1 00:00:01,120 --> 00:00:04,160 Speaker 1: It's Josh coming back at you hot with our twenty 2 00:00:04,280 --> 00:00:07,680 Speaker 1: eighteen joint on Ockham's razor, one of the more semi 3 00:00:07,760 --> 00:00:12,000 Speaker 1: understood scientific principles, but it's also probably the most widely 4 00:00:12,160 --> 00:00:15,079 Speaker 1: used of them, all too or misused. I guess I 5 00:00:15,080 --> 00:00:18,439 Speaker 1: should say we have a medieval monk who became one 6 00:00:18,440 --> 00:00:21,920 Speaker 1: of the early proto scientists to thank for Ockham's razor, 7 00:00:22,320 --> 00:00:25,239 Speaker 1: which makes him a hero to science. And here's our 8 00:00:25,320 --> 00:00:32,239 Speaker 1: episode on that hero. Welcome to Stuff you Should Know 9 00:00:32,840 --> 00:00:42,280 Speaker 1: from HowStuffWorks dot com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast. 10 00:00:42,360 --> 00:00:45,559 Speaker 1: I'm Josh Clark, and there's Charles W. Chuck Bryant, and 11 00:00:45,600 --> 00:00:49,199 Speaker 1: there's guest producer Tristan over there. So it's stuff you 12 00:00:49,240 --> 00:00:49,640 Speaker 1: should Know. 13 00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:52,239 Speaker 2: I don't know how these are going to release, but 14 00:00:52,440 --> 00:00:55,640 Speaker 2: as you've noticed, Tristan weirdly grew out his mustache in 15 00:00:55,720 --> 00:00:56,400 Speaker 2: the last hour. 16 00:00:56,640 --> 00:00:59,680 Speaker 3: Again, he's quick, he's very past. 17 00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:02,080 Speaker 1: He can make it go in and out, in and out. 18 00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:04,479 Speaker 3: What is that. 19 00:01:05,600 --> 00:01:08,120 Speaker 1: It's like he's growing his mustache and it's sucking it 20 00:01:08,160 --> 00:01:10,800 Speaker 1: back in. Oh, okay, sucking it back in. No, No, 21 00:01:10,959 --> 00:01:15,039 Speaker 1: like a reverse Plato. Right, do you remember that Plato 22 00:01:15,160 --> 00:01:15,720 Speaker 1: set with the. 23 00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:16,880 Speaker 3: Like a little meat grinder. 24 00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:19,800 Speaker 1: No, there was one where like you could grow a 25 00:01:19,880 --> 00:01:21,360 Speaker 1: mustache on it, dude. 26 00:01:21,840 --> 00:01:23,080 Speaker 3: Correctly, I think I remember that. 27 00:01:23,520 --> 00:01:26,480 Speaker 1: Yeah, but imagine if you could reverse it too. 28 00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:29,160 Speaker 3: It was called the Plato Nightmare set. 29 00:01:30,959 --> 00:01:35,640 Speaker 1: Yeah. Is that your nightmare? Growing a Plato mustache? Waking 30 00:01:35,720 --> 00:01:36,120 Speaker 1: up like that? 31 00:01:36,520 --> 00:01:38,840 Speaker 2: Yeah, I've had that dream about once a week for 32 00:01:38,880 --> 00:01:40,039 Speaker 2: about thirty five years. 33 00:01:40,319 --> 00:01:42,200 Speaker 1: Like all the rest of you is chuck, but just 34 00:01:42,280 --> 00:01:44,319 Speaker 1: your mustache is Wallace and Grommet. 35 00:01:45,160 --> 00:01:46,120 Speaker 3: Yeah, dude. 36 00:01:46,319 --> 00:01:52,320 Speaker 2: Yesterday, I uh, there was a bad smell. Emily and 37 00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:53,920 Speaker 2: I were having a glass of wine at a wine bar. 38 00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:56,640 Speaker 2: There was a bad smell nearby. I think it was 39 00:01:56,640 --> 00:01:59,600 Speaker 2: a dumpster or something, and they were growing fresh herbs 40 00:01:59,680 --> 00:02:04,200 Speaker 2: at the wine bar, and I rubbed a rosemary bush 41 00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:10,040 Speaker 2: and then swiped it all over my mustache. And Emily's 42 00:02:10,080 --> 00:02:14,000 Speaker 2: mind was blown. She was just like, oh my god, 43 00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:17,560 Speaker 2: Like I can't believe, Like that's an actual use for 44 00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:18,280 