: it's just another just obvious and huge aspect of the

713
00:42:40,960 --> 00:42:42,840
Speaker 2: nuclear age. You know, we knew the world would not

714
00:42:42,880 --> 00:42:44,279
Speaker 2: be the same, and it has not been.

715
00:42:44,920 --> 00:42:48,760
Speaker 3: Right, So there was concern about the possibility of a physical,

716
00:42:48,920 --> 00:42:52,360
Speaker 3: immediate runaway reaction that could destroy the world, and those

717
00:42:52,480 --> 00:42:55,680
Speaker 3: concerns were not founded, or at least it was considered

718
00:42:55,760 --> 00:42:58,120
Speaker 3: very unlikely and proved to not be the case that

719
00:42:58,320 --> 00:43:00,600
Speaker 3: a nuclear detonation would do that to the end atmosphere.

720
00:43:00,960 --> 00:43:05,000
Speaker 3: And yet there was a runaway, a destructive runaway reaction,

721
00:43:05,120 --> 00:43:08,040
Speaker 3: and we just don't know like on what time scale,

722
00:43:08,120 --> 00:43:11,600
Speaker 3: if at all, it could prove extremely destructive to the world.

723
00:43:11,600 --> 00:43:15,400
Speaker 3: I mean, the atomic weapons they were designing were used

724
00:43:15,520 --> 00:43:18,520
Speaker 3: in the immediate circumstance, and then you know, it's hard

725
00:43:18,560 --> 00:43:22,440
Speaker 3: to imagine that going through into the future, that we

726
00:43:22,480 --> 00:43:25,879
Speaker 3: could have nuclear weapons on Earth and they would never

727
00:43:25,960 --> 00:43:28,600
Speaker 3: ever be used ever again for you know, however many

728
00:43:29,800 --> 00:43:32,840
Speaker 3: you know, thousands or hopefully millions of years, humans continue

729
00:43:32,840 --> 00:43:33,360
Speaker 3: to exist.

730
00:43:33,600 --> 00:43:36,000
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it would be great, That would be

731
00:43:36,040 --> 00:43:37,000
Speaker 2: great the case, but.

732
00:43:37,200 --> 00:43:40,080
Speaker 3: The odds seem to be against that never ever happening.

733
00:43:40,280 --> 00:43:44,080
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, yeah, have you met us, the human race?

734
00:43:44,400 --> 00:43:49,200
Speaker 2: This is sadly something we're highly capable of using. And

735
00:43:49,840 --> 00:43:52,560
Speaker 2: even you know, this is obviously a complex discussion. There

736
00:43:52,560 --> 00:43:53,759
Speaker 2: are a lot of ins and outs, and you can

737
00:43:53,760 --> 00:43:56,919
Speaker 2: get into various analysis of like where we are now

738
00:43:56,960 --> 00:44:02,120
Speaker 2: with various safeguards and so forth. But even if the

739
00:44:02,120 --> 00:44:07,359
Speaker 2: potential for their usage is low, if it's low year

740
00:44:07,400 --> 00:44:10,320
Speaker 2: to year, and then we have to just carry on indefinitely,

741
00:44:10,719 --> 00:44:14,960
Speaker 2: like what does that look like statistically? So yeah, continues

742
00:44:15,000 --> 00:44:18,160
Speaker 2: to be a matter of great concern obviously exactly.

743
00:44:18,280 --> 00:44:20,880
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, what are the odds of flipping heads

744
00:44:20,880 --> 00:44:24,240
Speaker 3: on a coin eight times in a row? Is very low?

745
00:44:24,320 --> 00:44:26,480
Speaker 3: But just keep flipping the coin, I mean, you keep

746
00:44:26,520 --> 00:44:27,839
Speaker 3: doing it, Eventually you'll get there.

747
00:44:28,040 --> 00:44:31,520
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now I want to cover a few more here.

748
00:44:33,080 --> 00:44:35,440
Speaker 2: The number of you may be reminded of some of

749
00:44:35,520 --> 00:44:39,680
Speaker 2: the discussions and science headlines and just general media headlines

750
00:44:39,960 --> 00:44:43,720
Speaker 2: around two thousand and eight, regarding the large hadron collideer

751
00:44:43,760 --> 00:44:47,799
Speaker 2: the LHC, specifically, as it smashed protons of greater and

752
00:44:47,840 --> 00:44:51,759
Speaker 2: greater speeds, it was brought up, hey, what if they

753
00:44:51,760 --> 00:44:55,920
Speaker 2: were to accidentally generate micro black holes that could potentially

754
00:44:56,000 --> 00:44:58,960
Speaker 2: grow and, I don't know, consume the entire planet Robi.

755
00:44:59,080 --> 00:45:01,360
Speaker 3: You've looked into this more recently than I have. But

756
00:45:01,760 --> 00:45:05,520
Speaker 3: my understanding of this, just from my memory, is that

757
00:45:05,760 --> 00:45:09,799
Speaker 3: the main people talking about this were not well informed scientists.

758
00:45:09,840 --> 00:45:12,760
Speaker 3: It was more kind of a fringe conspiracy theory.

759
00:45:13,480 --> 00:45:15,799
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it definitely one of those things that ends

760
00:45:15,880 --> 00:45:18,680
Speaker 2: up resonating at the headline level everywhere else because the

761
00:45:18,719 --> 00:45:21,360
Speaker 2: idea of like creating a black hole in a lab

762
00:45:21,400 --> 00:45:24,360
Speaker 2: and then eating everything, you know, that's an evocative idea.

763
00:45:25,280 --> 00:45:30,960
Speaker 2: It certainly jives with a lot of our science fiction, like.

764
00:45:30,960 --> 00:45:33,319
Speaker 3: The Vasilene apocalypse or like the gray Goo. It's like

765
00:45:33,400 --> 00:45:37,440
Speaker 3: the consumption of the world around us by a strange substance.

766
00:45:37,480 --> 00:45:42,960
Speaker 3: It's impossible to deny how interestingly awful that idea is.

767
00:45:43,160 --> 00:45:45,200
Speaker 2: Yeah, and just the idea of the black hole, even

768
00:45:45,239 --> 00:45:48,719
Speaker 2: if you only halfway understand it, and I think it's

769
00:45:48,960 --> 00:45:52,440
Speaker 2: probably less most I'm not going to pretend to completely

770
00:45:52,520 --> 00:45:57,279
Speaker 2: understand black holes, but you know they're evocative. It's a

771
00:45:57,320 --> 00:46:03,840
Speaker 2: fascinating idea. LHC scientists considered the possibility and concluded that quote,

772
00:46:03,880 --> 00:46:06,520
Speaker 2: if micro black holes do appear in the collisions created

773
00:46:06,520 --> 00:46:10,600
Speaker 2: by the LHC, they would disintegrate rapidly in around ten

774
00:46:10,680 --> 00:46:14,000
Speaker 2: to the negative twenty seventh power seconds. They would decay

775
00:46:14,040 --> 00:46:19,240
Speaker 2: into standard model or super symmetric particles, creating events containing

776
00:46:19,320 --> 00:46:22,360
Speaker 2: an exceptional number of tracks in our detectors which we

777
00:46:22,600 --> 00:46:26,200
Speaker 2: would easily spot. Finding more on any of these subjects

778
00:46:26,200 --> 00:46:29,960
Speaker 2: would open the door to yet unknown possibilities. In other words,

779
00:46:31,640 --> 00:46:36,759
Speaker 2: it wasn't happening, and it's not a real concern. Now

780
00:46:37,120 --> 00:46:40,600
Speaker 2: there's another related concern that also popped up. I think

781
00:46:40,640 --> 00:46:46,000
Speaker 2: it may be resonated in headline level a little less

782
00:46:46,000 --> 00:46:50,719
Speaker 2: strongly because not as evocative as black holes. But there

783
00:46:50,760 --> 00:46:54,479
Speaker 2: was also this idea that hypothetical clumps of strange matter

784
00:46:54,680 --> 00:46:58,959
Speaker 2: called strangelets could be generated in a particle accelerator, either

785
00:46:59,000 --> 00:47:03,799
Speaker 2: the LHC or or the relativistic heavy ion collideer. The

786
00:47:04,000 --> 00:47:07,680
Speaker 2: rhic and the extreme version of the scenario is that

787
00:47:07,719 --> 00:47:09,759
Speaker 2: it would set off a chain reaction that converts the

788
00:47:09,920 --> 00:47:14,760
Speaker 2: entire planet into a condensed lump of strange goop. However,

789
00:47:15,000 --> 00:47:18,640
Speaker 2: no strangelets have ever been observed at the RHIC or

790
00:47:18,680 --> 00:47:23,120
Speaker 2: the LHC, and the scientists contend that they're even less

791
00:47:23,280 --> 00:47:28,880
Speaker 2: likely at the LHC facility, the planet has not been gooped,

792
00:47:29,160 --> 00:47:31,120
Speaker 2: so we seem to be pretty good on this case

793
00:47:31,160 --> 00:47:31,520
Speaker 2: as well.

