1
00:00:00,840 --> 00:00:06,520
Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, tour announcement, it's just me. Chuck. Josh isn't

2
00:00:06,559 --> 00:00:07,760
Speaker 1: here for this one. We had to get it out

3
00:00:07,800 --> 00:00:11,520
Speaker 1: the door. So apologies for fifty of stuff you should know.

4
00:00:11,600 --> 00:00:14,440
Speaker 1: But we have added two dates to uh the two

5
00:00:14,480 --> 00:00:17,280
Speaker 1: thousand eighteen tour, and there may be another couple to come.

6
00:00:17,320 --> 00:00:20,560
Speaker 1: You never know. But everybody, we asked Salt Lake City

7
00:00:20,640 --> 00:00:24,200
Speaker 1: ins and Utahn's should we come there, and boy, we

8
00:00:24,239 --> 00:00:28,560
Speaker 1: heard from you, so we're coming. It's that easy. Tuesday October,

9
00:00:29,680 --> 00:00:32,880
Speaker 1: we are coming to Salt Lake City for an evening

10
00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:36,040
Speaker 1: with stuff you should know at the Grand Theater and

11
00:00:36,120 --> 00:00:38,520
Speaker 1: we are super excited. I'll tell you what. You guys

12
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:41,720
Speaker 1: really came through on the emails and social meds and

13
00:00:41,800 --> 00:00:44,000
Speaker 1: let us know that we would see some love if

14
00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:46,800
Speaker 1: we came to Salt Lake City, a city we've talked

15
00:00:46,840 --> 00:00:50,320
Speaker 1: about often in the past. So we are a coming Tuesday,

16
00:00:50,479 --> 00:00:52,920
Speaker 1: October twenty three, and we decided, hey, we're gonna be

17
00:00:52,960 --> 00:00:56,120
Speaker 1: out there, we might as well add another city that

18
00:00:56,160 --> 00:00:59,280
Speaker 1: we've never been to. So it is your lucky day,

19
00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:03,120
Speaker 1: Phoenix eras Zona and dare I say, Tucson and in

20
00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:06,560
Speaker 1: the Greater Phoenix area drive over to Phoenix and come

21
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:11,640
Speaker 1: see us on Wednesday October at the Van Buren. And

22
00:01:11,680 --> 00:01:13,679
Speaker 1: this is also an evening with stuff you should know.

23
00:01:13,840 --> 00:01:15,720
Speaker 1: I don't even know what that means, but it sounds

24
00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:18,720
Speaker 1: a little more regal than normal. So come see us

25
00:01:18,800 --> 00:01:23,560
Speaker 1: October Salt Lake City and Phoenix. Uh, you know what,

26
00:01:23,640 --> 00:01:25,319
Speaker 1: I don't even know if tickets are on sale. I

27
00:01:25,360 --> 00:01:28,120
Speaker 1: believe by the time this announcement goes up, tickets will

28
00:01:28,160 --> 00:01:31,039
Speaker 1: be on sale, and you can go to the Van

29
00:01:31,080 --> 00:01:34,479
Speaker 1: Buren website or to the Grand Theater website to get

30
00:01:34,520 --> 00:01:36,800
Speaker 1: your ticket links. I will try and have them up

31
00:01:36,880 --> 00:01:40,200
Speaker 1: very soon on s y s K live dot com,

32
00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:41,880
Speaker 1: but I don't know if I'll get to that today,

33
00:01:41,920 --> 00:01:44,720
Speaker 1: but look forward soon and we can't wait to see you, guys.

34
00:01:46,360 --> 00:01:49,840
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff you Should Know from House Stuff Works

35
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:59,440
Speaker 1: dot com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. I'm Josh Clark,

36
00:01:59,520 --> 00:02:03,040
Speaker 1: and there's Charles Chuck Bryant, and there's guest producer Tristan

37
00:02:03,160 --> 00:02:07,000
Speaker 1: over there, so it's stuff you should know. I don't

38
00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:09,160
Speaker 1: know how these are going to release, but as you've noticed,

39
00:02:09,200 --> 00:02:12,959
Speaker 1: Tristan weirdly grew out his mustache in the last hour. Again,

40
00:02:14,000 --> 00:02:16,800
Speaker 1: he's quick, He's very fast. He can make it go

41
00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:20,440
Speaker 1: in and out, in and out. Woooo what is that?

42
00:02:21,600 --> 00:02:24,120
Speaker 1: It's like he's growing his mustache and it's sucking it

43
00:02:24,120 --> 00:02:27,160
Speaker 1: back in, sucking it back in, you know, like a

44
00:02:27,360 --> 00:02:31,520
Speaker 1: reverse Plato. Right. Do you remember that Plato set with

45
00:02:31,560 --> 00:02:34,639
Speaker 1: the like a little meat grinder. No, there was one

46
00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:37,120
Speaker 1: where like you could grow a mustache on I dude,

47
00:02:38,240 --> 00:02:41,320
Speaker 1: I think I remember that. I would imagine if you

48
00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:48,000
Speaker 1: could reverse it too. It was called the Plato Nightmare set. Yeah,

49
00:02:48,320 --> 00:02:52,720
Speaker 1: is that your nightmare? Growing Plato mustache? Waking up like that? Yeah,

50
00:02:52,960 --> 00:02:55,160
Speaker 1: I've had that dream about once a week for about

51
00:02:55,200 --> 00:02:57,720
Speaker 1: thirty five years. Like all the rest of you is chuck,

52
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:02,840
Speaker 1: but just your mustaches Wallace and alm it. Yeah, dude. Yesterday,

53
00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:08,440
Speaker 1: I h there was a bad smell. Emily and I

54
00:03:08,480 --> 00:03:09,919
Speaker 1: were having a glass of wine at a wine bar

55
00:03:10,280 --> 00:03:12,519
Speaker 1: and there was a bad smell nearby. I think it

56
00:03:12,600 --> 00:03:15,120
Speaker 1: was a dumpster or something. And they were growing fresh

57
00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:19,680
Speaker 1: herbs at this wine bar, and I rubbed a rosemary

58
00:03:19,720 --> 00:03:25,400
Speaker 1: bush and then swiped it all over my mustache. Uh In.

59
00:03:25,520 --> 00:03:29,440
Speaker 1: Emily's mind was blown. She was just like, oh my God,

60
00:03:30,360 --> 00:03:33,519
Speaker 1: like I can't believe, like that's an actual use for

61
00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:37,400
Speaker 1: facial hair. Yeah, I guess just to hold in that smell.

62
00:03:37,760 --> 00:03:38,920
Speaker 1: It was like, well, you can wipe it on your

63
00:03:38,960 --> 00:03:41,680
Speaker 1: upper lip. It's probably the same thing. Maybe the hair

64
00:03:41,800 --> 00:03:48,080
Speaker 1: retains more essential oils. Which essential oils? Man, people are

65
00:03:48,120 --> 00:03:51,400
Speaker 1: clamoring for that episode. Yeah, we should do that. We

66
00:03:51,400 --> 00:03:53,160
Speaker 1: will eventually. It's been a big part of my life

67
00:03:53,200 --> 00:03:56,839
Speaker 1: for two or twelve years now, essential oils. We'll talk

68
00:03:56,880 --> 00:04:00,400
Speaker 1: about it someday, but not today. No, no, because Chuck's

69
00:04:00,440 --> 00:04:04,920
Speaker 1: gonna stumble through a philosophy podcast. It's a yeah, I

70
00:04:04,920 --> 00:04:08,880
Speaker 1: guess it is philosophy. It's the philosophy of knowledge. Epistemology

71
00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:12,720
Speaker 1: is another way to put it. But specifically, Chuck, we're

72
00:04:12,760 --> 00:04:16,599
Speaker 1: talking today about a little ditty you may have heard

73
00:04:16,640 --> 00:04:20,920
Speaker 1: of before called acams razor, called the Gambler. Have you

74
00:04:21,720 --> 00:04:24,719
Speaker 1: have you ever you've heard of ocums razor before? Right, Well,

75
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:26,720
Speaker 1: so much so that I thought for sure we had

76
00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:29,520
Speaker 1: covered this, But um, I realized that we just talked

77
00:04:29,520 --> 00:04:33,440
Speaker 1: about it quite a bit in the scientific methods. I'm

78
00:04:33,480 --> 00:04:35,599
Speaker 1: not at all surprised because a lot of people say

79
00:04:35,640 --> 00:04:39,760
Speaker 1: that the basis of science, which is how humans approach

80
00:04:40,839 --> 00:04:45,919
Speaker 1: um nature in our universe and us and everything. Scientifically,

81
00:04:46,440 --> 00:04:50,320
Speaker 1: the basis of that is ocams razor and if if

82
00:04:50,360 --> 00:04:52,600
Speaker 1: acams razor sounds familiar but you can't quite place it,

83
00:04:52,640 --> 00:04:57,240
Speaker 1: You've probably heard it as something like um, given two

84
00:04:57,279 --> 00:05:03,120
Speaker 1: possible outcomes or explanations or whatever, the simplest version is

85
00:05:03,160 --> 00:05:06,960
Speaker 1: probably the right one. Yeah, it's a pretty even that,

86
00:05:07,080 --> 00:05:11,159
Speaker 1: in its simplicity is is beautiful. The mere statement itself

87
00:05:12,560 --> 00:05:16,039
Speaker 1: is an example of its simplicity and how wonderful it

88
00:05:16,040 --> 00:05:18,279
Speaker 1: can be just to think, like, yeah, you know what,

89
00:05:18,760 --> 00:05:21,840
Speaker 1: let's get through all the gobbledegook. I think the easiest

90
00:05:22,200 --> 00:05:29,280
Speaker 1: way to explain this, whether it's a a what do

91
00:05:29,320 --> 00:05:33,320
Speaker 1: you call the orb and a photo Yeah, it's not.