Speaker 2: facial hair. 45 00:02:19,520 --> 00:02:20,400 Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess it just to. 46 00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:22,440 Speaker 2: Hold in that smell. It was like, well, you can 47 00:02:22,440 --> 00:02:25,040 Speaker 2: wipe it on your upper lip. It's probably the same thing. Sure, 48 00:02:25,160 --> 00:02:26,680 Speaker 2: maybe the hair retains more. 49 00:02:28,600 --> 00:02:31,639 Speaker 1: Essential oils. I don't know, maybe which essential oils. Man, 50 00:02:31,680 --> 00:02:33,519 Speaker 1: people are clamoring for that episode. 51 00:02:34,040 --> 00:02:34,840 Speaker 3: Yeah, we should do that. 52 00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:36,000 Speaker 1: We will eventually. 53 00:02:36,040 --> 00:02:37,799 Speaker 3: It's been a big part of my life for ten 54 00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:38,760 Speaker 3: and twelve years. 55 00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:42,720 Speaker 1: Now, Essential Oils. We'll talk about it someday, but not today. 56 00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:47,519 Speaker 2: No, no, because Chuck's gonna stumble through a philosophy podcast. 57 00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:50,320 Speaker 1: It's a yeah, I guess it is philosophy. It's the 58 00:02:50,360 --> 00:02:54,160 Speaker 1: philosophy of knowledge. Epistemology is another way to put it. 59 00:02:54,600 --> 00:02:59,560 Speaker 1: But specifically, Chuck, we're talking today about a little ditty 60 00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,200 Speaker 1: you may have heard of before called OCAM's razor. 61 00:03:03,000 --> 00:03:03,840 Speaker 3: Called the Gambler? 62 00:03:04,360 --> 00:03:08,120 Speaker 1: Have you? Have you ever you've heard of Okham's razor before? 63 00:03:08,200 --> 00:03:10,400 Speaker 2: Right, Well, so much so that I thought for sure 64 00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:13,280 Speaker 2: we had covered this, But I realized that we just 65 00:03:13,320 --> 00:03:15,880 Speaker 2: talked about it quite a bit in the Uh Scientific 66 00:03:15,919 --> 00:03:17,079 Speaker 2: Method episode. 67 00:03:17,240 --> 00:03:19,360 Speaker 1: I'm not at all surprised because a lot of people 68 00:03:19,400 --> 00:03:23,000 Speaker 1: say that the basis of science, which is how humans 69 00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:29,920 Speaker 1: approach nature in our universe and us and everything scientifically, 70 00:03:30,480 --> 00:03:34,840 Speaker 1: the basis of that is Ocham's razor. And if Okam's 71 00:03:34,880 --> 00:03:36,800 Speaker 1: razor sounds familiar but you can't quite place it, you've 72 00:03:36,800 --> 00:03:42,520 Speaker 1: probably heard it as something like given two possible outcomes 73 00:03:42,880 --> 00:03:47,800 Speaker 1: or explanations or whatever. The simplest version is probably the 74 00:03:47,880 --> 00:03:48,320 Speaker 1: right one. 75 00:03:49,000 --> 00:03:53,360 Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a pretty even that in its simplicity is beautiful. 76 00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:59,160 Speaker 2: The mere statement itself is an example of its simplicity 77 00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:01,920 Speaker 2: and how wonderful can be just to think, like, yeah, 78 00:04:01,960 --> 00:04:04,800 Speaker 2: you know what, let's get through all the gobbledygook. I 79 00:04:04,800 --> 00:04:10,560 Speaker 2: think the easiest way to explain this. Whether it's a 80 00:04:10,560 --> 00:04:14,040 Speaker 2: A H A A what do you call the orb 81 00:04:14,200 --> 00:04:16,040 Speaker 2: in a photos? 82 00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:17,320 Speaker 3: Yeah, it's not. 83 00:04:17,440 --> 00:04:19,919 Speaker 2: It's not your great grandfather coming to visit you on 84 00:04:20,040 --> 00:04:25,040 Speaker 2: a different plane. It's really just an error with your photographs. 