794
00:47:32,200 --> 00:47:34,360
Speaker 3: I feel like these examples raise a different kind of

795
00:47:34,440 --> 00:47:39,239
Speaker 3: question about these containment fears, which is, you know, we've

796
00:47:39,239 --> 00:47:42,360
Speaker 3: been exploring since we're obviously talking about like very serious

797
00:47:42,400 --> 00:47:46,439
Speaker 3: heavy stuff like nuclear weapons and potentially AI talking about

798
00:47:46,480 --> 00:47:51,879
Speaker 3: stuff that quite clearly I think most reasonable people would

799
00:47:51,920 --> 00:47:54,719
Speaker 3: agree we should be concerned about, like there should be

800
00:47:54,920 --> 00:47:59,520
Speaker 3: levels of caution dealing with these things. On the other hand,

801
00:47:59,680 --> 00:48:04,960
Speaker 3: you really that anybody can raise fears about anything for

802
00:48:05,080 --> 00:48:08,640
Speaker 3: any reasons, good or not. So, like if people are

803
00:48:08,800 --> 00:48:14,160
Speaker 3: raising concerns, just the fact that somebody is raising concerns

804
00:48:14,200 --> 00:48:18,360
Speaker 3: about something doesn't necessarily mean those concerns are things that

805
00:48:18,400 --> 00:48:21,080
Speaker 3: are well founded or that we should take seriously. And

806
00:48:21,160 --> 00:48:24,960
Speaker 3: part of the problem is like in the realm of

807
00:48:25,000 --> 00:48:29,160
Speaker 3: cutting edge science, like most people if they hear about

808
00:48:29,239 --> 00:48:31,759
Speaker 3: a concern with something, oh, you know, they're doing an

809
00:48:31,840 --> 00:48:35,520
Speaker 3: experiment at the particle collider. You know, it could do

810
00:48:35,640 --> 00:48:39,360
Speaker 3: something that destroys the world. Ninety nine point whatever percent

811
00:48:39,400 --> 00:48:41,759
Speaker 3: of people have no idea whether they should take that

812
00:48:41,880 --> 00:48:44,960
Speaker 3: concern seriously or not. But the fact that somebody is

813
00:48:45,040 --> 00:48:47,760
Speaker 3: saying it makes you feel like, well, maybe I should

814
00:48:47,800 --> 00:48:49,880
Speaker 3: be concerned because you don't know, you know, you don't

815
00:48:49,880 --> 00:48:54,160
Speaker 3: have the background knowledge to evaluate these claims and understand

816
00:48:54,239 --> 00:48:57,400
Speaker 3: whether they're they're based on reasonable concerns or not.

817
00:48:57,840 --> 00:48:59,200
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, I mean a lot of it comes down

818
00:48:59,239 --> 00:49:02,640
Speaker 2: to need trust in science. You need trust in scientific institutions,

819
00:49:02,640 --> 00:49:06,399
Speaker 2: and you need regulations in place, and you need all

820
00:49:06,440 --> 00:49:19,080
Speaker 2: of this sort of working together. Another thing I should

821
00:49:19,080 --> 00:49:20,920
Speaker 2: bring up, just briefly. I don't want to spend too

822
00:49:20,960 --> 00:49:25,680
Speaker 2: much time on strangelets and micro black holes, but kind

823
00:49:25,680 --> 00:49:29,759
Speaker 2: of getting back to the poly water. These often raise questions, Okay,

824
00:49:29,760 --> 00:49:32,319
Speaker 2: we're talking about creating something in a lab, but it's

825
00:49:32,360 --> 00:49:35,640
Speaker 2: the thing that we're hypothetically creating. Is it something that

826
00:49:35,680 --> 00:49:39,719
Speaker 2: is that is just occurring elsewhere in the world or

827
00:49:39,760 --> 00:49:41,920
Speaker 2: in the universe, And then we have to sort of

828
00:49:41,920 --> 00:49:45,560
Speaker 2: weigh those two things, you know, like, Okay, if this

829
00:49:45,640 --> 00:49:48,320
Speaker 2: is a possibility in a lab, then it is surely

830
00:49:48,320 --> 00:49:50,920
Speaker 2: a reality elsewhere in the universe. And what does that

831
00:49:50,960 --> 00:49:51,800
Speaker 2: mean for our fears?

832
00:49:52,239 --> 00:49:55,120
Speaker 3: Right with the polywater comparison being that if we can

833
00:49:55,160 --> 00:49:58,120
Speaker 3: make it in the lab with you know, no especially

834
00:49:58,160 --> 00:50:02,480
Speaker 3: weird conditions, we're just like tiny quartz tubes. It probably

835
00:50:02,520 --> 00:50:06,439
Speaker 3: occurs in nature sometimes, so doesn't seem like it could

836
00:50:06,520 --> 00:50:09,600
Speaker 3: be just that some quantity of it in the environment

837
00:50:09,640 --> 00:50:13,239
Speaker 3: immediately leads, or not immediately at all, leads to worldwide catastrophe.

838
00:50:13,520 --> 00:50:17,480
Speaker 2: Yeah. Another case that's interesting to bring up in this

839
00:50:17,520 --> 00:50:21,640
Speaker 2: conversation is the nineteen seventy five a Silamar conference on

840
00:50:22,120 --> 00:50:27,279
Speaker 2: recombinant DNA. This was a gathering of biologists, lawyers, and

841
00:50:27,280 --> 00:50:31,319
Speaker 2: physicians at a Silamar conference center near Monterey, California, a

842
00:50:31,320 --> 00:50:34,799
Speaker 2: lovely place I once attended a wedding there. Oh really Yeah,

843
00:50:35,080 --> 00:50:37,279
Speaker 2: I highly recommend visiting that area if you get the chance.

844
00:50:37,320 --> 00:50:40,400
Speaker 2: But the conference in question was centered around biohazards and

845
00:50:40,440 --> 00:50:45,640
Speaker 2: regulatory concerns regarding developing and as well as just near

846
00:50:45,680 --> 00:50:51,840
Speaker 2: future biotechnological advancements in general, especially recombinant DNA genetic material

847
00:50:51,920 --> 00:50:55,040
Speaker 2: created from two different sources to create all new sequences.

848
00:50:56,400 --> 00:50:59,400
Speaker 2: It was an advancement that at the time was highly promising,

849
00:51:00,120 --> 00:51:03,960
Speaker 2: and it has proven to be very beneficial in biotechnology

850
00:51:04,160 --> 00:51:07,760
Speaker 2: and medicine multiple research areas. But at the same time,

851
00:51:09,000 --> 00:51:12,400
Speaker 2: at the time, researchers also recognized the huge potential for

852
00:51:12,440 --> 00:51:16,439
Speaker 2: the creation of organisms with dangerous properties, not so much

853
00:51:16,560 --> 00:51:19,400
Speaker 2: like space were wolves, or anything, but more so like

854
00:51:19,480 --> 00:51:23,680
Speaker 2: the accidental creation of deadly pathogens that could conceivably wash

855
00:51:23,719 --> 00:51:27,000
Speaker 2: over the globe, like any number of real and imagined

856
00:51:27,040 --> 00:51:30,120
Speaker 2: plagues and doomsday scenarios. There was a lot of concern

857
00:51:30,920 --> 00:51:36,879
Speaker 2: regarding cancer viruses cancer causing viruses in particular. I read

858
00:51:36,880 --> 00:51:41,440
Speaker 2: a quote from French biologist Philippe Kouilsky about the conference,

859
00:51:41,480 --> 00:51:45,359
Speaker 2: in which he underlined the excitement surrounding it, but also

860
00:51:45,400 --> 00:51:48,439
Speaker 2: the confusion quote because some of the basic questions could

861
00:51:48,440 --> 00:51:51,280
Speaker 2: only be dealt with in great disorder or not confronted

862
00:51:51,320 --> 00:51:54,480
Speaker 2: at all. On the frontiers of the unknown, the analysis

863
00:51:54,560 --> 00:51:57,560
Speaker 2: of benefits and hazards were locked up in concentric circles

864
00:51:57,560 --> 00:52:01,640
Speaker 2: of ignorance. How could one determine the reality without experimenting,

865
00:52:01,880 --> 00:52:05,280
Speaker 2: without taking a minimum of risk. I read this quote

866
00:52:05,320 --> 00:52:08,560
Speaker 2: in a silomar in recombinant DNA the end of the

867
00:52:08,560 --> 00:52:12,920
Speaker 2: Beginning by medical researcher Donald S. Fredrickson. This came out

868
00:52:12,920 --> 00:52:17,040
Speaker 2: in nineteen ninety one, but I think that succinctly summarizes

869
00:52:17,120 --> 00:52:20,600
Speaker 2: some of the issues regarding a number of these scenarios.