92
00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:35,960
Speaker 1: It's not your great grandfather coming to visit you on

93
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:40,320
Speaker 1: a different plane. It's really just an error with your photograph.

94
00:05:40,800 --> 00:05:44,440
Speaker 1: Or it's a it's the flash um yeah, reflecting off

95
00:05:45,240 --> 00:05:49,800
Speaker 1: like water vapor in the air. Or Kennedy probably acted alone.

96
00:05:50,120 --> 00:05:56,800
Speaker 1: Kennedy he shot himself from afar. Yeah. I clearly meant

97
00:05:56,839 --> 00:06:00,920
Speaker 1: to say Oswald acted alone, because that is a plus explanation,

98
00:06:01,040 --> 00:06:09,560
Speaker 1: not this very convoluted deep um plot that goes that

99
00:06:09,680 --> 00:06:13,000
Speaker 1: a hundred people were involved in to assassinate Kennedy. So

100
00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:16,800
Speaker 1: we'll talk about all that, because what you're doing right

101
00:06:16,800 --> 00:06:20,239
Speaker 1: now is has become pretty standard. You're using ocams razor

102
00:06:20,360 --> 00:06:25,440
Speaker 1: to disprove other people's points. There's this is a total

103
00:06:25,680 --> 00:06:31,120
Speaker 1: and complete misuse of ocams razors, not the original intention.

104
00:06:31,480 --> 00:06:34,919
Speaker 1: The original intention had nothing to do with saying that's wrong.

105
00:06:35,760 --> 00:06:38,920
Speaker 1: Is just a heuristic device, a guide, a rule of

106
00:06:39,040 --> 00:06:43,920
Speaker 1: thumb that tells you that, because things tend to be

107
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:49,640
Speaker 1: more simple in the universe, if you if you're doing something,

108
00:06:49,960 --> 00:06:52,120
Speaker 1: don't make it harder than it has to be. Don't

109
00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:54,640
Speaker 1: add more to it than is needed to get the

110
00:06:54,720 --> 00:06:57,560
Speaker 1: job done. And there's actually a couple of ways to

111
00:06:57,600 --> 00:07:00,719
Speaker 1: put this, and both of them get attributed to William

112
00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:03,919
Speaker 1: of Ockham, who will talk about in a second. But

113
00:07:04,080 --> 00:07:07,400
Speaker 1: one is called he sounds like a baseball manager. But

114
00:07:07,440 --> 00:07:11,560
Speaker 1: one is called the principle of plurality harder to say

115
00:07:11,720 --> 00:07:15,560
Speaker 1: fast than you would think, and that is translated from

116
00:07:15,600 --> 00:07:19,560
Speaker 1: the Latin plurality should not be positive without necessity. And

117
00:07:19,600 --> 00:07:21,880
Speaker 1: the other is the principle of parsimony, which is it

118
00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:24,280
Speaker 1: is pointless to do with more what is done with less.

119
00:07:25,040 --> 00:07:27,360
Speaker 1: From what I understand, they are one and the same

120
00:07:29,040 --> 00:07:33,360
Speaker 1: Oh really, I could not find anyone who could explain

121
00:07:33,440 --> 00:07:36,960
Speaker 1: the difference. And I see them interchangeably, not just like

122
00:07:37,080 --> 00:07:42,040
Speaker 1: on some dudes blog, but unlike you know, the the

123
00:07:42,040 --> 00:07:47,240
Speaker 1: the Internet Encyclopedia Philosophy or the Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy, like

124
00:07:47,240 --> 00:07:51,679
Speaker 1: they don't seem to be different. Well, parsimony, it seems

125
00:07:51,680 --> 00:07:56,560
Speaker 1: different to me because that specifically is like not using resources,

126
00:07:56,640 --> 00:07:59,920
Speaker 1: not spending money if you don't have to. And that's

127
00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:04,040
Speaker 1: SEMs different than plurality. Okay, well then then let's explore it.

128
00:08:04,120 --> 00:08:08,360
Speaker 1: So plurality adding to something, doubling something, maybe just making

129
00:08:08,400 --> 00:08:12,160
Speaker 1: it more than just the singular. He's saying plurality should

130
00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:14,960
Speaker 1: not be positive without necessity, right, so I guess what

131
00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:18,559
Speaker 1: he's saying. Then if they are different, then if you're

132
00:08:19,400 --> 00:08:23,040
Speaker 1: if you're guessing at something, if you're trying to explain something,

133
00:08:24,200 --> 00:08:26,320
Speaker 1: don't make it harder than it is, don't make it

134
00:08:26,360 --> 00:08:31,400
Speaker 1: bigger than is absolutely necessary to explain its sense. Or

135
00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:33,319
Speaker 1: and this is a really big point that we'll see

136
00:08:33,360 --> 00:08:37,520
Speaker 1: in a minute. William of Ockham really was saying, don't

137
00:08:38,200 --> 00:08:41,640
Speaker 1: don't add on to something beyond what you know to

138
00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:45,400
Speaker 1: be true and correct, which a lot of people over time.

139
00:08:45,480 --> 00:08:49,120
Speaker 1: And I think he actually maybe explicitly wasn't empirersist have

140
00:08:49,240 --> 00:08:52,720
Speaker 1: said William of Ockham wasn't empirersist. He was saying that

141
00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:57,160
Speaker 1: that you need to experience things through your senses to

142
00:08:57,360 --> 00:09:01,000
Speaker 1: know that they are true. Yes, empirical evidence if I

143
00:09:01,080 --> 00:09:03,160
Speaker 1: can look at it or smell it, or taste it

144
00:09:03,800 --> 00:09:07,480
Speaker 1: or feel it. What's the fifth one? Uh, tickle it,

145
00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:09,920
Speaker 1: tickle it. And then the sixth one, of course we

146
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:12,720
Speaker 1: know means Bruce Willis is really dead. See the ghost

147
00:09:12,760 --> 00:09:17,520
Speaker 1: of it. Uh. Yeah, if there's no empirical evidence, if

148
00:09:17,559 --> 00:09:21,640
Speaker 1: you cannot experience it with one of your senses, then um,

149
00:09:21,679 --> 00:09:24,640
Speaker 1: it's it's poo pooed. So so it is so. And

150
00:09:24,679 --> 00:09:28,240
Speaker 1: those two things, like you really especially modern science, especially

151
00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:31,800
Speaker 1: science these days, you put them together. It's given two things.

152
00:09:32,080 --> 00:09:36,640
Speaker 1: Go with the simpler explanation, and you don't don't believe

153
00:09:36,640 --> 00:09:39,560
Speaker 1: anything that you can't sense one way or another through

154
00:09:39,600 --> 00:09:42,720
Speaker 1: your senses empirically. Right, you put those together, you have

155
00:09:42,760 --> 00:09:46,040
Speaker 1: the basis for modern science. And so the idea that

156
00:09:46,040 --> 00:09:50,960
Speaker 1: that that things that are simpler are better, or the

157
00:09:51,000 --> 00:09:54,120
Speaker 1: idea that the universe is simpler, Like when you start

158
00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:57,760
Speaker 1: to think about it. It's all over the place, right,

159
00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:00,880
Speaker 1: Like the the idea that the you universe is based

160
00:10:00,920 --> 00:10:05,120
Speaker 1: on simpler being better is found everywhere, right, So, like

161
00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:11,160
Speaker 1: there's things that things have fewer parts, things that require

162
00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:16,120
Speaker 1: less energy, the encapsulation of larger ideas into smaller amounts

163
00:10:16,120 --> 00:10:18,880
Speaker 1: of words or theories or whatever. All these things are

164
00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:21,920
Speaker 1: very much prized by humanity. So it just kind of

165
00:10:21,960 --> 00:10:26,240
Speaker 1: makes sense that acams razor is a sensible thing and

166
00:10:26,280 --> 00:10:29,400
Speaker 1: that you could actually use it to uncover the mysteries

167
00:10:29,440 --> 00:10:33,240
Speaker 1: of the universe. But again, that's not really necessarily the case,

168
00:10:33,320 --> 00:10:35,360
Speaker 1: to tell you the truth. No, I mean, there's there's

169
00:10:35,400 --> 00:10:38,040
Speaker 1: gonna be a lot of uh and and this stuff

170
00:10:38,120 --> 00:10:39,640
Speaker 1: is kind of fun, just a lot of back and

171
00:10:39,720 --> 00:10:43,720
Speaker 1: forth on Acam's razor throughout this whole thing, because there

172
00:10:43,800 --> 00:10:45,680
Speaker 1: is no idea and that's kind of part of the

173
00:10:45,720 --> 00:10:48,720
Speaker 1: whole jam of Bockham's razor, because there is no right

174
00:10:48,800 --> 00:10:53,080
Speaker 1: or wrong here. You know, what's weird is right? A

175
00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:55,760
Speaker 1: lot of people point to it though that it's this

176
00:10:55,800 --> 00:10:58,320
Speaker 1: is right. I just proved you wrong, razor and that's

177
00:10:58,360 --> 00:11:01,040
Speaker 1: just not true. And all right, should we take a

178
00:11:01,040 --> 00:11:04,960
Speaker 1: break early? Okay? Yeah, I think we should take a

179
00:11:04,960 --> 00:11:06,439
Speaker 1: break now because I need to get my head wrapped

180
00:11:06,440 --> 00:11:09,280
Speaker 1: around this, and we'll come back getting the way back

181
00:11:09,320 --> 00:11:35,120
Speaker 1: machine and visit Billy Ackum. Okay, so now Billy Ackum

182
00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:43,600
Speaker 1: sounds like a recording star. Oh sure, like Billy Ocean. Yeah,

183
00:11:44,040 --> 00:11:47,640
Speaker 1: get also my razor and get into my car, so

184
00:11:47,720 --> 00:11:50,800
Speaker 1: that we should say the razor too. It's a philosophical term.