85 00:04:25,440 --> 00:04:30,200 Speaker 1: It's the flash, yeah, reflecting off a like water vapor 86 00:04:30,200 --> 00:04:30,680 Speaker 1: in the air. 87 00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:33,840 Speaker 3: Or Kennedy probably acted alone. 88 00:04:34,160 --> 00:04:38,640 Speaker 1: Kennedy he shot himself from Afar. 89 00:04:39,720 --> 00:04:43,520 Speaker 2: Yeah, I clearly meant to say Oswald acted alone, because 90 00:04:43,520 --> 00:04:49,240 Speaker 2: that is the simplest explanation, not this very convoluted, deep 91 00:04:51,800 --> 00:04:55,120 Speaker 2: plot that goes that one hundred people were involved in 92 00:04:55,160 --> 00:04:56,440 Speaker 2: to assassinate Kennedy. 93 00:04:56,839 --> 00:04:59,520 Speaker 1: So we'll talk about all that because it's a teaser. 94 00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:02,680 Speaker 1: What you're doing right now is has become pretty standard. 95 00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:06,360 Speaker 1: You're using Okham's razor to disprove other people's points. 96 00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:08,440 Speaker 3: Yeah, there's this is. 97 00:05:08,400 --> 00:05:14,080 Speaker 1: A total and complete misuse of Okham's razors not the 98 00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:17,680 Speaker 1: original intention. The original intention had nothing to do with 99 00:05:17,839 --> 00:05:22,320 Speaker 1: saying that's wrong. It is just a heuristic device, a guide, 100 00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:27,279 Speaker 1: a rule of thumb that tells you that, because things 101 00:05:27,400 --> 00:05:31,240 Speaker 1: tend to be more simple in the universe, if you 102 00:05:32,320 --> 00:05:35,440 Speaker 1: if you're doing something, don't make it harder than it 103 00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:37,640 Speaker 1: has to be. Don't add more to it than is 104 00:05:37,720 --> 00:05:40,920 Speaker 1: needed to get the job done. And there's actually a 105 00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:42,680 Speaker 1: couple of ways to put this, and both of them 106 00:05:42,680 --> 00:05:45,960 Speaker 1: get attributed to William of Ockham, who will talk about 107 00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:46,520 Speaker 1: in a second. 108 00:05:46,600 --> 00:05:47,600 Speaker 3: Yeah, Billy Ockham. 109 00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:50,239 Speaker 1: But one is called he sounds like a baseball manager. 110 00:05:50,480 --> 00:05:50,680 Speaker 3: Yeah. 111 00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:53,800 Speaker 1: But one is called the principle of plurality. 112 00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:54,440 Speaker 3: Yeah. 113 00:05:54,839 --> 00:05:57,240 Speaker 1: Harder to say fast than you would think it is, 114 00:05:57,880 --> 00:06:01,120 Speaker 1: And that is translated from the Latin plurality should not 115 00:06:01,160 --> 00:06:04,560 Speaker 1: be positive without necessity. And the other is the principle 116 00:06:04,560 --> 00:06:06,960 Speaker 1: of parsimony, which is it is pointless to do with 117 00:06:07,040 --> 00:06:09,960 Speaker 1: more what is done with less. From what I understand, 118 00:06:10,040 --> 00:06:14,880 Speaker 1: they are one and the same. Oh really, I could 119 00:06:14,880 --> 00:06:18,360 Speaker 1: not find anyone who could explain the difference. And I 120 00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:22,320 Speaker 1: see them interchangeably, not just like on some dude's blog, 121 00:06:22,440 --> 00:06:28,800 Speaker 1: but I'm like, you know, it's the Internet Encyclopedia philosophy 122 00:06:29,240 --> 00:06:32,760 Speaker 1: or the Stanford Encyclopedia philosophy, Like they don't seem to 123 00:06:32,800 --> 00:06:33,400 Speaker 1: be different. 124 00:06:34,200 --> 00:06:37,400 Speaker 2: Well, parsimony, it seems different to me because that specifically 125 00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:42,800 Speaker 2: is like not using resources, not spending money if you 126 00:06:42,839 --> 00:06:45,640 Speaker 2: don't have to. And that seems different than plurality. 