870
00:52:20,600 --> 00:52:23,320
Speaker 2: Science advances, like I said in previous episode, kind of

871
00:52:23,320 --> 00:52:26,680
Speaker 2: like a swine mold navigating a maze of understanding. And

872
00:52:26,920 --> 00:52:29,440
Speaker 2: when do we decide to not let it explore a

873
00:52:29,440 --> 00:52:32,719
Speaker 2: particular corridor or to try and slow its pace down

874
00:52:32,719 --> 00:52:33,800
Speaker 2: in a particular corridor.

875
00:52:34,080 --> 00:52:36,480
Speaker 3: Can you even effectively do that? I mean, science is

876
00:52:36,520 --> 00:52:42,200
Speaker 3: not a top down structure. I mean there are structures

877
00:52:42,239 --> 00:52:45,040
Speaker 3: and institutions within it that have some top down control,

878
00:52:45,080 --> 00:52:48,799
Speaker 3: but overall it is sort of like an organism in itself. Yeah,

879
00:52:48,840 --> 00:52:53,480
Speaker 3: it's a worldwide phenomenon where people can independently pursue things,

880
00:52:53,520 --> 00:52:57,880
Speaker 3: I mean, not totally independently. Cooperation is very important to

881
00:52:57,960 --> 00:53:02,920
Speaker 3: how science proceeds. But you know it's very hard to

882
00:53:03,320 --> 00:53:05,239
Speaker 3: you know, put put the lock on it and just

883
00:53:05,239 --> 00:53:06,839
Speaker 3: say nobody can look into this.

884
00:53:07,000 --> 00:53:09,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, especially if there's money to be made, or there

885
00:53:09,719 --> 00:53:14,279
Speaker 2: is a strategic advantage for like a nation state to.

886
00:53:14,320 --> 00:53:17,120
Speaker 3: Acquire or people think either of those things.

887
00:53:17,200 --> 00:53:19,759
Speaker 2: Yeah, if there's whether or not. Yeah, yeah, even if

888
00:53:19,760 --> 00:53:22,520
Speaker 2: there even if there's there's nothing substantial to it at all,

889
00:53:22,560 --> 00:53:24,759
Speaker 2: if there's a possibility of either of those things, it

890
00:53:24,840 --> 00:53:27,760
Speaker 2: may get a fair amount of attention. So the conference

891
00:53:27,800 --> 00:53:30,319
Speaker 2: in question, it resulted in a number of safety guidelines.

892
00:53:30,600 --> 00:53:33,680
Speaker 2: Some research was halted and biosafety levels were established. Some

893
00:53:33,680 --> 00:53:36,880
Speaker 2: of those are still in use today. Frederickson pointed out

894
00:53:36,880 --> 00:53:39,879
Speaker 2: in his paper, though, that some of these guidelines were

895
00:53:39,920 --> 00:53:43,040
Speaker 2: relaxed in seventy eight. By seventy eight, but at the

896
00:53:43,080 --> 00:53:47,000
Speaker 2: time of his writing, none of the more dire biotechnology

897
00:53:47,000 --> 00:53:50,520
Speaker 2: outcomes discussed had come to pass, while many great advancements

898
00:53:50,560 --> 00:53:53,480
Speaker 2: had been made. But he stressed that we shouldn't let

899
00:53:53,560 --> 00:53:56,560
Speaker 2: either factor wayh too heavily on our judgment of the

900
00:53:56,600 --> 00:54:00,000
Speaker 2: precaution exercised at the conference. And I think that is

901
00:54:01,600 --> 00:54:03,680
Speaker 2: something to keep in mind with all these scenarios, Like

902
00:54:05,160 --> 00:54:06,680
Speaker 2: we know that either you know, there were a lot

903
00:54:06,719 --> 00:54:09,319
Speaker 2: of benefits to be gained or there ended up not

904
00:54:09,400 --> 00:54:12,719
Speaker 2: being a threat, But we have to really put ourselves

905
00:54:12,840 --> 00:54:16,160
Speaker 2: in the shoes of the people in the trenches dealing

906
00:54:16,200 --> 00:54:19,239
Speaker 2: with the prospect of some sort of an advancement in

907
00:54:19,280 --> 00:54:20,080
Speaker 2: their given time.

908
00:54:20,560 --> 00:54:22,520
Speaker 3: Well, like we talked about last time. I think it's

909
00:54:22,600 --> 00:54:26,120
Speaker 3: very important when we reflect on the polywater saga for

910
00:54:26,200 --> 00:54:28,880
Speaker 3: our takeaway not to be what a bunch of dummies,

911
00:54:29,160 --> 00:54:32,720
Speaker 3: you know that they like, they're fools, and I'm smarter

912
00:54:32,800 --> 00:54:35,279
Speaker 3: than them because I wouldn't have fallen for polywater. I mean,

913
00:54:35,560 --> 00:54:39,479
Speaker 3: that's silly. We have the benefit of hindsight. We can,

914
00:54:39,680 --> 00:54:41,799
Speaker 3: you know, read how the whole thing unfolded. We know

915
00:54:41,920 --> 00:54:45,480
Speaker 3: the end of the story. A lot of very smart

916
00:54:45,520 --> 00:54:51,279
Speaker 3: and very productive scientists got confused and led into this

917
00:54:51,400 --> 00:54:55,520
Speaker 3: research dead end. And fortunately, you know, we did eventually

918
00:54:55,520 --> 00:54:58,239
Speaker 3: figure it out. Like there was a clarification process that

919
00:54:58,280 --> 00:55:01,400
Speaker 3: went on in the scientific community and eventually it was

920
00:55:01,480 --> 00:55:04,600
Speaker 3: figured out that like, oh, polywater is not real. This

921
00:55:04,800 --> 00:55:08,720
Speaker 3: was mistaken all along in a way that is science

922
00:55:08,800 --> 00:55:11,120
Speaker 3: working the way it's supposed to. I mean, it is

923
00:55:11,239 --> 00:55:15,799
Speaker 3: inevitable in science that some incorrect ideas are going to

924
00:55:15,920 --> 00:55:18,719
Speaker 3: end up are going to be floated and in some

925
00:55:18,800 --> 00:55:22,560
Speaker 3: cases might attract a lot of attention and enthusiasm. But

926
00:55:22,840 --> 00:55:25,319
Speaker 3: the great thing about science is that it is this

927
00:55:25,480 --> 00:55:30,360
Speaker 3: vast collaborative process of gradual clarification where that stuff will

928
00:55:30,640 --> 00:55:34,080
Speaker 3: get sorted out over time. So it's not quite fair to,

929
00:55:35,040 --> 00:55:39,120
Speaker 3: you know, to flog people for having been mistaken for

930
00:55:39,239 --> 00:55:41,520
Speaker 3: some time. It might be fair to flog people if

931
00:55:41,520 --> 00:55:44,360
Speaker 3: they're like really stubborn, you know, and once the evidence

932
00:55:44,400 --> 00:55:46,440
Speaker 3: comes out they refuse to acknowledge it.

933
00:55:46,760 --> 00:55:49,640
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now, another comparison I want to make here, this

934
00:55:50,080 --> 00:55:51,919
Speaker 2: is I think there's a strong comparison to be made

935
00:55:51,920 --> 00:55:56,040
Speaker 2: here between this and the hypothetical polywater scenario, and it

936
00:55:56,160 --> 00:56:01,799
Speaker 2: concerns an HIV AIDS medication by the aim of Retona vir.

937
00:56:04,080 --> 00:56:06,880
Speaker 2: It was originally produced in a crystalline form, and this

938
00:56:07,000 --> 00:56:09,919
Speaker 2: was called form one that was discovered in nineteen ninety six,

939
00:56:10,480 --> 00:56:13,640
Speaker 2: and it was offered in an unrefrigerated capsule. But then

940
00:56:13,640 --> 00:56:16,160
Speaker 2: a couple of years later, form two was discovered with

941
00:56:16,280 --> 00:56:23,560
Speaker 2: significantly lower bioavailability, so less useful as a medication, but

942
00:56:23,680 --> 00:56:27,400
Speaker 2: it also was more stable in this form, and the

943
00:56:27,520 --> 00:56:31,880
Speaker 2: problem quickly became clear that if form two came in

944
00:56:31,960 --> 00:56:35,479
Speaker 2: contact with form one, it would convert Form one into

945
00:56:35,480 --> 00:56:40,120
Speaker 2: form two, and even trace amounts could do this, you know,

946
00:56:40,200 --> 00:56:44,280
Speaker 2: trace amounts in production, and so the pharmaceutical company behind

947
00:56:44,320 --> 00:56:47,680
Speaker 2: it ended up apparently losing millions due to its impact

948
00:56:47,719 --> 00:56:52,160
Speaker 2: on production lines. Eventually, new formulations allowed them to avoid

949
00:56:52,200 --> 00:56:52,920
Speaker 2: the problem.