185
00:11:50,920 --> 00:11:55,000
Speaker 1: It's the term of philosophy. The razor used to scrape

186
00:11:55,040 --> 00:11:59,400
Speaker 1: away unnecessary stuff. So it's Acom's razor. So let's go

187
00:11:59,440 --> 00:12:07,880
Speaker 1: back and me Billy Yakum shown. Yeah. And you wrote

188
00:12:07,880 --> 00:12:10,920
Speaker 1: this by the way back in your in your article

189
00:12:11,000 --> 00:12:14,400
Speaker 1: righting days uh, And you point out very astutely that

190
00:12:14,480 --> 00:12:16,840
Speaker 1: this is from a time in our history of the

191
00:12:16,840 --> 00:12:19,880
Speaker 1: world where you might not have had a surname. You

192
00:12:19,920 --> 00:12:23,200
Speaker 1: may have been William of Ockham, which is the case here,

193
00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:27,480
Speaker 1: which is in England. And he lived between about twelve

194
00:12:27,559 --> 00:12:32,400
Speaker 1: eighty five and thirty nine, and he was a philosophical

195
00:12:32,480 --> 00:12:36,200
Speaker 1: dude and a Franciscan monk. And he very much like

196
00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:39,400
Speaker 1: you point out, took his valid poverty very seriously and

197
00:12:39,480 --> 00:12:45,480
Speaker 1: lived a very meager, humble life. Yeah he did. He

198
00:12:45,559 --> 00:12:49,079
Speaker 1: also expected the church to take the same vow of party,

199
00:12:49,520 --> 00:12:52,000
Speaker 1: and he actually butted heads with the Church quite a bit,

200
00:12:52,160 --> 00:12:54,400
Speaker 1: so much so that he ended up getting excommunicated, as

201
00:12:54,400 --> 00:12:57,640
Speaker 1: we'll see. But he um, he was the real deal

202
00:12:57,720 --> 00:13:01,040
Speaker 1: as far as like a true believer went. The weird

203
00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:03,760
Speaker 1: thing about William of Akam was that he was also

204
00:13:04,520 --> 00:13:10,840
Speaker 1: a genuinely independent thinker and a rationalist, which at the

205
00:13:10,880 --> 00:13:15,320
Speaker 1: time rationalism and the church did not go hand in hand.

206
00:13:15,960 --> 00:13:19,560
Speaker 1: They were there was really not much rationalism. So for

207
00:13:19,600 --> 00:13:23,280
Speaker 1: an idea of the idea for this this upstart Franciscan

208
00:13:23,360 --> 00:13:26,720
Speaker 1: monk to start questioning the ideas of the church. And

209
00:13:26,800 --> 00:13:30,040
Speaker 1: not only that, but how the the leaders of the

210
00:13:30,120 --> 00:13:32,920
Speaker 1: church conducted themselves and how much money they surrounded themselves

211
00:13:32,960 --> 00:13:35,679
Speaker 1: with and how much power they had politically. This is

212
00:13:35,760 --> 00:13:38,080
Speaker 1: it was a big deal, all right. Yeah. And he

213
00:13:38,240 --> 00:13:41,559
Speaker 1: is not He did not invent this line of thought, um,

214
00:13:41,600 --> 00:13:44,000
Speaker 1: as much as he's probably attributed to this to people

215
00:13:44,000 --> 00:13:47,000
Speaker 1: that uh just know him from like a jeopardy board.

216
00:13:47,640 --> 00:13:49,800
Speaker 1: He h. This is already a line of thought well

217
00:13:49,920 --> 00:13:54,079
Speaker 1: established by this time in the medieval times, and he

218
00:13:54,160 --> 00:13:57,559
Speaker 1: was just he kind of boiled it down to those

219
00:13:57,600 --> 00:14:00,200
Speaker 1: two sentences that you were talking about. So in one

220
00:14:00,280 --> 00:14:02,800
Speaker 1: could understand it, he could put it on a bumper

221
00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:05,120
Speaker 1: sticker and a T shirt and sell it. Right. So

222
00:14:05,200 --> 00:14:08,319
Speaker 1: it was Aristotle who was the guy who came up

223
00:14:08,360 --> 00:14:12,400
Speaker 1: with this idea first, that that simplicity equals perfection, and

224
00:14:12,480 --> 00:14:15,880
Speaker 1: perfection equal simplicity, said, the more perfect a nature is,

225
00:14:16,240 --> 00:14:20,200
Speaker 1: the fewer means it requires for its operation. Right, So

226
00:14:20,400 --> 00:14:22,960
Speaker 1: that makes sense. That speak to me. But then over time,

227
00:14:22,960 --> 00:14:26,640
Speaker 1: in between Aristotle and William it kind of got expanded.

228
00:14:26,760 --> 00:14:28,880
Speaker 1: So let me give you an example of that same

229
00:14:28,920 --> 00:14:32,720
Speaker 1: thought from Robert gross Test who was an early scientist

230
00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:36,080
Speaker 1: also a theologian I believe too. Here was his his

231
00:14:36,280 --> 00:14:39,600
Speaker 1: version of it, That is better and more valuable, which

232
00:14:39,600 --> 00:14:44,280
Speaker 1: requires fewer other circumstances being equal, For if one thing

233
00:14:44,320 --> 00:14:47,720
Speaker 1: we're demonstrated from many and another thing from fewer equally

234
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:51,160
Speaker 1: known premises, clearly that is better, which is from fewer

235
00:14:51,280 --> 00:14:54,360
Speaker 1: because it makes us no quickly, just as a universal

236
00:14:54,400 --> 00:14:58,160
Speaker 1: demonstration is better than particular because it produces knowledge from

237
00:14:58,160 --> 00:15:03,400
Speaker 1: fewer premises. Is that similarly in natural science, in moral science,

238
00:15:03,600 --> 00:15:07,239
Speaker 1: and in metaphysics, the best is that which needs no premises,

239
00:15:07,600 --> 00:15:11,760
Speaker 1: and that better that which needs the fewer other circumstances

240
00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:15,880
Speaker 1: being equal. Boy, the ironies there are rich, right. So

241
00:15:15,960 --> 00:15:19,320
Speaker 1: within less than a hundred years, William of Ockham comes

242
00:15:19,360 --> 00:15:22,600
Speaker 1: along and he's just like, plurality should not be positive

243
00:15:22,600 --> 00:15:26,200
Speaker 1: without necessity Robert, and Robert was like, well, yeah, I

244
00:15:26,240 --> 00:15:28,560
Speaker 1: guess that's one way you could say it. So so

245
00:15:28,640 --> 00:15:32,400
Speaker 1: I want to say something though, Um, before we keep going,

246
00:15:32,480 --> 00:15:36,280
Speaker 1: Chuck actually found a correction of my own article that

247
00:15:36,400 --> 00:15:39,760
Speaker 1: I missed before. What's that? It turns out that they

248
00:15:39,800 --> 00:15:45,640
Speaker 1: think now that a another um theologian slash scientist from

249
00:15:45,880 --> 00:15:50,120
Speaker 1: uh William of Ockham's era named John Dunn Scottis was

250
00:15:50,200 --> 00:15:53,720
Speaker 1: the one who really encapsulated this this principle of plurality

251
00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:56,320
Speaker 1: and principle of parsimony, and that it was a guy

252
00:15:56,640 --> 00:16:01,160
Speaker 1: from the nineteenth century, William Rowan Hamilton's Irish mathematician, that

253
00:16:01,280 --> 00:16:04,440
Speaker 1: he was the one who misattributed it to William a. Ackam.

254
00:16:04,440 --> 00:16:10,320
Speaker 1: So is William Avakam just a uh and no nothing, no, no,

255
00:16:10,600 --> 00:16:14,000
Speaker 1: His writings definitely included this stuff and he never took

256
00:16:14,040 --> 00:16:17,320
Speaker 1: credit for this. But they think that that it was

257
00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:21,720
Speaker 1: actually um John's done scott Is who encamped who encapsulated

258
00:16:21,760 --> 00:16:23,840
Speaker 1: it the way that we tend to think of it

259
00:16:23,880 --> 00:16:28,360
Speaker 1: now bumper stickers, but right, But William of Akam thought

260
00:16:28,440 --> 00:16:31,000
Speaker 1: this way and he was a radical thinker and a rationalist,

261
00:16:31,040 --> 00:16:33,520
Speaker 1: as we'll see. Right, And like you kind of teased

262
00:16:33,520 --> 00:16:35,840
Speaker 1: out earlier, he did butt heads with the church over this.