127 00:06:46,279 --> 00:06:49,720 Speaker 1: Okay, well then then let's explore it. So plurality adding 128 00:06:49,760 --> 00:06:53,120 Speaker 1: to something, doubling something, maybe just making it more than 129 00:06:53,200 --> 00:06:56,920 Speaker 1: just the singular. He's saying plurality should not be positive 130 00:06:56,960 --> 00:06:59,480 Speaker 1: without necessity. Right, So I guess what he's saying. Then 131 00:06:59,520 --> 00:07:04,880 Speaker 1: if they are different, then if you're if you're guessing 132 00:07:04,880 --> 00:07:08,720 Speaker 1: at something, if you're trying to explain something, don't make 133 00:07:08,760 --> 00:07:11,200 Speaker 1: it harder than it is, don't make it bigger than 134 00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:13,520 Speaker 1: is absolutely necessary to explain it. 135 00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:14,559 Speaker 3: Yeah, that makes sense. 136 00:07:15,080 --> 00:07:17,160 Speaker 1: Or and this is a really big point that we'll 137 00:07:17,160 --> 00:07:20,160 Speaker 1: see in a minute. William of Occam really was saying, 138 00:07:21,160 --> 00:07:25,320 Speaker 1: don't don't add on to something beyond what you know 139 00:07:25,600 --> 00:07:28,720 Speaker 1: to be true and correct, which a lot of people 140 00:07:28,800 --> 00:07:32,200 Speaker 1: over time, and I think he actually maybe explicitly was 141 00:07:32,200 --> 00:07:35,400 Speaker 1: an impirsist have said William of Ockham was an Impisis. 142 00:07:35,520 --> 00:07:40,240 Speaker 1: He was saying that you need to experience things through 143 00:07:40,280 --> 00:07:42,640 Speaker 1: your senses to know that they are true. 144 00:07:43,080 --> 00:07:45,960 Speaker 2: Yes, empirical evidence if I can look at it or 145 00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:48,400 Speaker 2: smell it, or taste it or feel it. 146 00:07:48,920 --> 00:07:49,680 Speaker 3: What's the fifth one? 147 00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:52,680 Speaker 1: Uh, tickle it, tickle it. 148 00:07:52,720 --> 00:07:54,640 Speaker 2: And then the sixth one, of course we know means 149 00:07:54,680 --> 00:07:55,840 Speaker 2: Bruce Willis is really dead. 150 00:07:56,080 --> 00:07:57,000 Speaker 1: See the ghost of it. 151 00:07:59,160 --> 00:08:02,120 Speaker 2: Yeah, if there is no empirical evidence, if you cannot 152 00:08:02,240 --> 00:08:04,200 Speaker 2: experience it with one of your senses, then. 153 00:08:05,680 --> 00:08:07,000 Speaker 3: It's it's poo pooed. 154 00:08:07,640 --> 00:08:09,520 Speaker 1: So so it is so. And those two things, like 155 00:08:09,560 --> 00:08:13,040 Speaker 1: you really especially modern science, especially science these days, you 156 00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:16,520 Speaker 1: put them together. It's given two things. Go with the 157 00:08:16,560 --> 00:08:21,400 Speaker 1: simpler explanation, and you don't don't believe anything that you 158 00:08:21,480 --> 00:08:25,520 Speaker 1: can't sense one way or another through your sensus empirically. Right, 159 00:08:25,600 --> 00:08:28,200 Speaker 1: you put those together, you have the basis for modern science. 160 00:08:28,600 --> 00:08:32,559 Speaker 1: And so the idea that that that things that are 161 00:08:32,679 --> 00:08:36,880 Speaker 1: simpler are better, or the idea that the universe is simpler, 162 00:08:37,400 --> 00:08:39,920 Speaker 1: Like when you start to think about it, it's all 163 00:08:40,280 --> 00:08:43,760 Speaker 1: over the place, right, Like the the idea that the 164 00:08:43,920 --> 00:08:48,800 Speaker 1: universe is based on simpler being better is found everywhere. Right, So, 165 00:08:48,960 --> 00:08:54,200 Speaker 1: like there's things that things have fewer parts, things that 166 00:08:54,760 --> 00:08:59,359 Speaker 1: require less energy, the encapsulation of larger ideas into smaller 167 00:08:59,640 --> 00:09:02,760 Speaker 1: amounts of words or theories or whatever. All these things 168 00:09:02,760 --> 00:09:05,840 Speaker 1: are very much prized by humanity. So it just kind 169 00:09:05,840 --> 00:09:09,600 Speaker 1: of makes sense that Okham's razor is a sensible thing 170 00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:12,960 Speaker 1: and that you could actually use it to uncover the 171 00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:16,079 Speaker 1: mysteries of the universe. Yeah, but again, that's not really 172 00:09:16,120 --> 00:09:18,199 Speaker 1: necessarily the case, to tell you the truth. 