950
00:56:53,280 --> 00:56:56,040
Speaker 3: So the comparison here would be that kind of like

951
00:56:56,120 --> 00:57:01,799
Speaker 3: the alleged polywater you know, the vasilene apocalypse and or

952
00:57:01,840 --> 00:57:05,279
Speaker 3: the Eisen nine thing, you would have a contagion by

953
00:57:05,320 --> 00:57:09,399
Speaker 3: touch of a chemical form. So like the one touch

954
00:57:09,480 --> 00:57:11,640
Speaker 3: is one comes into contact with the other and it

955
00:57:11,760 --> 00:57:15,120
Speaker 3: changes it and maybe changes property is that you don't

956
00:57:15,120 --> 00:57:17,480
Speaker 3: want changed or important. In this case, it wouldn't affect

957
00:57:17,480 --> 00:57:21,160
Speaker 3: the entire biosphere, but you know, would affect important properties

958
00:57:21,200 --> 00:57:23,320
Speaker 3: of a pharmaceutical as intended.

959
00:57:23,200 --> 00:57:26,120
Speaker 2: Right, right, that's my understanding of it here. But again

960
00:57:26,320 --> 00:57:28,920
Speaker 2: it's also my understanding that they end up finding a

961
00:57:28,960 --> 00:57:32,880
Speaker 2: new formulation that allows them to avoid the problem. Now

962
00:57:32,920 --> 00:57:36,480
Speaker 2: there's another one I want to mention here, vacuum decay. Right,

963
00:57:36,520 --> 00:57:39,200
Speaker 2: So this one's complex and it entails quantum field theory.

964
00:57:39,240 --> 00:57:42,760
Speaker 2: But my best understanding of the idea is that our universe,

965
00:57:42,920 --> 00:57:46,040
Speaker 2: what if it actually has a vacuum state that you

966
00:57:46,040 --> 00:57:50,560
Speaker 2: could describe as a metastable false vacuum, and that suddenly

967
00:57:50,760 --> 00:57:53,720
Speaker 2: if a bubble of lower energy true vacuum were to

968
00:57:53,720 --> 00:57:58,200
Speaker 2: manifest in our university, a quantum tunneling, it would rapidly expand,

969
00:57:58,320 --> 00:58:02,280
Speaker 2: correcting our vacuum to a lower energy true vacuum, and

970
00:58:02,360 --> 00:58:04,960
Speaker 2: rewrite the fundamental laws of physics and alter the masses

971
00:58:04,960 --> 00:58:06,840
Speaker 2: of elementary particles in the process.

972
00:58:07,720 --> 00:58:10,280
Speaker 3: I remember reading about this year's back. I also, of course,

973
00:58:10,440 --> 00:58:13,000
Speaker 3: don't understand the finer points of this, you know, the

974
00:58:13,480 --> 00:58:16,960
Speaker 3: physics involved. But yeah, I remember reading about this and

975
00:58:17,000 --> 00:58:20,880
Speaker 3: thinking like, well, that's kind of interesting, except like, what

976
00:58:20,920 --> 00:58:22,520
Speaker 3: would you do about it? Nothing?

977
00:58:24,240 --> 00:58:27,760
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, if I'm understanding it correctly, it would unmake,

978
00:58:27,880 --> 00:58:30,240
Speaker 2: remake everything in our universe. Life as we know it

979
00:58:30,280 --> 00:58:32,720
Speaker 2: would no longer be possible. Nothing as we know it

980
00:58:32,760 --> 00:58:37,479
Speaker 2: would be possible. But the upside, according to astrophysicist doctor

981
00:58:37,520 --> 00:58:40,560
Speaker 2: Katie Mack, is that since the bubble would expand at

982
00:58:40,560 --> 00:58:45,000
Speaker 2: the speed of light, unmaking or remaking everything into an

983
00:58:45,080 --> 00:58:48,600
Speaker 2: unknowable new form, you would just never know what hit you.

984
00:58:49,840 --> 00:58:50,040
Speaker 3: Yeah.

985
00:58:50,120 --> 00:58:53,800
Speaker 2: Yeah, things would just simply stop being and that's all

986
00:58:53,800 --> 00:58:55,360
Speaker 2: there is to it. So it's like, well, you know,

987
00:58:56,280 --> 00:59:01,120
Speaker 2: not really something to lose sleepover. And again it involves

988
00:59:01,120 --> 00:59:04,560
Speaker 2: like something from outside of our universe becoming part of

989
00:59:04,560 --> 00:59:09,040
Speaker 2: our universe. Like it's it's like a borderline outside context

990
00:59:09,080 --> 00:59:09,880
Speaker 2: problem here.

991
00:59:10,160 --> 00:59:12,920
Speaker 3: Borderline that seems like the kind of definition of an

992
00:59:12,920 --> 00:59:14,440
Speaker 3: outside context problem, isn't.

993
00:59:14,240 --> 00:59:16,360
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, if we've thought of it, then I

994
00:59:16,360 --> 00:59:20,800
Speaker 2: guess we have some context for it, but barely. I

995
00:59:20,840 --> 00:59:23,160
Speaker 2: feel like, yeah, and there's nothing we could do about it,

996
00:59:23,480 --> 00:59:25,480
Speaker 2: And it would be the last if we were to

997
00:59:25,480 --> 00:59:28,200
Speaker 2: worry about it. It would be the last thing we worried about. Yeah,

998
00:59:28,320 --> 00:59:30,800
Speaker 2: all right, And finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't

999
00:59:30,840 --> 00:59:33,960
Speaker 2: at least mention the scenario presented in the series one

1000
00:59:34,000 --> 00:59:37,000
Speaker 2: pilot episode of Look Around You, the two thousand and

1001
00:59:37,000 --> 00:59:41,160
Speaker 2: two parody of nineteen eighties British educational programming. This was

1002
00:59:41,200 --> 00:59:45,720
Speaker 2: created by Robert Popper and Peter Sarah Finowitch. And this

1003
00:59:45,800 --> 00:59:47,400
Speaker 2: is the Helvetica scenario.

1004
00:59:48,320 --> 00:59:50,040
Speaker 3: Didn't this come up on the show just recently?

1005
00:59:50,480 --> 00:59:52,840
Speaker 2: Well, it may have. I do love it and think

1006
00:59:52,840 --> 00:59:55,840
Speaker 2: about it way too often. But yeah, in the pilot,

1007
00:59:56,120 --> 01:00:01,840
Speaker 2: again this is all parody, and this is all surrealistic humor.

1008
01:00:02,440 --> 01:00:05,880
Speaker 2: We learned that under certain unstated conditions, a change can

1009
01:00:05,880 --> 01:00:09,760
Speaker 2: take place in the calcium molecule, causing molecular collapse. In

1010
01:00:09,880 --> 01:00:13,400
Speaker 2: something called the Helvetica scenario. It's not explained, but we

1011
01:00:13,440 --> 01:00:17,280
Speaker 2: see a faceless, agitated human scientist in containment kind of like,

1012
01:00:17,320 --> 01:00:21,400
Speaker 2: you know, pawing at the wall and taking what we've

1013
01:00:21,440 --> 01:00:25,400
Speaker 2: been discussing here. I guess we could loosely imagine some

1014
01:00:25,440 --> 01:00:30,200
Speaker 2: sort of scenario by which cascading calcium collapse would have

1015
01:00:30,440 --> 01:00:34,440
Speaker 2: dire consequences for us in our world, especially since it

1016
01:00:34,480 --> 01:00:37,680
Speaker 2: plays a number of crucial roles in our bodies. So

1017
01:00:38,040 --> 01:00:40,440
Speaker 2: I guess we might imagine that we would sort of

1018
01:00:40,480 --> 01:00:42,760
Speaker 2: melt into blobs of some sort. I'm not sure if

1019
01:00:42,760 --> 01:00:46,200
Speaker 2: we would turn into faceless scientists dudes beating on the wall,

1020
01:00:46,280 --> 01:00:49,920
Speaker 2: but it wouldn't be good if it could happen. Luckily,

1021
01:00:49,960 --> 01:00:53,960
Speaker 2: it cannot happen. But I can't help but imagine that

1022
01:00:54,880 --> 01:00:59,560
Speaker 2: polywater and or ice nine partially inspire the Helvetica scenario

1023
01:01:00,160 --> 01:01:02,000
Speaker 2: presented in this program.