263
00:16:36,680 --> 00:16:39,920
Speaker 1: He wrote a lot about it, and the church was

264
00:16:39,960 --> 00:16:43,120
Speaker 1: not into it, and Pope John the what is that

265
00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:47,600
Speaker 1: twenty two? Um? He they kind of squared off on this,

266
00:16:48,320 --> 00:16:51,360
Speaker 1: and of course the pope wins all battles, at least

267
00:16:51,400 --> 00:16:55,040
Speaker 1: back then. Uh. And he was excommunicated and several of

268
00:16:55,120 --> 00:16:58,920
Speaker 1: his his monk brothers, and I take that to mean

269
00:16:59,400 --> 00:17:04,439
Speaker 1: not real. There's right, we're excommunicated. In thirty eight he

270
00:17:04,480 --> 00:17:08,280
Speaker 1: went to Munich seeking refuge. He was protected there by

271
00:17:08,320 --> 00:17:14,160
Speaker 1: Emperor Louis the fourth, and uh, Ultimately he went out

272
00:17:14,240 --> 00:17:18,720
Speaker 1: because he started writing papers about Pope John the twenty

273
00:17:18,760 --> 00:17:22,959
Speaker 1: two saying he's a heretic, and people ultimately believed him. Right.

274
00:17:23,320 --> 00:17:26,000
Speaker 1: He he definitely made some pretty convincing points. And he

275
00:17:26,080 --> 00:17:29,720
Speaker 1: also again like if you're saying I took avour poverty,

276
00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:33,640
Speaker 1: the church really should too. And the church isn't poverty

277
00:17:33,680 --> 00:17:35,840
Speaker 1: stricken and you are. That gives you a little more

278
00:17:35,840 --> 00:17:39,199
Speaker 1: credibility from the outside as well. So there there's some

279
00:17:39,240 --> 00:17:42,959
Speaker 1: reasons why William of Bakum is this theologian, a devout

280
00:17:43,000 --> 00:17:46,640
Speaker 1: Franciscan monk, is looked upon as one of the fathers

281
00:17:46,680 --> 00:17:52,000
Speaker 1: of western um science like the foundation of Western science right,

282
00:17:52,359 --> 00:17:55,000
Speaker 1: or science in general um. And the reason why is

283
00:17:55,200 --> 00:17:59,080
Speaker 1: he argued against the prevailing ideas at the time, which

284
00:17:59,160 --> 00:18:02,840
Speaker 1: is called medieval synthesis. And this is very much championed

285
00:18:02,840 --> 00:18:06,280
Speaker 1: by Thomas Aquinas, who's a famous theologian. I believe he

286
00:18:06,359 --> 00:18:08,479
Speaker 1: was a saint, and one of the reasons he was

287
00:18:08,560 --> 00:18:11,800
Speaker 1: canonized was because of this. Thinking about this, but the

288
00:18:11,840 --> 00:18:15,879
Speaker 1: whole medieval synthesis thing was that God was first and

289
00:18:16,000 --> 00:18:21,160
Speaker 1: foremost everything. Right, you were, you were a member of

290
00:18:21,200 --> 00:18:24,240
Speaker 1: the church, just as much as you were a member

291
00:18:24,280 --> 00:18:27,600
Speaker 1: of your country, a citizen of your country. Um. All

292
00:18:27,800 --> 00:18:31,480
Speaker 1: human knowledge came from God, and Thomas Aquinas he was

293
00:18:31,600 --> 00:18:35,480
Speaker 1: it wasn't just like the end. Thomas Aquinas used philosophy

294
00:18:35,560 --> 00:18:38,640
Speaker 1: to prove that sentiment that all human knowledge came from God,

295
00:18:38,640 --> 00:18:41,399
Speaker 1: and here is how. And basically it took the idea

296
00:18:41,400 --> 00:18:43,720
Speaker 1: of cause and effect and said that you can trace

297
00:18:43,840 --> 00:18:47,040
Speaker 1: every effect back to a cause, back to another effect

298
00:18:47,080 --> 00:18:49,399
Speaker 1: back to another cause. But ultimately you were going to

299
00:18:50,040 --> 00:18:52,960
Speaker 1: end up on God, and that all of our conceptions

300
00:18:52,960 --> 00:18:56,480
Speaker 1: of everything arose from God's conception, and that God will

301
00:18:56,640 --> 00:18:59,359
Speaker 1: that we understand things this way, which means that this

302
00:18:59,440 --> 00:19:01,840
Speaker 1: is the perfect way to understand it, which means it's

303
00:19:01,920 --> 00:19:05,280
Speaker 1: right right. So that is not what William Wacam thought.

304
00:19:05,320 --> 00:19:09,800
Speaker 1: He was again a rationalist who said, um, no, we

305
00:19:09,960 --> 00:19:12,919
Speaker 1: tend to think things or things because that is that

306
00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:16,160
Speaker 1: arises in the human mind from cognition, not from God.

307
00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:20,240
Speaker 1: And this dude was not a heretic. He believed that

308
00:19:20,320 --> 00:19:25,159
Speaker 1: you didn't apply rationalism to God, that God required faith,

309
00:19:25,800 --> 00:19:29,160
Speaker 1: and rationalism stood on its own, it was a different thing,

310
00:19:29,440 --> 00:19:32,960
Speaker 1: and you couldn't know God through your senses. God was elsewhere.

311
00:19:33,080 --> 00:19:35,760
Speaker 1: Leave God out of this. And the fact that he

312
00:19:36,080 --> 00:19:39,520
Speaker 1: was able to really successfully lay like a philosophical groundwork

313
00:19:39,600 --> 00:19:42,200
Speaker 1: for this, a rational groundwork for it. It's one thing

314
00:19:42,280 --> 00:19:44,959
Speaker 1: today to be like I'm a secular humanist. You know,

315
00:19:45,240 --> 00:19:50,200
Speaker 1: I'm rational. Forget the church that's today. This is at

316
00:19:50,240 --> 00:19:53,439
Speaker 1: a time when this guy is saying this and the

317
00:19:53,520 --> 00:19:55,600
Speaker 1: Church has the power to burn you at the stake.

318
00:19:56,080 --> 00:20:00,359
Speaker 1: Like he was. He was a stand up rational thing, right,

319
00:20:00,440 --> 00:20:03,119
Speaker 1: which kind of makes him a hero of rationality today.

320
00:20:03,160 --> 00:20:06,240
Speaker 1: But don't. And this is another perfect example of how

321
00:20:06,400 --> 00:20:10,000
Speaker 1: Akam's razor gets confused. Akam himself gets confused too. He's

322
00:20:10,040 --> 00:20:12,520
Speaker 1: a hero of science. But it was also one of

323
00:20:12,520 --> 00:20:15,840
Speaker 1: the more devout human beings walking the earth at the time.

324
00:20:16,160 --> 00:20:18,800
Speaker 1: It was a monk for basically his whole life, and

325
00:20:18,840 --> 00:20:22,720
Speaker 1: also had a metal band called Medieval Synthesis. Oh that

326
00:20:22,840 --> 00:20:24,399
Speaker 1: is a good name, isn't it. So he was he

327
00:20:24,480 --> 00:20:27,440
Speaker 1: was just a conundrum. Yeah, he was a conundrum for sure.

328
00:20:27,440 --> 00:20:30,240
Speaker 1: And again he got excommunicated. He had to escape by horse,

329
00:20:31,080 --> 00:20:35,800
Speaker 1: stolen horse. I mean, he was not very monk like. No,

330
00:20:36,080 --> 00:20:39,080
Speaker 1: But all right, So we were talking earlier about empirical evidence,

331
00:20:39,320 --> 00:20:42,240
Speaker 1: um and how that kind of fits in here, and

332
00:20:42,240 --> 00:20:45,359
Speaker 1: the fact that if you can't you know, like you

333
00:20:45,600 --> 00:20:47,199
Speaker 1: you know the sky is blue because you look up

334
00:20:47,200 --> 00:20:50,280
Speaker 1: and you see it's blue. You you know a bird

335
00:20:50,560 --> 00:20:52,479
Speaker 1: makes a whistle because you can hear the bird make

336
00:20:52,520 --> 00:20:56,680
Speaker 1: a whistle. So uh, it's very easy to sort of

337
00:20:57,080 --> 00:21:01,800
Speaker 1: use that um and say sure, but if you don't,

338
00:21:02,240 --> 00:21:04,919
Speaker 1: if you can't see it or hear it empirically or

339
00:21:04,920 --> 00:21:08,680
Speaker 1: any of the senses experience it. Uh, it's very easy

340
00:21:08,720 --> 00:21:11,960
Speaker 1: to poopoo. And you give a great example here, um

341
00:21:11,960 --> 00:21:15,440
Speaker 1: with Lawrence and Einstein, and kind of which one would

342
00:21:15,440 --> 00:21:19,520
Speaker 1: win out. So both of these guys, both physicists, UM,

343
00:21:19,560 --> 00:21:22,359
Speaker 1: Einstein obviously more popular. We we'll see for a very

344
00:21:22,400 --> 00:21:27,320
Speaker 1: important reason. They both had the conclusion mathematically that with

345
00:21:27,400 --> 00:21:29,880
Speaker 1: the space time continuum, the closer we get to moving

346
00:21:29,880 --> 00:21:32,040
Speaker 1: at the speed of light, the more we slow down,

347
00:21:32,080 --> 00:21:35,520
Speaker 1: which is hard to wrap your head around. So Lawrence

348
00:21:35,560 --> 00:21:38,840
Speaker 1: comes out and says, explains it away because of changes

349
00:21:38,920 --> 00:21:41,280
Speaker 1: that take place in the ether, which he might as

350
00:21:41,320 --> 00:21:45,760
Speaker 1: well have said, a bit of magic happens. Uh, Einstein didn't.