173 00:09:18,400 --> 00:09:20,040 Speaker 2: No, I mean, there's there's gonna be a lot of 174 00:09:20,720 --> 00:09:22,880 Speaker 2: uh and and this stuff is kind of fun, just 175 00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:26,600 Speaker 2: a lot of back and forth on Occam's razor throughout 176 00:09:26,640 --> 00:09:28,480 Speaker 2: this whole thing, because there is no its and that's 177 00:09:28,559 --> 00:09:31,720 Speaker 2: kind of part of the whole jam of Ockham's raiser 178 00:09:32,080 --> 00:09:34,000 Speaker 2: is there is no right or wrong here, right. 179 00:09:34,160 --> 00:09:35,800 Speaker 3: You know what's weird is that? Right? 180 00:09:37,040 --> 00:09:39,080 Speaker 1: A lot of people point to it though that it's 181 00:09:39,440 --> 00:09:42,080 Speaker 1: oh this is right. I just proved you wrong and 182 00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:44,000 Speaker 1: that's just not true. Man. 183 00:09:44,000 --> 00:09:45,600 Speaker 3: All right, should we take a break early? 184 00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:47,720 Speaker 1: Okay? 185 00:09:47,840 --> 00:09:49,360 Speaker 3: Yeah, I think we should take a break. 186 00:09:49,160 --> 00:09:50,720 Speaker 2: Now because I need to get my head wrapped around 187 00:09:50,720 --> 00:09:53,760 Speaker 2: this and we'll come back getting the way back machine 188 00:09:53,800 --> 00:09:54,880 Speaker 2: and visit Billy Ockham. 189 00:09:55,240 --> 00:10:21,520 Speaker 1: Okay, so now Billy Ockham sounds like a nineteen eighties 190 00:10:21,559 --> 00:10:25,080 Speaker 1: recording star. Oh sure, like Billy Ocean. 191 00:10:25,360 --> 00:10:29,840 Speaker 2: Yeah, get off of my razor and get into my car. 192 00:10:30,080 --> 00:10:33,480 Speaker 1: Was this so we should say the razor too. It's 193 00:10:33,480 --> 00:10:37,840 Speaker 1: a philosophical term, so term of philosophy, the razor used 194 00:10:37,920 --> 00:10:43,040 Speaker 1: to scrape away unnecessary stuff. So it's Okham's razor. So 195 00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:45,560 Speaker 1: let's go back and meet Billy Ockham, shall we. 196 00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:51,320 Speaker 3: Yeah. 197 00:10:51,360 --> 00:10:53,959 Speaker 2: And you wrote this by the way back in your 198 00:10:54,120 --> 00:10:58,160 Speaker 2: in your article writing Days, and you point out very Astutelee, 199 00:10:58,320 --> 00:11:00,720 Speaker 2: that this is from a time in our history of 200 00:11:00,760 --> 00:11:03,760 Speaker 2: the world where you might not have had a surname. 201 00:11:03,800 --> 00:11:06,680 Speaker 2: You may have been William of Ocham, which is the 202 00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:11,000 Speaker 2: case here, which is in England. And he lived between 203 00:11:11,000 --> 00:11:15,079 Speaker 2: about twelve eighty five and thirteen forty nine, and he 204 00:11:15,280 --> 00:11:19,440 Speaker 2: was a philosophical dude and a Franciscan monk, and he 205 00:11:19,679 --> 00:11:22,000 Speaker 2: very much like you point out, took his valid poverty 206 00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:27,680 Speaker 2: very seriously and lived a very meager, humble life. 207 00:11:28,520 --> 00:11:31,920 Speaker 1: Yeah he did. He also expected the church to take 208 00:11:31,960 --> 00:11:34,840 Speaker 1: the same vow Potterphy, and he actually butted heads with 209 00:11:34,880 --> 00:11:36,840 Speaker 1: the church quite a bit, so much