1024
01:01:02,400 --> 01:01:05,840
Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess we keep imagining polywater the polywater apocalypse

1025
01:01:05,880 --> 01:01:09,040
Speaker 3: as it gets into the environment, takes over everything in

1026
01:01:09,040 --> 01:01:11,560
Speaker 3: the environment, and you get like the ending of Kat's

1027
01:01:11,560 --> 01:01:15,000
Speaker 3: Cradle where the world is ice nine. But yeah, I

1028
01:01:15,000 --> 01:01:19,320
Speaker 3: guess the other version to imagine is like doctor Manhattan

1029
01:01:19,440 --> 01:01:22,360
Speaker 3: locked in the room and he gets the poly water

1030
01:01:22,440 --> 01:01:24,320
Speaker 3: inside his body and you just get to watch what

1031
01:01:24,360 --> 01:01:24,960
Speaker 3: happens to him.

1032
01:01:25,000 --> 01:01:27,320
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, and just hope it doesn't get out in

1033
01:01:27,520 --> 01:01:30,760
Speaker 2: any way. Look around you. It gives us a best

1034
01:01:30,800 --> 01:01:33,960
Speaker 2: case scenario for something like this, where it's happened, it's bad,

1035
01:01:34,040 --> 01:01:43,760
Speaker 2: but we keep it locked away.

1036
01:01:45,040 --> 01:01:48,440
Speaker 3: Are you cool if we talk a bit about pathological.

1037
01:01:47,800 --> 01:01:49,920
Speaker 2: Science, Yeah, let's do so.

1038
01:01:50,800 --> 01:01:53,160
Speaker 3: A couple of the big sources that I mentioned in

1039
01:01:53,200 --> 01:01:55,600
Speaker 3: the last episode, that chapter by Philip Ball and the

1040
01:01:55,600 --> 01:02:02,040
Speaker 3: paper by Dennis Rousseau both frame polywater as a key

1041
01:02:02,240 --> 01:02:06,640
Speaker 3: example of what's known as pathological science. I was trying

1042
01:02:06,720 --> 01:02:12,800
Speaker 3: to understand the difference between pathological science and pseudoscience. I

1043
01:02:12,840 --> 01:02:16,080
Speaker 3: don't think there are actually formal definitions that keep these

1044
01:02:16,120 --> 01:02:18,680
Speaker 3: things separate, so instead I just have to infer the

1045
01:02:18,720 --> 01:02:23,200
Speaker 3: difference in how they're usually used. So the distinction I

1046
01:02:23,200 --> 01:02:28,760
Speaker 3: would make is this pseudoscience is fake science, and it's

1047
01:02:28,800 --> 01:02:33,800
Speaker 3: fake science from the beginning. It might be esthetically disguised

1048
01:02:33,840 --> 01:02:37,240
Speaker 3: as science. Maybe it is supposed to look and feel

1049
01:02:37,280 --> 01:02:40,000
Speaker 3: like science to people who can't tell the difference, but

1050
01:02:40,200 --> 01:02:45,120
Speaker 3: it is fundamentally not guided by an earnest search for

1051
01:02:45,400 --> 01:02:50,080
Speaker 3: the truth. It is fundamentally not scientific in its methods,

1052
01:02:50,560 --> 01:02:53,160
Speaker 3: and so it is sort of doomed from the start.

1053
01:02:53,600 --> 01:02:57,800
Speaker 3: There's nothing really scientific about pseudoscience in how it works,

1054
01:02:57,920 --> 01:03:02,400
Speaker 3: maybe only in how it looks, whereas pathological science, I think,

1055
01:03:02,480 --> 01:03:07,080
Speaker 3: is usually referred to science that begins as real science

1056
01:03:07,720 --> 01:03:12,360
Speaker 3: and does attempt to follow the scientific method, but it

1057
01:03:12,400 --> 01:03:16,920
Speaker 3: refers to these projects or cases where genuine researchers are

1058
01:03:17,040 --> 01:03:22,000
Speaker 3: led into error by things like unconscious bias and failure

1059
01:03:22,160 --> 01:03:25,720
Speaker 3: to confront central questions or contradictions. A big thing in

1060
01:03:25,760 --> 01:03:30,240
Speaker 3: how people talk about pathological science, at least as it

1061
01:03:30,240 --> 01:03:35,000
Speaker 3: seems to me, is a failure to ask the right questions.

1062
01:03:35,160 --> 01:03:38,480
Speaker 3: So maybe people are following the scientific method, but they

1063
01:03:38,560 --> 01:03:42,680
Speaker 3: are forming their conclusions based on focusing on the wrong questions,

1064
01:03:44,480 --> 01:03:47,200
Speaker 3: and so polywater seems to be a great example of that.

1065
01:03:47,560 --> 01:03:50,080
Speaker 3: In this paper by Dennis Rousseau, he also uses the

1066
01:03:50,160 --> 01:03:55,080
Speaker 3: examples of cold fusion, another pathological science project, and infinite

1067
01:03:55,160 --> 01:03:59,600
Speaker 3: dilution properties in water principle behind like homeopathy and stuff.

1068
01:04:01,120 --> 01:04:03,280
Speaker 3: What Russeau does in his paper is he tries to

1069
01:04:03,440 --> 01:04:09,400
Speaker 3: identify three overriding characteristics of pathological science. Because of course,

1070
01:04:09,800 --> 01:04:14,360
Speaker 3: you know, it's not entirely useless when people go astray

1071
01:04:14,520 --> 01:04:16,680
Speaker 3: in searching for the truth. You can actually learn a

1072
01:04:16,720 --> 01:04:20,120
Speaker 3: lot from looking how smart people get things wrong, it's

1073
01:04:20,160 --> 01:04:24,800
Speaker 3: a very useful thing to study. So Rousseau first calls

1074
01:04:24,840 --> 01:04:27,480
Speaker 3: to the attention he did not invent the concept of

1075
01:04:27,520 --> 01:04:31,080
Speaker 3: pathological science. The term seems to come from, or at

1076
01:04:31,160 --> 01:04:36,000
Speaker 3: least was made very popular by the Nobel Prize winning

1077
01:04:36,120 --> 01:04:41,840
Speaker 3: chemist Irving Langmuir. Langmuir identified six symptoms of pathological science

1078
01:04:42,120 --> 01:04:45,320
Speaker 3: in a famous talk that he gave in the nineteen fifties.

1079
01:04:45,360 --> 01:04:49,840
Speaker 3: I think, but Russeau tries to condense them into three characteristics,

1080
01:04:50,120 --> 01:04:53,600
Speaker 3: or he condenses langmuir six into two characteristics, and then

1081
01:04:53,640 --> 01:04:56,120
Speaker 3: he adds one of his own. So the first one

1082
01:04:56,120 --> 01:04:59,080
Speaker 3: I want to quote from Russeau here quote the effect

1083
01:04:59,240 --> 01:05:03,480
Speaker 3: being studied is often at the limits of detectability or

1084
01:05:03,480 --> 01:05:08,760
Speaker 3: has a very low statistical significance. So if what he's

1085
01:05:08,760 --> 01:05:11,840
Speaker 3: getting at here is if the claimed effect is very

1086
01:05:11,960 --> 01:05:16,480
Speaker 3: weak or hard to detect, errors of bias can creep

1087
01:05:16,520 --> 01:05:22,480
Speaker 3: into the observation or interpretation process. He identifies especially effects

1088
01:05:22,560 --> 01:05:27,120
Speaker 3: that are not measured by objective numerical readings on instruments,

1089
01:05:27,560 --> 01:05:32,600
Speaker 3: but effects that require visual observation by the experimenter. So

1090
01:05:32,720 --> 01:05:35,840
Speaker 3: if you have to rely on looking with your eyes

1091
01:05:35,880 --> 01:05:38,880
Speaker 3: to see the effect, and the effect is very weak.

1092
01:05:39,320 --> 01:05:42,560
Speaker 3: This is the danger zone for unconscious bias to take

1093
01:05:42,600 --> 01:05:47,320
Speaker 3: over in observation. Also, when effects are very weak or

1094
01:05:47,360 --> 01:05:51,920
Speaker 3: of low statistical significance, you might not be able to

1095
01:05:52,400 --> 01:05:56,760
Speaker 3: establish a clear connection between the size of the effect

1096
01:05:56,880 --> 01:06:00,680
Speaker 3: you see and the size of the very variable that

1097
01:06:00,800 --> 01:06:04,000
Speaker 3: is supposedly causing it. So I don't know, you know,

1098
01:06:04,080 --> 01:06:07,200
Speaker 3: I coat my body in three times as much tiger repellent,

1099
01:06:07,560 --> 01:06:10,160
Speaker 3: and I see the exact same number of tigers, which

1100
01:06:10,200 --> 01:06:10,680
Speaker 3: is zero.