351
00:21:46,280 --> 00:21:49,240
Speaker 1: And so the one we talked about today is Einstein

352
00:21:49,359 --> 00:21:53,439
Speaker 1: and not Lawrence. That explanation of Einstein was more rooted

353
00:21:53,440 --> 00:21:56,400
Speaker 1: in science, and he didn't say something wacky like the ether,

354
00:21:56,760 --> 00:21:59,960
Speaker 1: which is something empirically you can't see or smell or taste.

355
00:22:00,760 --> 00:22:05,520
Speaker 1: So Einstein, you know, he won that great battle. Yeah,

356
00:22:05,520 --> 00:22:08,439
Speaker 1: he very famously said, he goes, I don't know what's what,

357
00:22:08,600 --> 00:22:10,239
Speaker 1: but I know it ain't got nothing to do with

358
00:22:10,280 --> 00:22:17,239
Speaker 1: no ether. And one day my brain's gonna end up

359
00:22:17,240 --> 00:22:19,840
Speaker 1: in a jar and some guy's garage in New Jersey, right,

360
00:22:19,960 --> 00:22:22,479
Speaker 1: and everybody will love that picture of me with my

361
00:22:22,560 --> 00:22:25,119
Speaker 1: tongue sticking out, and Walter math that will play me

362
00:22:25,200 --> 00:22:29,920
Speaker 1: in a romantic comedy. So Lawrence violated that principle of plurality, right,

363
00:22:30,080 --> 00:22:35,200
Speaker 1: it added something to this that required an additional basically

364
00:22:35,240 --> 00:22:37,680
Speaker 1: like a leap of faith. There was no empirical evidence

365
00:22:37,760 --> 00:22:39,480
Speaker 1: that there was such a thing as the ether. And

366
00:22:39,480 --> 00:22:42,080
Speaker 1: he said, did I say ether? And I didn't mean ether?

367
00:22:42,160 --> 00:22:46,040
Speaker 1: And every went no, no, no, it's too lady. And

368
00:22:46,119 --> 00:22:49,360
Speaker 1: he's still I mean, he's a respected he's a respected physicist. Still,

369
00:22:49,400 --> 00:22:51,560
Speaker 1: it's not like he was some crackpot or anything like that,

370
00:22:51,760 --> 00:22:54,960
Speaker 1: because if you put his equations in Einstein's equations side

371
00:22:54,960 --> 00:22:58,159
Speaker 1: by side, they came to the same conclusions. It was

372
00:22:58,240 --> 00:23:03,760
Speaker 1: just explaining how Lawrence seems to have misstepped, right, But

373
00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:06,840
Speaker 1: he was obviously at least as brilliant as Einstein. When

374
00:23:06,880 --> 00:23:09,720
Speaker 1: it comes to that, he's just a little nuts apparently. So,

375
00:23:09,720 --> 00:23:12,159
Speaker 1: so he violates the principle of plurality. And now we

376
00:23:12,280 --> 00:23:16,800
Speaker 1: understand relativity rather than Lawrence's manic ravings. Yeah, and I

377
00:23:16,800 --> 00:23:19,120
Speaker 1: don't believe we mentioned there's a word for that. If

378
00:23:19,119 --> 00:23:23,000
Speaker 1: you can't prove it empirically, it doesn't exist. It's called positivism. Yes,

379
00:23:23,400 --> 00:23:26,560
Speaker 1: positivism isn't about having a good attitude, right, and so

380
00:23:26,680 --> 00:23:30,160
Speaker 1: this is and this also happened during Einstein's working days too.

381
00:23:30,320 --> 00:23:33,760
Speaker 1: There was a guy named Ernest Mock, and Ernest Mock

382
00:23:34,040 --> 00:23:39,240
Speaker 1: was so Ernest Mock, thank you. That's that's way better

383
00:23:39,280 --> 00:23:46,240
Speaker 1: than Ernest Ernst Mock. Um. He was so nuts on empiricism.

384
00:23:46,280 --> 00:23:48,399
Speaker 1: He was. It was an early I think he was

385
00:23:48,440 --> 00:23:50,680
Speaker 1: a physicist, if not a mathematician, one of the two.

386
00:23:51,040 --> 00:23:56,520
Speaker 1: And he he basically said, like, molecules don't exist. All

387
00:23:56,560 --> 00:23:59,040
Speaker 1: this whole bubble over molecules and atoms and all this stuff,

388
00:23:59,080 --> 00:24:02,040
Speaker 1: you're all crazy. We can't see him. They don't exist.

389
00:24:02,560 --> 00:24:05,679
Speaker 1: So there's a there's this kind of ironic twist that

390
00:24:05,760 --> 00:24:10,000
Speaker 1: came from Einstein's working career where he actually um he

391
00:24:10,720 --> 00:24:16,040
Speaker 1: beat Lorenz, his rival to this theory, through this through

392
00:24:16,080 --> 00:24:21,720
Speaker 1: Ockham's razor. But he also disproved this idea of um

393
00:24:21,760 --> 00:24:25,919
Speaker 1: that Earnst Mock, this thing about only believing what you

394
00:24:25,960 --> 00:24:28,080
Speaker 1: can sense with your your senses, this kind of other

395
00:24:28,119 --> 00:24:31,560
Speaker 1: part of Ockham's Razor, and a subsequent paper that came

396
00:24:31,600 --> 00:24:34,840
Speaker 1: a few years later that showed that molecules do exist.

397
00:24:35,240 --> 00:24:38,800
Speaker 1: So the idea that that ocams razor can be used

398
00:24:39,280 --> 00:24:42,399
Speaker 1: both ways is something that just keeps coming up again

399
00:24:42,480 --> 00:24:45,320
Speaker 1: and again and again, and we'll we'll talk about how

400
00:24:45,400 --> 00:25:12,960
Speaker 1: after a break. How about that? Okay, Chuck, So who

401
00:25:13,119 --> 00:25:18,000
Speaker 1: who uses occams raiser? Obviously? Um, everyone who was throwing

402
00:25:18,000 --> 00:25:21,560
Speaker 1: money down on the cock fight between Laurence and Einstein,

403
00:25:21,680 --> 00:25:24,240
Speaker 1: we're using atoms razor. They all went with Einstein's because

404
00:25:24,240 --> 00:25:28,320
Speaker 1: this is the simplest, right, Yeah, who else uses it? Well?

405
00:25:28,359 --> 00:25:30,879
Speaker 1: I mean you have a great section in this article

406
00:25:30,880 --> 00:25:34,119
Speaker 1: about skeptics. Uh, and I know over the years of

407
00:25:34,119 --> 00:25:35,879
Speaker 1: this show, over the past ten years, we've had a

408
00:25:35,920 --> 00:25:41,520
Speaker 1: lot of um minor scraps with the skeptic community. That's

409
00:25:41,520 --> 00:25:44,240
Speaker 1: a pretty minor is that fair to say? Yeah, because

410
00:25:44,280 --> 00:25:46,159
Speaker 1: I mean we have our skeptical side for sure. But

411
00:25:46,240 --> 00:25:49,879
Speaker 1: there you know, when it comes to skepticism and skeptics,

412
00:25:49,920 --> 00:25:52,520
Speaker 1: there's ah, it's it's sort of on a on a

413
00:25:52,600 --> 00:25:55,760
Speaker 1: sliding scale. There's a range of how you might feel

414
00:25:55,760 --> 00:25:58,800
Speaker 1: about certain things, and you very astutely, i think, point

415
00:25:58,800 --> 00:26:01,760
Speaker 1: out that if you are a true skeptic, then you

416
00:26:01,800 --> 00:26:05,240
Speaker 1: will not use Akam's razor, like I did earlier, as

417
00:26:05,240 --> 00:26:10,160
Speaker 1: a tool to disprove something, right that you will only

418
00:26:10,240 --> 00:26:13,679
Speaker 1: use it as a tool to consider different explanations. And

419
00:26:13,680 --> 00:26:17,000
Speaker 1: that's there's a big difference there. There is so like

420
00:26:17,000 --> 00:26:19,880
Speaker 1: like that whole idea of seeing a ghost on film, right,

421
00:26:20,040 --> 00:26:26,879
Speaker 1: So there there's there's this example where somebody could say, Um,

422
00:26:27,080 --> 00:26:30,399
Speaker 1: so you just explain something about light and refracting and

423
00:26:30,520 --> 00:26:34,399
Speaker 1: something with the film, and um, there was moisture in