so that he 210 00:11:36,880 --> 00:11:40,800 Speaker 1: ended up getting excommunicated, as we'll see, but he was 211 00:11:40,880 --> 00:11:43,760 Speaker 1: the real deal as far as like a true believer went. 212 00:11:44,440 --> 00:11:47,040 Speaker 1: The weird thing about William of Ocham was that he 213 00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:54,600 Speaker 1: was also a genuinely independent theeker and a rationalist, which 214 00:11:54,600 --> 00:11:58,560 Speaker 1: at the time rationalism and the church did not go 215 00:11:58,640 --> 00:12:03,120 Speaker 1: hand in hand. They were there was really not much rationalism. 216 00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:06,360 Speaker 1: So for an idea, the idea for this this upstart 217 00:12:06,600 --> 00:12:10,319 Speaker 1: Franciscan monk to start questioning the ideas of the church, 218 00:12:10,679 --> 00:12:14,080 Speaker 1: and not only that, but how the leaders of the 219 00:12:14,120 --> 00:12:17,080 Speaker 1: church conducted themselves, and how much money they surrounded themselves with, 220 00:12:17,120 --> 00:12:19,920 Speaker 1: and how much power they had politically. This is it 221 00:12:19,960 --> 00:12:21,439 Speaker 1: was a big deal, right. 222 00:12:21,559 --> 00:12:22,440 Speaker 3: Yeah, And he is not. 223 00:12:22,640 --> 00:12:26,000 Speaker 2: He did not invent this line of thought as much 224 00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:29,400 Speaker 2: as he's probably attributed to this to people that just 225 00:12:29,480 --> 00:12:32,800 Speaker 2: know him from like a jeopardy board. This is already 226 00:12:32,840 --> 00:12:35,720 Speaker 2: a line of thought well established by this time in 227 00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:39,600 Speaker 2: the medieval times, and he was just he kind of 228 00:12:39,600 --> 00:12:42,600 Speaker 2: boiled it down to those two sentences that you were 229 00:12:42,640 --> 00:12:46,199 Speaker 2: talking about so anyone could understand it. He could put 230 00:12:46,200 --> 00:12:47,920 Speaker 2: it on a bumper sticker and a T shirt and 231 00:12:47,960 --> 00:12:48,880 Speaker 2: sell it, right. 232 00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:52,080 Speaker 1: So it was Aristotle who was the guy who came 233 00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:56,440 Speaker 1: up with this idea first, that simplicity equals perfection, and 234 00:12:56,520 --> 00:12:59,840 Speaker 1: perfection equals simplicity. Said, the more perfect a nature is, 235 00:13:00,280 --> 00:13:02,680 Speaker 1: the fewer means it requires for its operation. 236 00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:02,960 Speaker 3: Right. 237 00:13:03,040 --> 00:13:05,040 Speaker 1: I love that, So that makes sense. 238 00:13:05,080 --> 00:13:05,720 Speaker 3: That speaks to me. 239 00:13:06,080 --> 00:13:09,480 Speaker 1: But then over time, in between Aristotle and William it 240 00:13:09,559 --> 00:13:11,840 Speaker 1: kind of got expanded. So let me give you an 241 00:13:11,840 --> 00:13:15,520 Speaker 1: example of that same thought from Robert gross Test who 242 00:13:15,559 --> 00:13:18,600 Speaker 1: was an early scientist also a theologian I believe too. 243 00:13:19,240 --> 00:13:22,440 Speaker 1: Here is his version of it that is better and 244 00:13:22,520 --> 00:13:27,560 Speaker 1: more valuable, which requires fewer other circumstances being equal. For 245 00:13:27,640 --> 00:13:30,520 Speaker 1: if one thing we're demonstrated from many in another thing 246 00:13:30,640 --> 00:13:34,480 Speaker 1: from fewer equally known premises, clearly that is better, which 247 00:13:34,520 --> 00:13:37,480 Speaker 1: is from fewer because it makes us know quickly, just 248 00:13:37,520 --> 00:13:41,120 Speaker 1: as a universal demonstration is better than particular because it 249 00:13:41,160 --> 00:13:45,920 Speaker 1: produces knowledge from fewer premises. That similarly, in natural science, 250 00:13:46,360 --> 00:13:49,880 Speaker 1: in moral science, and in metaphysics, the best is that 251 00:13:49,920 --> 00:13:53,560 Speaker 1: which needs no premises, and that better that which needs 252 00:13:53,600 --> 00:13:57,120 Speaker 1: the fewer other circumstances being equal. 