1101
01:06:11,520 --> 01:06:11,720
Speaker 2: You know.

1102
01:06:11,920 --> 01:06:17,560
Speaker 3: So like if you're not establishing a strong correlation between

1103
01:06:17,640 --> 01:06:21,000
Speaker 3: how much you're tweaking the supposed cause and how big

1104
01:06:21,080 --> 01:06:24,600
Speaker 3: the effect is. When you don't see that correlation, that

1105
01:06:24,640 --> 01:06:29,120
Speaker 3: should raise concerns. But also Russeau says, the experiment are

1106
01:06:29,160 --> 01:06:33,760
Speaker 3: involved in pathological science can sometimes wave that concern away

1107
01:06:34,160 --> 01:06:36,840
Speaker 3: by saying, you know, well, we're in the early stages

1108
01:06:36,880 --> 01:06:39,520
Speaker 3: of discovering a new phenomenon. We don't understand all of

1109
01:06:39,560 --> 01:06:42,480
Speaker 3: the variables yet. In some cases that could be true,

1110
01:06:42,680 --> 01:06:45,880
Speaker 3: but that can also be an excuse that allows you

1111
01:06:45,920 --> 01:06:50,160
Speaker 3: to keep believing in a false theoretical model. But I

1112
01:06:50,160 --> 01:06:52,600
Speaker 3: think this is really important when you compare it to

1113
01:06:52,720 --> 01:06:55,240
Speaker 3: the detail that we talked about earlier. Today where a

1114
01:06:55,280 --> 01:06:58,840
Speaker 3: lot of these initial observations about the properties of polywater,

1115
01:06:59,240 --> 01:07:01,720
Speaker 3: you know, the easing ways that stuff was different than

1116
01:07:01,720 --> 01:07:07,640
Speaker 3: regular water. They're observed on tiny, tiny quantities of it,

1117
01:07:08,080 --> 01:07:13,760
Speaker 3: and they're not measured with normal you know, bulk measurement instruments.

1118
01:07:13,800 --> 01:07:19,280
Speaker 3: They're being inferred from visual observation through microscopes, So researchers

1119
01:07:19,280 --> 01:07:24,640
Speaker 3: are relying on things they see through microscopes, acting you know,

1120
01:07:24,880 --> 01:07:28,760
Speaker 3: properties of tiny amounts of something that they're looking at

1121
01:07:28,800 --> 01:07:31,840
Speaker 3: through these lenses. That does seem to be like a

1122
01:07:31,880 --> 01:07:34,920
Speaker 3: real danger zone where you might kind of see what

1123
01:07:34,960 --> 01:07:36,120
Speaker 3: you want to see.

1124
01:07:36,080 --> 01:07:39,080
Speaker 2: You know, from the micro to the macro. This reminds

1125
01:07:39,120 --> 01:07:43,400
Speaker 2: me of some of the pre photography errors in astronomy

1126
01:07:44,120 --> 01:07:47,280
Speaker 2: that we've discussed in the show before, be it the

1127
01:07:47,320 --> 01:07:54,600
Speaker 2: sighting of a potential planetary body, to even the supposed

1128
01:07:54,640 --> 01:07:57,400
Speaker 2: identification of things like canals on Mars and so forth.

1129
01:07:57,680 --> 01:08:02,360
Speaker 3: Perfect connection. Actually, because people often cite Martian canals as

1130
01:08:02,400 --> 01:08:06,680
Speaker 3: a like a core example of pathological science. It's not

1131
01:08:06,840 --> 01:08:11,240
Speaker 3: that it was fake pseudoscience. It was people trying to

1132
01:08:11,360 --> 01:08:14,160
Speaker 3: use the scientific method and trying to be responsible but

1133
01:08:14,320 --> 01:08:17,719
Speaker 3: getting fooled by you know, they were trying to see

1134
01:08:17,720 --> 01:08:20,439
Speaker 3: things with these telescopes that they couldn't get the resolution

1135
01:08:20,560 --> 01:08:23,360
Speaker 3: they needed, and they were making these inferences and then

1136
01:08:23,400 --> 01:08:26,880
Speaker 3: building on that and that was the problem. Yeah, so

1137
01:08:27,200 --> 01:08:29,920
Speaker 3: we got led into this false belief that Mars had

1138
01:08:29,920 --> 01:08:31,080
Speaker 3: these canals.

1139
01:08:30,840 --> 01:08:32,200
Speaker 2: And it was you know, go back and listen to

1140
01:08:32,280 --> 01:08:34,280
Speaker 2: our older episode on it. I forget the title off

1141
01:08:34,280 --> 01:08:35,960
Speaker 2: it offn It might have just been canals of Mars

1142
01:08:36,040 --> 01:08:38,719
Speaker 2: or something, but you know, it was an exciting idea

1143
01:08:38,800 --> 01:08:43,040
Speaker 2: that wasn't impossible at the time. But yeah, it was

1144
01:08:43,080 --> 01:08:44,800
Speaker 2: a lot of it was based on what do I

1145
01:08:44,840 --> 01:08:46,920
Speaker 2: think I see with with well, not the naked eye,

1146
01:08:46,960 --> 01:08:48,599
Speaker 2: but what do I think I see with my eye

1147
01:08:48,600 --> 01:08:49,440
Speaker 2: through a telescope?

1148
01:08:49,680 --> 01:08:55,720
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay. Characteristic number two that Russo identifies of pathological

1149
01:08:55,760 --> 01:09:00,320
Speaker 3: science is a readiness to disregard prevailing ideas and theories.

1150
01:09:01,720 --> 01:09:04,160
Speaker 3: The way he puts it, it's when you know, my

1151
01:09:04,280 --> 01:09:07,840
Speaker 3: new observation, Yeah, it conflicts with all previous experience and

1152
01:09:07,880 --> 01:09:11,360
Speaker 3: with our current best theories. But you're too dogmatically wedded

1153
01:09:11,400 --> 01:09:16,799
Speaker 3: to the past. I'm changing everything, you know. Within science,

1154
01:09:17,040 --> 01:09:22,759
Speaker 3: there is always a balance between open mindedness and explanatory conservatism.

1155
01:09:23,240 --> 01:09:26,320
Speaker 3: It is, of course true across the history of science

1156
01:09:26,400 --> 01:09:30,160
Speaker 3: that older theories are superseded by newer, more accurate theories.

1157
01:09:31,160 --> 01:09:34,360
Speaker 3: You know, you can talk about ways that Newton's model

1158
01:09:34,360 --> 01:09:37,360
Speaker 3: of gravity was superseded by Einstein, though it also doesn't

1159
01:09:37,360 --> 01:09:41,759
Speaker 3: really mean Newton was wrong, Like, at certain scales, Newton

1160
01:09:41,840 --> 01:09:43,960
Speaker 3: is still incredibly useful. You know, you can still do

1161
01:09:44,080 --> 01:09:48,240
Speaker 3: Newtonian calculations and make good predictions. But it turns out

1162
01:09:48,280 --> 01:09:52,000
Speaker 3: that you can't use Newton to understand all gravitational phenomena

1163
01:09:52,120 --> 01:09:54,640
Speaker 3: in the world, in the universe. And so you know,

1164
01:09:54,680 --> 01:09:58,240
Speaker 3: Einstein provides an update and a refinement that gets more

1165
01:09:58,280 --> 01:10:00,960
Speaker 3: accuracy in certain ways, and you know, you get that

1166
01:10:01,240 --> 01:10:04,879
Speaker 3: all throughout science. So you have to remain open minded

1167
01:10:05,040 --> 01:10:07,680
Speaker 3: that there might be better theories of reality than the

1168
01:10:07,680 --> 01:10:11,040
Speaker 3: ones we're using now. At the same time, we have

1169
01:10:11,120 --> 01:10:13,439
Speaker 3: the theories we have now because they're really good and

1170
01:10:13,479 --> 01:10:18,160
Speaker 3: they consistently make good, accurate predictions. And most of the time,

1171
01:10:18,160 --> 01:10:20,280
Speaker 3: when somebody thinks they've come up with a new model

1172
01:10:20,360 --> 01:10:23,920
Speaker 3: that changes everything, they're probably wrong. Yeah.