424
00:26:34,440 --> 00:26:37,800
Speaker 1: the air. What isn't it just simpler to say no,

425
00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:41,600
Speaker 1: that was a ghost exactly. And in that case, UM,

426
00:26:41,640 --> 00:26:44,520
Speaker 1: if you're a skeptic, you would you would Um, you're

427
00:26:44,680 --> 00:26:48,040
Speaker 1: you pull a little tough of your hair out, maybe um,

428
00:26:48,240 --> 00:26:52,719
Speaker 1: just start scraping at your cheeks until you bleed. Uh. Ideally,

429
00:26:52,840 --> 00:26:56,320
Speaker 1: what you would say is, um, I get what you're saying,

430
00:26:56,400 --> 00:26:59,560
Speaker 1: but you're bringing something into this that we don't know exists,

431
00:26:59,560 --> 00:27:01,399
Speaker 1: like we do no light exists. We do know it

432
00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:04,120
Speaker 1: refracts off of vapor. We do know how this can

433
00:27:04,160 --> 00:27:08,120
Speaker 1: be captured on film. So yes, that sounds very complicated. Um,

434
00:27:08,200 --> 00:27:13,639
Speaker 1: but the the ghosts don't exist as far as we know,

435
00:27:13,720 --> 00:27:17,360
Speaker 1: We can't sense them empirically. But I would keep my

436
00:27:17,520 --> 00:27:20,480
Speaker 1: mind open to the idea that ghost could consumably exists.

437
00:27:20,640 --> 00:27:24,080
Speaker 1: The fact that I just showed that this is reflect

438
00:27:24,119 --> 00:27:26,359
Speaker 1: the reflection of light off of water vapor in this

439
00:27:26,440 --> 00:27:31,240
Speaker 1: graveyard does not mean that your hypothesis about ghosts existing

440
00:27:31,320 --> 00:27:34,800
Speaker 1: is wrong. It just means that's what's in this picture. Right.

441
00:27:34,960 --> 00:27:38,280
Speaker 1: That's a true skeptic, right, because because things happen, and

442
00:27:38,320 --> 00:27:44,080
Speaker 1: they and later on the more fantastical explanation could be

443
00:27:44,119 --> 00:27:47,440
Speaker 1: true and has been true. Uh. And you point out

444
00:27:47,520 --> 00:27:51,080
Speaker 1: very uh, very plainly here that there's a couple of

445
00:27:51,119 --> 00:27:53,760
Speaker 1: problems with this, And to me, this kind of says

446
00:27:53,760 --> 00:27:57,320
Speaker 1: it all, is that it's subjective. Like the whole notion

447
00:27:57,400 --> 00:28:01,480
Speaker 1: of determining is this is the most simple explanation is

448
00:28:01,520 --> 00:28:06,080
Speaker 1: completely subjective because the ghost explanation, one person might say, no,

449
00:28:06,200 --> 00:28:10,280
Speaker 1: the ghost explanation is clearly the simplest because I can

450
00:28:10,320 --> 00:28:13,800
Speaker 1: just say one word ghost, see there, uh, and then

451
00:28:14,080 --> 00:28:16,760
Speaker 1: you can fire right back. Well, no, I can fire

452
00:28:16,800 --> 00:28:22,359
Speaker 1: back two words um, photographic mishap, right, or maybe just

453
00:28:22,440 --> 00:28:25,240
Speaker 1: mishap if they want to, like keep it completely equal.

454
00:28:25,520 --> 00:28:28,800
Speaker 1: And that's the most simple. So it's completely subjective as

455
00:28:28,800 --> 00:28:32,000
Speaker 1: to which one or anything that it's the most simple

456
00:28:32,359 --> 00:28:35,639
Speaker 1: right exactly, And then again the the idea that you

457
00:28:35,680 --> 00:28:39,120
Speaker 1: can use acoms razor to disprove something just by showing

458
00:28:39,200 --> 00:28:43,600
Speaker 1: that that it's not the simplest explanation. That doesn't that's

459
00:28:43,600 --> 00:28:46,680
Speaker 1: not correct, that's not right, And so scientists will use

460
00:28:46,720 --> 00:28:49,959
Speaker 1: acoms razor and all sorts of different disciplines um like

461
00:28:50,040 --> 00:28:52,880
Speaker 1: for example, if you're making an artificial neural network, right

462
00:28:52,920 --> 00:28:57,480
Speaker 1: like a learning machine, you um, you might use decision trees,

463
00:28:57,560 --> 00:28:59,920
Speaker 1: and you will use some sort of simple decision tree

464
00:29:00,040 --> 00:29:02,520
Speaker 1: over a more complicated one that can get the same

465
00:29:02,600 --> 00:29:06,000
Speaker 1: job done. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily the right one,

466
00:29:06,440 --> 00:29:11,760
Speaker 1: but they're there are demonstrably good reasons for picking a

467
00:29:11,840 --> 00:29:15,000
Speaker 1: simpler one over. It's less likely to break, it takes

468
00:29:15,080 --> 00:29:18,480
Speaker 1: less time, it takes less energy to come to the computations.

469
00:29:18,520 --> 00:29:21,080
Speaker 1: There are things that are valuable about it, but it

470
00:29:21,160 --> 00:29:25,280
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that the other one is just wrong. And again,

471
00:29:25,520 --> 00:29:28,479
Speaker 1: when you're using akams razors, say, if you're making a

472
00:29:28,480 --> 00:29:31,880
Speaker 1: neural network, or you're pouring through a data set or

473
00:29:31,920 --> 00:29:34,200
Speaker 1: something like that, or you're trying to interpret a big

474
00:29:34,320 --> 00:29:39,160
Speaker 1: data set, you're you're making again like you're saying, not

475
00:29:39,320 --> 00:29:43,640
Speaker 1: just a subjective judgment about what's simpler. But that's all

476
00:29:43,680 --> 00:29:46,800
Speaker 1: there is to it. You're making a subjective judgment about

477
00:29:46,880 --> 00:29:51,200
Speaker 1: what's simpler, not what's right. It's not saying what's right.

478
00:29:51,200 --> 00:29:53,680
Speaker 1: And this is a recurring theme that you just have

479
00:29:53,800 --> 00:29:56,680
Speaker 1: to know because there's so many people out there that

480
00:29:56,920 --> 00:30:01,680
Speaker 1: use acams razor to disprove other people wells ideas, and

481
00:30:01,720 --> 00:30:04,320
Speaker 1: that's just not at all what it was originally intended for.

482
00:30:04,400 --> 00:30:06,760
Speaker 1: It's just a complete perversion of it, and it's just

483
00:30:06,920 --> 00:30:09,360
Speaker 1: wrong and that's not how science works. So if you

484
00:30:09,400 --> 00:30:12,360
Speaker 1: see somebody out there doing this, um, thump them in

485
00:30:12,400 --> 00:30:16,240
Speaker 1: the forehead. Yeah. And boy, then when you get into theology,

486
00:30:16,240 --> 00:30:19,680
Speaker 1: it gets really interesting because this is sort of a

487
00:30:19,720 --> 00:30:25,720
Speaker 1: prime example of the simplest explanation from a believer's point

488
00:30:25,760 --> 00:30:28,960
Speaker 1: of view, is very easy to say, No, the Big

489
00:30:29,000 --> 00:30:34,600
Speaker 1: Bang is incredibly complex and complicated, and it's pretty clear

490
00:30:34,680 --> 00:30:37,959
Speaker 1: that the easiest explanation here and the simplest thing is

491
00:30:38,320 --> 00:30:41,880
Speaker 1: God created life in seven days, right, But that's also

492
00:30:42,000 --> 00:30:46,560
Speaker 1: discounting the process that it took God to create earth,

493
00:30:46,640 --> 00:30:49,120
Speaker 1: if that's what you believe, and just kind of bundle

494
00:30:49,160 --> 00:30:51,920
Speaker 1: it up in a tidy package, say God created life.

495
00:30:52,200 --> 00:30:56,000
Speaker 1: The Big Bang is super complicated, so and very coincidental.

496
00:30:56,600 --> 00:30:58,760
Speaker 1: Um if you really look at it. So this is

497
00:30:58,800 --> 00:31:03,040
Speaker 1: the simplest x nation. Akams razor proves that God exists. Right,

498
00:31:03,240 --> 00:31:06,480
Speaker 1: and so that's been used time and time again by

499
00:31:06,480 --> 00:31:10,240
Speaker 1: by creationists, right, or people who believe in ghosts, or

500
00:31:10,360 --> 00:31:15,880
Speaker 1: people who um counter empiricism in a lot of voice. Right. Um.