253 00:13:57,360 --> 00:13:58,880 Speaker 3: Boy, the ironies there are rich. 254 00:13:59,480 --> 00:14:02,679 Speaker 1: Right. So within less than one hundred years, William of 255 00:14:02,720 --> 00:14:06,000 Speaker 1: Auckham comes along, and he's just like plurality should not 256 00:14:06,040 --> 00:14:08,719 Speaker 1: be positive without necessity, Robert. 257 00:14:08,679 --> 00:14:10,600 Speaker 3: Yeah, And Robert was like, well, yeah, I guess that's 258 00:14:10,640 --> 00:14:11,560 Speaker 3: one way you could say it. 259 00:14:12,000 --> 00:14:16,760 Speaker 1: So I want to say something though, before we keep going, Chuck, 260 00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:20,240 Speaker 1: I actually found a correction of my own article, oh 261 00:14:20,240 --> 00:14:21,320 Speaker 1: that I missed before. 262 00:14:21,760 --> 00:14:22,080 Speaker 3: What's that? 263 00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:27,760 Speaker 1: It turns out that they think now that another theologian 264 00:14:27,840 --> 00:14:33,160 Speaker 1: slash scientist from William of Ockham's era named John Dunn 265 00:14:33,240 --> 00:14:37,160 Speaker 1: scottis was the one who really encapsulated this principle of 266 00:14:37,160 --> 00:14:40,040 Speaker 1: plurality and principle of parsimony, and that it was a 267 00:14:40,120 --> 00:14:44,880 Speaker 1: guy from the nineteenth century, William Rowan Hamilton, a British mathematician, 268 00:14:45,120 --> 00:14:47,600 Speaker 1: that he was the one who misattributed it to William 269 00:14:47,600 --> 00:14:48,160 Speaker 1: of Ockham. 270 00:14:48,480 --> 00:14:54,400 Speaker 2: So is William of Aukham just a a know nothing, No, No, 271 00:14:54,600 --> 00:14:57,960 Speaker 2: His writings definitely included this stuff, and he never took 272 00:14:58,040 --> 00:15:01,160 Speaker 2: credit for this, Okay, But they think think that it 273 00:15:01,240 --> 00:15:03,040 Speaker 2: was actually John's done. 274 00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:07,040 Speaker 1: Scott is who who encapsulated it the way that we 275 00:15:07,120 --> 00:15:08,080 Speaker 1: tend to think of it now. 276 00:15:08,240 --> 00:15:09,680 Speaker 3: So he's sold the bumper stickers. 277 00:15:09,920 --> 00:15:13,200 Speaker 1: But right, But William Levacam thought this way, and he 278 00:15:13,280 --> 00:15:15,520 Speaker 1: was a radical thinker and a rationalist, as we'll. 279 00:15:15,360 --> 00:15:18,080 Speaker 2: See, right, and like you kind of teased out earlier, 280 00:15:18,120 --> 00:15:20,800 Speaker 2: he did butt heads with the church over this. He 281 00:15:20,840 --> 00:15:24,080 Speaker 2: wrote a lot about it, and the church was not 282 00:15:24,200 --> 00:15:29,960 Speaker 2: into it, and Pope John the what is that twenty second? 283 00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:33,120 Speaker 2: They kind of squared off on this, and of course 284 00:15:33,200 --> 00:15:37,000 Speaker 2: the Pope wins all battles, at least back then, and 285 00:15:37,120 --> 00:15:41,160 Speaker 2: he was excommunicated in several of his his monk brothers 286 00:15:41,320 --> 00:15:45,120 Speaker 2: and I take that to mean not real brothers, right right, 287 00:15:45,560 --> 00:15:49,280 Speaker 2: were excommunicated. In thirteen twenty eight, he went to Munich 288 00:15:49,480 --> 00:15:54,360 Speaker 2: seeking refuge. He was protected there by Emperor Louis the fourth, 289 00:15:55,320 --> 00:16:01,320 Speaker 2: and ultimately he went out because he started right about 290 00:16:01,640 --> 00:16:04,680 Speaker 2: Pope John the twenty second, saying he's a heretic, and 291 00:16:04,760 --> 00:16:06,400 Speaker 2: people ultimately believed him. 292 00:16:06,800 --> 00:16:07,000 Speaker 3: Right. 