1173
01:10:24,000 --> 01:10:29,080
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's exceptional moments and time and exceptional individuals have

1174
01:10:29,280 --> 01:10:32,840
Speaker 2: proven the exception. You know, are you the one that

1175
01:10:32,920 --> 01:10:37,679
Speaker 2: has reinvented things and broken through to the other side. Maybe,

1176
01:10:38,080 --> 01:10:39,480
Speaker 2: but it is unlikely.

1177
01:10:39,880 --> 01:10:42,599
Speaker 3: Well, also, I think of your theory is revolutionary, and

1178
01:10:42,680 --> 01:10:47,639
Speaker 3: it contradicts a lot of common experience or prevailing theories.

1179
01:10:47,720 --> 01:10:50,880
Speaker 3: It should have a good a good account of why,

1180
01:10:51,160 --> 01:10:53,760
Speaker 3: like what's going on there? Why did we get this

1181
01:10:54,200 --> 01:10:56,880
Speaker 3: previous mistake? And result of this theory is actually better.

1182
01:10:58,560 --> 01:11:01,000
Speaker 3: So and one thing I was thinking about is this

1183
01:11:01,080 --> 01:11:05,479
Speaker 3: is one way that the social virtues of science come in.

1184
01:11:05,479 --> 01:11:08,200
Speaker 3: In my view, what we mean when we talk about

1185
01:11:08,240 --> 01:11:13,000
Speaker 3: science can't really be done by one person alone or

1186
01:11:13,040 --> 01:11:18,400
Speaker 3: by one team. It is a diverse, global, professional and

1187
01:11:18,479 --> 01:11:23,360
Speaker 3: social culture that strengthens itself by acting as a community

1188
01:11:23,920 --> 01:11:28,120
Speaker 3: to process new ideas and information and sort truth from error.

1189
01:11:28,680 --> 01:11:31,360
Speaker 3: And one of the tools in its arsenal, of course,

1190
01:11:31,520 --> 01:11:36,240
Speaker 3: is replication or experiment. New ideas need to be tested

1191
01:11:36,280 --> 01:11:41,280
Speaker 3: through critical experiments, and if somebody claims revolutionary experimental results

1192
01:11:41,320 --> 01:11:43,439
Speaker 3: that don't fit with our best theories of the world,

1193
01:11:43,960 --> 01:11:47,000
Speaker 3: other scientists try to repeat that experiment themselves and see

1194
01:11:47,000 --> 01:11:49,760
Speaker 3: if they get the same results. And here we get

1195
01:11:49,840 --> 01:11:54,759
Speaker 3: to Rousseau's third characteristic of pathological science. He says, essentially,

1196
01:11:54,880 --> 01:12:00,360
Speaker 3: the investigator avoids decisive experiments that could potentially rule out

1197
01:12:00,400 --> 01:12:01,799
Speaker 3: their revolutionary theory.

1198
01:12:02,439 --> 01:12:02,879
Speaker 2: Quote.

1199
01:12:03,240 --> 01:12:07,000
Speaker 3: To avoid confronting the truth, the investigator selects experiments that

1200
01:12:07,040 --> 01:12:11,000
Speaker 3: do nothing except perhaps add another significant figure to the

1201
01:12:11,080 --> 01:12:15,000
Speaker 3: result or measure a variant of the phenomenon. The investigator

1202
01:12:15,040 --> 01:12:18,120
Speaker 3: never finds the time to complete the critical measurement, which

1203
01:12:18,120 --> 01:12:21,799
Speaker 3: could bring down the whole house of cards. This connects

1204
01:12:21,800 --> 01:12:24,040
Speaker 3: to what we were talking about with polywater, where all

1205
01:12:24,080 --> 01:12:27,400
Speaker 3: this stuff's going on while there's never been a really good,

1206
01:12:27,560 --> 01:12:30,840
Speaker 3: high quality chemical analysis of polywater to say, are we

1207
01:12:30,960 --> 01:12:33,280
Speaker 3: sure we know what it is? Are we sure this

1208
01:12:33,439 --> 01:12:34,200
Speaker 3: is just water?

1209
01:12:35,280 --> 01:12:39,759
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, Like the one thing that could really answer

1210
01:12:39,760 --> 01:12:43,120
Speaker 2: the question and determine whether we should proceed or not. Well,

1211
01:12:43,200 --> 01:12:46,479
Speaker 2: let's not do that. Let's just keep proceding anyway. And

1212
01:12:46,520 --> 01:12:48,599
Speaker 2: there may be more to that. As we've discussed with polywater,

1213
01:12:48,640 --> 01:12:53,360
Speaker 2: there are other practical reasons of why that major step

1214
01:12:53,400 --> 01:12:57,240
Speaker 2: hasn't been taken with polywater, being the amount of polywater

1215
01:12:57,320 --> 01:12:58,120
Speaker 2: that is available.

1216
01:12:58,280 --> 01:13:01,599
Speaker 3: If it is practically difficult, that's almost kind that makes

1217
01:13:01,640 --> 01:13:04,839
Speaker 3: it easier to perpetuate, you know, to move on without

1218
01:13:04,880 --> 01:13:09,360
Speaker 3: asking this critical central question. Now, what if somebody else

1219
01:13:09,479 --> 01:13:12,479
Speaker 3: does that critical experiment and reveals your new discovery to

1220
01:13:12,520 --> 01:13:16,000
Speaker 3: be wrong. In some cases, you will get people ignoring

1221
01:13:16,040 --> 01:13:19,320
Speaker 3: the finding or criticizing the method. For some reason your

1222
01:13:19,360 --> 01:13:24,519
Speaker 3: results are not acceptable, maybe you did the experiment wrong again.

1223
01:13:24,640 --> 01:13:28,840
Speaker 3: You know, this is not usually regarded as good behavior retrospectively,

1224
01:13:28,920 --> 01:13:31,120
Speaker 3: but people can get really caught up, you know, in

1225
01:13:31,439 --> 01:13:32,880
Speaker 3: trying to pursue their programs.

1226
01:13:33,200 --> 01:13:34,719
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean there are a number of human factors

1227
01:13:34,760 --> 01:13:37,759
Speaker 2: that go into this too, anyway, the ego, sun, time,

1228
01:13:38,280 --> 01:13:41,280
Speaker 2: some costs, so much so, so many different factors.

1229
01:13:41,640 --> 01:13:46,360
Speaker 3: I would argue science is a superhuman process, but individual

1230
01:13:46,439 --> 01:13:51,559
Speaker 3: scientists are humans. And one thing Rousseau points out that

1231
01:13:51,800 --> 01:13:54,559
Speaker 3: I think I would totally agree with is that in

1232
01:13:54,600 --> 01:13:58,360
Speaker 3: these historical examples where you get scientists getting caught up

1233
01:13:58,360 --> 01:14:03,360
Speaker 3: in pathological science, they're usually not doing so consciously. They

1234
01:14:03,400 --> 01:14:08,560
Speaker 3: are falling victim to unconscious bias while genuinely believing themselves

1235
01:14:08,560 --> 01:14:10,679
Speaker 3: to be on the right track. You might get little

1236
01:14:10,680 --> 01:14:12,880
Speaker 3: moments of doubt, like you could ask the question like,

1237
01:14:13,240 --> 01:14:15,760
Speaker 3: why isn't more of an effort made to pursue that

1238
01:14:15,880 --> 01:14:19,760
Speaker 3: one really decisive central experiment. But you know that kind

1239
01:14:19,760 --> 01:14:23,559
Speaker 3: of our motivations can be unconsciously affected by biases as well.

1240
01:14:24,439 --> 01:14:26,840
Speaker 3: You know, like what seems like the most important thing

1241
01:14:26,840 --> 01:14:29,000
Speaker 3: to spend your time on can also be affected by

1242
01:14:29,120 --> 01:14:33,400
Speaker 3: unconscious biases. You may get the occasional conscious fraud, but

1243
01:14:33,600 --> 01:14:36,040
Speaker 3: I think it's like most people who have the will

1244
01:14:36,080 --> 01:14:37,920
Speaker 3: and intent to do that sort of thing do not

1245
01:14:38,040 --> 01:14:41,360
Speaker 3: end up working in scientific research. It's not a very

1246
01:14:41,439 --> 01:14:47,160
Speaker 3: natural fit. And yeah, so Rousseau argues that argues that

1247
01:14:47,200 --> 01:14:50,719
Speaker 3: in his experience, deliberate fraud in science is extremely rare.