501
00:31:15,920 --> 00:31:18,160
Speaker 1: But on the other hand, you can you can find

502
00:31:18,240 --> 00:31:21,120
Speaker 1: atheists who use akams razor to show that God does

503
00:31:21,160 --> 00:31:25,120
Speaker 1: not exist, because their point is if the universe tends

504
00:31:25,120 --> 00:31:28,840
Speaker 1: towards simplicity and God is perfect and simplicity is perfection,

505
00:31:29,160 --> 00:31:31,400
Speaker 1: then if God exists in the universe would be a

506
00:31:31,400 --> 00:31:34,200
Speaker 1: lot more simpler. There wouldn't be this big Bang thing

507
00:31:34,240 --> 00:31:37,200
Speaker 1: that we have that happened it would you You would

508
00:31:37,240 --> 00:31:40,680
Speaker 1: be right creationists, and the fact that you're wrong means

509
00:31:40,760 --> 00:31:44,000
Speaker 1: that means that there is no God, which is just like,

510
00:31:44,600 --> 00:31:46,680
Speaker 1: my head is starting to spin a little bit with this,

511
00:31:47,040 --> 00:31:49,480
Speaker 1: but it's a good example of how you can use

512
00:31:49,560 --> 00:31:52,880
Speaker 1: acams razor. Both sides can use acams razor to disprove

513
00:31:52,920 --> 00:31:56,040
Speaker 1: the other person's point, which against shows how it's not

514
00:31:56,160 --> 00:31:58,240
Speaker 1: meant to be used that way. Well, yeah, and then

515
00:31:58,280 --> 00:32:00,280
Speaker 1: you point out to and talk about a heads inner

516
00:32:00,680 --> 00:32:06,640
Speaker 1: like something like photosynthesis is a pretty complex mechanism and nature. Um,

517
00:32:07,120 --> 00:32:09,440
Speaker 1: but I mean, who's to say that that isn't the

518
00:32:09,480 --> 00:32:13,800
Speaker 1: simplest way to achieve food production and a plant maybe

519
00:32:13,840 --> 00:32:16,040
Speaker 1: that is the simplest. Yeah, we have no way of

520
00:32:16,080 --> 00:32:18,880
Speaker 1: knowing that there is a simpler model of the universe

521
00:32:19,080 --> 00:32:22,640
Speaker 1: or photosynthesis or of a shark or anything like that,

522
00:32:23,240 --> 00:32:27,040
Speaker 1: and that even something that does seem superfluous, we can't

523
00:32:27,080 --> 00:32:30,440
Speaker 1: say that in the larger scheme of things that it's

524
00:32:30,480 --> 00:32:35,640
Speaker 1: actually the simplest way to do that, right, So, like

525
00:32:35,640 --> 00:32:38,480
Speaker 1: like a shark seems like men, maybe do you need

526
00:32:38,920 --> 00:32:41,520
Speaker 1: that extra fin or something like that, or or does

527
00:32:41,560 --> 00:32:43,960
Speaker 1: a cow really need eight stomachs? Or do we really

528
00:32:44,000 --> 00:32:47,600
Speaker 1: need two kidneys? But what this what this point is saying,

529
00:32:47,680 --> 00:32:50,800
Speaker 1: is that there's we don't have the information to look

530
00:32:50,800 --> 00:32:52,840
Speaker 1: at everything on such a grand scheme of things to

531
00:32:52,880 --> 00:32:55,880
Speaker 1: say no, if they're if humans only had one kidney,

532
00:32:55,960 --> 00:32:58,360
Speaker 1: this other larger system would break down and this is

533
00:32:58,360 --> 00:33:00,840
Speaker 1: actually the simplest way to do it, right, Or there's

534
00:33:00,880 --> 00:33:04,600
Speaker 1: a cow with one stomach that we can compare it to, right, right, exactly,

535
00:33:04,680 --> 00:33:08,080
Speaker 1: So this whole thing. This is the point, Chuck, where

536
00:33:08,080 --> 00:33:15,640
Speaker 1: I reach this very glaring idea that Acams Razor or

537
00:33:15,920 --> 00:33:20,160
Speaker 1: what Aristotle said, that that that simplicity is is perfection.

538
00:33:21,080 --> 00:33:24,840
Speaker 1: That's all man made, that's human made. That's a human

539
00:33:24,880 --> 00:33:29,640
Speaker 1: made concept. To value simplicity is human made. It is

540
00:33:29,880 --> 00:33:32,240
Speaker 1: possible the universe complicated. You can come up with all

541
00:33:32,240 --> 00:33:36,280
Speaker 1: sorts of examples of the universe being seemingly pretty complicated.

542
00:33:36,600 --> 00:33:40,600
Speaker 1: Just the universe itself seems pretty complicated, frankly, right, So

543
00:33:41,400 --> 00:33:45,760
Speaker 1: that doesn't necessarily mean that the universe tends towards simplicity. Um,

544
00:33:45,840 --> 00:33:50,640
Speaker 1: it seems like humans value simplicity and the universe uses

545
00:33:50,680 --> 00:33:54,200
Speaker 1: simplicity a lot. But that doesn't mean that simplicity is

546
00:33:54,400 --> 00:33:58,400
Speaker 1: perfection or correctness. That's a human construct. Well yeah, but

547
00:33:58,440 --> 00:34:01,720
Speaker 1: and like let's say, in terms of engineering, it's probably

548
00:34:01,720 --> 00:34:05,200
Speaker 1: a decent model to think, Hey, the more complex the

549
00:34:05,280 --> 00:34:08,200
Speaker 1: system is that I'm engineering, the more things that are

550
00:34:08,320 --> 00:34:10,719
Speaker 1: to break. So we should probably try and make it

551
00:34:10,760 --> 00:34:13,600
Speaker 1: as simple as possible. That still gets the job done.

552
00:34:14,280 --> 00:34:17,920
Speaker 1: But that's not to say that it can be rudimentary,

553
00:34:17,960 --> 00:34:19,960
Speaker 1: like you might need it might need to be a

554
00:34:19,960 --> 00:34:24,680
Speaker 1: little bit complicated to run at its most efficient, you know, yeah, exactly,

555
00:34:25,040 --> 00:34:27,280
Speaker 1: or art. I mean, that's a whole different kind of worms.

556
00:34:28,400 --> 00:34:32,239
Speaker 1: You know, that's entirely subjective, like is uh. You might

557
00:34:32,280 --> 00:34:38,239
Speaker 1: find one drummer that says um less is more. You

558
00:34:38,320 --> 00:34:42,200
Speaker 1: just need to provide that basic backbeat and leave room. Uh,

559
00:34:42,239 --> 00:34:45,080
Speaker 1: And then you Stewart Copeland comes in the room and

560
00:34:45,080 --> 00:34:47,319
Speaker 1: and laughs and punches you in the face because you

561
00:34:47,320 --> 00:34:50,480
Speaker 1: look like sting thumps here in the head, you know.

562
00:34:50,600 --> 00:34:53,560
Speaker 1: So that's that's entirely subjective when it comes to art,

563
00:34:53,640 --> 00:34:55,680
Speaker 1: like you know, you've been to a museum and seen

564
00:34:55,719 --> 00:35:00,719
Speaker 1: a a twelve inch by twelve inch square painted red,

565
00:35:02,120 --> 00:35:04,760
Speaker 1: and then you've also seen Jackson Pollock or Free to Carlo.

566
00:35:07,960 --> 00:35:11,960
Speaker 1: So again, it's just a subjective as to simplicity and

567
00:35:12,000 --> 00:35:14,480
Speaker 1: maybe I don't know, can you apply to art? Am

568
00:35:14,480 --> 00:35:17,279
Speaker 1: I am I wrong? There? No, not necessarily. I think

569
00:35:17,280 --> 00:35:20,719
Speaker 1: that's a that's a good point because it's still it's

570
00:35:20,800 --> 00:35:26,240
Speaker 1: it's subjectively valuing something, whether it's complexity or whether it's simplicity.

571
00:35:26,600 --> 00:35:29,560
Speaker 1: It's it doesn't mean it's right. That's the point, right

572
00:35:29,600 --> 00:35:31,959
Speaker 1: that I think that your point is one staring right

573
00:35:32,360 --> 00:35:35,279
Speaker 1: over the other. Yeah, I think that's my point. And

574
00:35:35,280 --> 00:35:38,359
Speaker 1: then there's also plenty of circumstances where Akham's razor just

575
00:35:38,560 --> 00:35:44,480
Speaker 1: doesn't help very much, like very famously um Ptolemy's idea

576
00:35:44,719 --> 00:35:48,000
Speaker 1: of the um universe. The Earth is the center of

577
00:35:48,040 --> 00:35:50,759
Speaker 1: the universe. Geocentric universe, I think, is what it's called,

578
00:35:51,560 --> 00:35:54,520
Speaker 1: where the Earth is the center of the universe, the Sun,

579
00:35:54,600 --> 00:35:56,480
Speaker 1: the Moon, and all the planets and all the stars

580
00:35:56,520 --> 00:36:00,279
Speaker 1: revolve around Earth. Is known to be wrong now, but

581
00:36:00,320 --> 00:36:02,680
Speaker 1: for a long time that's what everyone thought until the

582
00:36:02,719 --> 00:36:08,520
Speaker 1: Copernican Revolution, where we realized that not a universe, but

583
00:36:08,560 --> 00:36:11,120
Speaker 1: our solar system is Sun centered, and the Sun is

584
00:36:11,160 --> 00:36:14,680
Speaker 1: at the center and the Earth is actually moving around it. Um.

585
00:36:14,800 --> 00:36:16,719
Speaker 1: The thing is is, if you look at if you

586
00:36:16,760 --> 00:36:21,760
Speaker 1: look at the explanations between the two, they are pretty close,

587
00:36:22,440 --> 00:36:28,520
Speaker 1: and one is not necessarily less um simple than the other.

588
00:36:30,000 --> 00:36:32,680
Speaker 1: And if you put them side by side ockhams Razer,

589
00:36:32,800 --> 00:36:35,640
Speaker 1: it doesn't really help. You have to dig a little

590
00:36:35,640 --> 00:36:38,239
Speaker 1: deeper and figure it out that I actually know this

591
00:36:38,280 --> 00:36:41,680
Speaker 1: one's right based on these observations. We think this one's right,

592
00:36:41,760 --> 00:36:44,960
Speaker 1: but it has nothing necessarily to do with complexity. And

593
00:36:45,000 --> 00:36:47,680
Speaker 1: then on the other side of the equation, just because

594
00:36:47,719 --> 00:36:51,319
Speaker 1: something is complex doesn't mean that it's wrong. So the

595
00:36:51,360 --> 00:36:56,080
Speaker 1: next time somebody starts flailing some acams razor stuff at you,

596
00:36:56,080 --> 00:37:00,960
Speaker 1: you tell them I'm gonna thump you. Do you want

597
00:37:00,960 --> 00:37:06,160
Speaker 1: to be thumbed? Everybody me? Yeah, Well, because they're asking

598
00:37:06,280 --> 00:37:11,399
Speaker 1: for it. Is it just a pretty mild act of violence? Yeah,

599
00:37:12,040 --> 00:37:13,680
Speaker 1: you don't want to be too. You don't want to

600
00:37:13,680 --> 00:37:15,759
Speaker 1: punch someone in the base. No. No, And plus I

601
00:37:15,800 --> 00:37:18,160
Speaker 1: mean like you shouldn't. You shouldn't thump anybody anyway. I

602
00:37:18,239 --> 00:37:21,080
Speaker 1: was totally kidding it. Okay, thanks for setting me up

603
00:37:21,080 --> 00:37:23,799
Speaker 1: for that. One oh one other thing. A lot of

604
00:37:23,800 --> 00:37:28,400
Speaker 1: people say that um OCAM's razor squashes free thought, So

605
00:37:28,440 --> 00:37:30,160
Speaker 1: I think that does kind of tie in with your

606
00:37:30,239 --> 00:37:32,919
Speaker 1: art thing, you know what I mean? Like, feel free

607
00:37:32,920 --> 00:37:35,360
Speaker 1: to go be complex. There's nothing wrong with it, doesn't

608
00:37:36,000 --> 00:37:38,640
Speaker 1: like not everything has to be funneled through this Ockham's

609
00:37:38,719 --> 00:37:43,399
Speaker 1: razor thing and made simpler just to make it better. Well, Chuck,

610
00:37:43,440 --> 00:37:47,919
Speaker 1: we made it through this one sort of. It's better

611
00:37:47,920 --> 00:37:50,280
Speaker 1: than Jackhammers will tell you that I think you did well.

612
00:37:50,640 --> 00:37:53,080
Speaker 1: I think you did as well. Man. That means that

613
00:37:53,160 --> 00:37:56,359
Speaker 1: it was a good episode. If you want to learn

614
00:37:56,400 --> 00:37:59,360
Speaker 1: more about Okam's Razor. You could read my UM socio

615
00:37:59,480 --> 00:38:02,279
Speaker 1: article on the site how Stuff Works dot com just

616
00:38:02,320 --> 00:38:04,080
Speaker 1: typing in the search bar. And since I said so,

617
00:38:04,080 --> 00:38:07,680
Speaker 1: so it's time for listener mail. All right, I'm gonna

618
00:38:07,680 --> 00:38:10,000
Speaker 1: call this North Korea Part two. We heard from a woman.

619
00:38:10,719 --> 00:38:15,560
Speaker 1: Uh and in Australia we were corrected. Just starts with

620
00:38:15,560 --> 00:38:19,439
Speaker 1: the nest there's no awe right. Woman in Australia named

621
00:38:19,440 --> 00:38:23,680
Speaker 1: Clear Sutherland too actually had an interaction and away with

622
00:38:23,719 --> 00:38:28,560
Speaker 1: North Korea when she was editor at Australian newspaper called

623
00:38:29,400 --> 00:38:34,879
Speaker 1: uh little M big X. It's m X, but it's

624
00:38:34,920 --> 00:38:38,400
Speaker 1: just X. Oh is it? No? I don't know. They

625
00:38:38,440 --> 00:38:41,279
Speaker 1: don't say awe before Australia, so oh, I got you.

626
00:38:41,400 --> 00:38:44,960
Speaker 1: Probably not the little land. Well, she's based in Elbourne,

627
00:38:46,239 --> 00:38:49,040
Speaker 1: UM and they have additions in Melbourne, Sydney, in Brisbane.

628
00:38:49,320 --> 00:38:51,400
Speaker 1: And she says during the London Olympics in our daily

629
00:38:51,880 --> 00:38:55,480
Speaker 1: Metal tally graphic we listed North in South Korea as

630
00:38:55,560 --> 00:38:59,840
Speaker 1: a naughty Korea and nice Korea. Uh. Just kind of

631
00:38:59,840 --> 00:39:01,879
Speaker 1: a chekey thing, I guess, she said. We've been doing

632
00:39:01,880 --> 00:39:03,399
Speaker 1: this for about a week when we received a call

633
00:39:03,480 --> 00:39:06,880
Speaker 1: from a Wall Street Journal reporter based in Soul seeking

634
00:39:06,920 --> 00:39:09,600
Speaker 1: comment about the fact that North Korea just issued an

635
00:39:09,600 --> 00:39:13,640
Speaker 1: official condemnation of our paper and its editor. At first,

636
00:39:13,640 --> 00:39:16,840
Speaker 1: our assumption was we were being punked, but he directed

637
00:39:16,920 --> 00:39:21,080
Speaker 1: us to the official PR website of North Korea. Sure enough,

638
00:39:21,120 --> 00:39:26,120
Speaker 1: there was a flowery diet tribe and communist English which

639
00:39:26,239 --> 00:39:30,640
Speaker 1: misnamed their paper Metro by the Way, and called us sortid,

640
00:39:30,800 --> 00:39:35,040
Speaker 1: bullying and petty thieves, declaring we would be cursed long

641
00:39:35,120 --> 00:39:38,680
Speaker 1: and Olympic history. I think my favorite extract is this,

642
00:39:38,920 --> 00:39:42,520
Speaker 1: She says. Editors of the paper were so incompetent as

643
00:39:42,520 --> 00:39:46,160
Speaker 1: to charnish the reputation of the paper by themselves by

644
00:39:46,239 --> 00:39:49,000
Speaker 1: producing the article like that. There is a saying a

645
00:39:49,080 --> 00:39:52,440
Speaker 1: straw may show which way the wind blows, a single

646
00:39:52,600 --> 00:39:57,120
Speaker 1: article may exhibit the level of the paper. Wow came

647
00:39:57,160 --> 00:40:00,000
Speaker 1: down on her, she says. The Wall Street Journal described

648
00:40:00,040 --> 00:40:02,880
Speaker 1: the official statement is most unusual, and we ended up

649
00:40:02,920 --> 00:40:06,000
Speaker 1: making some minor international headlines because of it. We ran

650
00:40:06,040 --> 00:40:10,120
Speaker 1: the statement in full with a story about our sudden

651
00:40:10,239 --> 00:40:13,200
Speaker 1: entry into world affairs on the front page. The headline

652
00:40:13,239 --> 00:40:17,040
Speaker 1: was North Korea fires missive. At the time, we thought

653
00:40:17,080 --> 00:40:19,719
Speaker 1: it was equal parts ridiculous and funny. It happened today

654
00:40:19,760 --> 00:40:22,440
Speaker 1: I'd probably try and arrange new identities for me and

655
00:40:22,480 --> 00:40:26,840
Speaker 1: my staff. Anyway, Thanks from me and my dog for

656
00:40:26,880 --> 00:40:29,840
Speaker 1: the show. Looking forward to seeing in Melbourne. That is

657
00:40:29,880 --> 00:40:33,520
Speaker 1: from Claire Sutherland. Thanks Claire, that was a great story.

658
00:40:35,239 --> 00:40:38,120
Speaker 1: Well you really want this one over, don't you sure?

659
00:40:39,200 --> 00:40:40,719
Speaker 1: If you want to get in touch with me and

660
00:40:40,800 --> 00:40:43,080
Speaker 1: Chuck with a great story, you can tweet to us.

661
00:40:43,160 --> 00:40:45,719
Speaker 1: I'm at Josh, I'm Clark, Chuck's that movie Crush. We're

662
00:40:45,760 --> 00:40:48,720
Speaker 1: both at s Y s K podcast. Chuck's on Facebook

663
00:40:48,760 --> 00:40:51,160
Speaker 1: dot com slash Charles W. Chuck Bryant, and we're at

664
00:40:51,160 --> 00:40:54,440
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash stuff. You should know. You can

665
00:40:54,480 --> 00:40:56,959
Speaker 1: send us an email to Stuff Podcast, how stuff Works

666
00:40:56,960 --> 00:40:58,719
Speaker 1: dot com and is always joining us at at home

667
00:40:58,760 --> 00:41:06,319
Speaker 1: on the web. Stuff you no dot com for more

668
00:41:06,360 --> 00:41:08,640
Speaker 1: on this and thousands of other topics. Is it how

669
00:41:08,680 --> 00:41:20,080
Speaker 1: stuff Works dot com? M hm hm