1248
01:14:51,040 --> 01:14:55,120
Speaker 3: It's the more dangerous cocktail is these kind of sketchy

1249
01:14:55,200 --> 01:14:59,040
Speaker 3: areas where you're relying on these weak results and maybe

1250
01:14:59,200 --> 01:15:03,960
Speaker 3: visual obs or it's this cocktail of self delusion and

1251
01:15:04,040 --> 01:15:07,759
Speaker 3: sloppiness that can sustain a project like this. And again

1252
01:15:07,960 --> 01:15:13,480
Speaker 3: it's important to note that, like, you know, unlike pseudoscience,

1253
01:15:13,520 --> 01:15:17,160
Speaker 3: which tends to never go away, you know, the pseudoscience

1254
01:15:17,160 --> 01:15:19,960
Speaker 3: comes up and it just keeps on going forever. One

1255
01:15:19,960 --> 01:15:22,479
Speaker 3: distinction does seem to be that with these things identified

1256
01:15:22,520 --> 01:15:26,240
Speaker 3: as pathological science, they are transient phenomena. They pop up

1257
01:15:26,320 --> 01:15:28,519
Speaker 3: for a few years and people get excited about and

1258
01:15:28,560 --> 01:15:32,240
Speaker 3: eventually everybody's like, oh, yeah, that's that's not that was

1259
01:15:32,280 --> 01:15:33,400
Speaker 3: all wrong, and they move on.

1260
01:15:33,840 --> 01:15:35,840
Speaker 2: I guess one of the dangers is that you have

1261
01:15:35,920 --> 01:15:39,799
Speaker 2: pathological science. But then what if pseudoscience comes a long

1262
01:15:39,880 --> 01:15:41,639
Speaker 2: and says like, hey, what do you got over there?

1263
01:15:41,840 --> 01:15:42,880
Speaker 3: Well, I think that does happen?

1264
01:15:42,960 --> 01:15:45,680
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then they latch onto it or or you

1265
01:15:45,680 --> 01:15:48,720
Speaker 2: know someone who's like, this is a great story. It's

1266
01:15:48,720 --> 01:15:51,479
Speaker 2: an entertaining story. Let's tell that story and people will

1267
01:15:51,479 --> 01:15:53,400
Speaker 2: love to hear it. And now it's taken on life

1268
01:15:53,400 --> 01:15:57,439
Speaker 2: of its own outside, completely removed from the science system,

1269
01:15:57,800 --> 01:16:01,080
Speaker 2: and therefore now it will live on and for an

1270
01:16:01,120 --> 01:16:05,480
Speaker 2: extended period of time no matter what science decides on it. Yeah,

1271
01:16:05,520 --> 01:16:08,639
Speaker 2: and of course the other factor is on top of that, Well,

1272
01:16:08,680 --> 01:16:11,000
Speaker 2: if I buy into this story, if I buy into

1273
01:16:11,000 --> 01:16:15,000
Speaker 2: the pseudoscience, does it make something easier for me? Does

1274
01:16:15,040 --> 01:16:17,880
Speaker 2: it like, does it give me some sense of hope?

1275
01:16:18,680 --> 01:16:23,840
Speaker 2: Does it sort of distills some anxiety or fear that

1276
01:16:23,920 --> 01:16:26,160
Speaker 2: I have about the world or my place in it?

1277
01:16:26,400 --> 01:16:28,880
Speaker 2: You know, if it becomes useful in that regard to

1278
01:16:28,960 --> 01:16:35,200
Speaker 2: the individual or to corporations or to nation states, then yeah,

1279
01:16:35,280 --> 01:16:36,720
Speaker 2: that just feeds into it more.

1280
01:16:37,120 --> 01:16:40,280
Speaker 3: Or is it entertaining or does it does it flatter

1281
01:16:40,360 --> 01:16:44,960
Speaker 3: my biases? Or yeah, yeah, this may be counterintuitive, but

1282
01:16:46,360 --> 01:16:50,320
Speaker 3: framing it within thinking about the superhuman qualities of the

1283
01:16:50,320 --> 01:16:53,559
Speaker 3: scientific process as a whole, apart from just the individual

1284
01:16:53,680 --> 01:16:58,240
Speaker 3: human qualities of each researcher as a person. I kind

1285
01:16:58,240 --> 01:17:02,439
Speaker 3: of find the whole Polywater store a bit inspiring. You know,

1286
01:17:02,600 --> 01:17:05,720
Speaker 3: it's weird to think of a story of a you know,

1287
01:17:05,960 --> 01:17:11,760
Speaker 3: several years long enterprise of error as inspiring, but I

1288
01:17:11,760 --> 01:17:13,760
Speaker 3: do think of it as kind of inspiring because it

1289
01:17:13,880 --> 01:17:16,040
Speaker 3: shows that, you know, you can have a lot of

1290
01:17:16,080 --> 01:17:18,519
Speaker 3: sunk costs, you can have a lot of error and

1291
01:17:19,880 --> 01:17:24,360
Speaker 3: people fooling themselves into following something that isn't real, but

1292
01:17:24,560 --> 01:17:28,839
Speaker 3: you also get to see how the process eventually corrects

1293
01:17:28,840 --> 01:17:33,439
Speaker 3: itself and see what that involves, Like, how is it

1294
01:17:33,479 --> 01:17:36,400
Speaker 3: that we soort fact from fiction? And we can learn

1295
01:17:36,439 --> 01:17:37,720
Speaker 3: a lot from this kind of thing.

1296
01:17:38,600 --> 01:17:41,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, again, the idea that the system ultimately worked

1297
01:17:41,840 --> 01:17:44,560
Speaker 2: the way it was supposed to with polywater, that we

1298
01:17:44,640 --> 01:17:47,559
Speaker 2: figured out that it wasn't a thing and we moved on,

1299
01:17:48,360 --> 01:17:50,240
Speaker 2: and at the same time we can still look back

1300
01:17:50,280 --> 01:17:53,519
Speaker 2: on it and find the concept and the story of

1301
01:17:53,560 --> 01:17:58,600
Speaker 2: it entertaining and thought provoking. You know, it doesn't did

1302
01:17:58,680 --> 01:18:02,040
Speaker 2: diminish that at all. So so yeah, I agree, this

1303
01:18:02,720 --> 01:18:05,719
Speaker 2: is a fascinating journey, and it serves as an interesting

1304
01:18:05,760 --> 01:18:10,080
Speaker 2: model again to compare to these various other scenarios and

1305
01:18:10,160 --> 01:18:13,560
Speaker 2: hypothetical scenarios. All right, well, shall we go ahead and

1306
01:18:13,600 --> 01:18:14,400
Speaker 2: close it out there?

1307
01:18:14,760 --> 01:18:15,200
Speaker 3: I think so?

1308
01:18:16,000 --> 01:18:18,240
Speaker 2: All right? Just a reminder to everyone out there that

1309
01:18:18,320 --> 01:18:20,360
Speaker 2: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is primarily a science and

1310
01:18:20,360 --> 01:18:24,240
Speaker 2: culture podcast, with core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, short

1311
01:18:24,240 --> 01:18:26,800
Speaker 2: form episodes on Wednesdays and on Fridays. We set aside

1312
01:18:26,800 --> 01:18:28,840
Speaker 2: most serious concerns, so just talk about a weird film

1313
01:18:28,880 --> 01:18:32,360
Speaker 2: on weird House cinema. We have been around for years

1314
01:18:32,360 --> 01:18:35,760
Speaker 2: and years at this point, So if you go to

1315
01:18:35,920 --> 01:18:38,120
Speaker 2: wherever you get your podcasts, look up Stuff to Blow

1316
01:18:38,160 --> 01:18:42,240
Speaker 2: your Mind, you'll find pretty deep audio archive there. You

1317
01:18:42,240 --> 01:18:46,040
Speaker 2: can go back and find topics we've discussed in the past.

1318
01:18:46,080 --> 01:18:48,840
Speaker 2: You can also find topics that we've referenced here in

1319
01:18:48,880 --> 01:18:51,599
Speaker 2: this episode, and we encourage you to do that. Wherever

1320
01:18:51,640 --> 01:18:54,639
Speaker 2: you get the podcast, Just rate, review and subscribe if

1321
01:18:54,640 --> 01:18:54,960
Speaker 2: you can.

1322
01:18:55,640 --> 01:18:59,240
Speaker 3: Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway.

1323
01:18:59,400 --> 01:19:00,800
Speaker 3: If you would like to get in touch with us

1324
01:19:00,840 --> 01:19:03,439
Speaker 3: with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest

1325
01:19:03,479 --> 01:19:05,320
Speaker 3: a topic for the future, or just to say hello.

1326
01:19:05,479 --> 01:19:07,960
Speaker 3: You can email us at contact at stuff to Blow

1327
01:19:07,960 --> 01:19:16,360
Speaker 3: your Mind dot com.

1328
01:19:16,400 --> 01:19:19,360
Speaker 1: Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For

1329
01:19:19,439 --> 01:19:22,240
Speaker 1: more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,

1330
01:19:22,400 --> 01:19:39,600
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.