293 00:16:07,360 --> 00:16:10,800 Speaker 1: He definitely made some pretty convincing points. And he also again, 294 00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:14,000 Speaker 1: like if you're saying I took a vout poverty, the 295 00:16:14,120 --> 00:16:18,080 Speaker 1: church really should too. And the church isn't poverty stricken 296 00:16:18,120 --> 00:16:20,480 Speaker 1: and you are. It gives you a little more credibility 297 00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:23,640 Speaker 1: from the outside as well. Sure, so there's some reasons 298 00:16:23,680 --> 00:16:27,640 Speaker 1: why William of Waucam is this theologian, a devout Franciscan 299 00:16:27,680 --> 00:16:30,840 Speaker 1: Monk is looked upon as one of the fathers of 300 00:16:30,960 --> 00:16:36,440 Speaker 1: Western science, like the foundation of Western science right, or 301 00:16:36,520 --> 00:16:40,440 Speaker 1: science in general. And the reason why is he argued 302 00:16:40,560 --> 00:16:43,520 Speaker 1: against the prevailing ideas at the time, which is called 303 00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:48,359 Speaker 1: medieval synthesis. And this is very much championed by Thomas Aquinas, 304 00:16:48,360 --> 00:16:50,880 Speaker 1: who's a famous theologian. I believe he was a saint 305 00:16:51,120 --> 00:16:53,640 Speaker 1: and one of the reasons he was canonized was because 306 00:16:53,640 --> 00:16:57,080 Speaker 1: of this. Thinking about this, But the whole medieval synthesis 307 00:16:57,080 --> 00:17:02,160 Speaker 1: thing was that God was first and foremost everything. Right, 308 00:17:02,560 --> 00:17:07,160 Speaker 1: you were a member of the church just as much 309 00:17:07,200 --> 00:17:09,640 Speaker 1: as you were a member of your country, a citizen 310 00:17:09,680 --> 00:17:14,359 Speaker 1: of your country. All human knowledge came from God, and 311 00:17:14,440 --> 00:17:18,440 Speaker 1: Thomas Aquinas it wasn't just like the end. Thomas Aquinas 312 00:17:18,520 --> 00:17:22,040 Speaker 1: used philosophy to prove that sentiment that all human knowledge 313 00:17:22,080 --> 00:17:24,760 Speaker 1: came from God, and here is how. And basically it 314 00:17:24,800 --> 00:17:27,080 Speaker 1: took the idea of cause and effect and said that 315 00:17:27,119 --> 00:17:30,360 Speaker 1: you can trace every effect back to a cause, back 316 00:17:30,359 --> 00:17:33,000 Speaker 1: to another effect, back to another cause, but ultimately you 317 00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:36,000 Speaker 1: were going to end up on God, and that all 318 00:17:36,040 --> 00:17:39,359 Speaker 1: of our conceptions of everything arose from God's conception, and 319 00:17:39,400 --> 00:17:42,840 Speaker 1: that God willed that we understand things this way, which 320 00:17:42,880 --> 00:17:45,000 Speaker 1: means that this is the perfect way to understand it, 321 00:17:45,200 --> 00:17:48,160 Speaker 1: which means it's right right. So that is not what 322 00:17:48,200 --> 00:17:53,240 Speaker 1: William Wackam thought. He was again a rationalist who said, no, 323 00:17:53,640 --> 00:17:57,639 Speaker 1: we tend to think things are things because that arises 324 00:17:57,680 --> 00:18:00,879 Speaker 1: in the human mind from cognition, not from God. And 325 00:18:00,960 --> 00:18:04,399 Speaker 1: this dude was not a heretic. He believed that you 326 00:18:04,480 --> 00:18:09,720 Speaker 1: didn't apply rationalism to God, that God required faith, sure, 327 00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:13,200 Speaker 1: and rationalism stood on its own it was a different thing. 328 00:18:13,440 --> 00:18:17,000 Speaker 1: And you couldn't know God through your senses. God was elsewhere. 329 00:18:17,119 --> 00:18:19,720 Speaker 1: Leave God out of this. And the fact that he 330 00:18:20,119 --> 00:18:23,560 Speaker 1: was able to really successfully lay like a philosophical groundwork 331 00:18:23,640 --> 00:18:26,600 Speaker 1: for this, a rational groundwork for it's one thing today 332 00:18:26,600 --> 00:18:29,880 Speaker 1: to be like I'm a secular humanist, you know, I'm 333 00:18:30,000 --> 00:18:34,199 Speaker 1: rational to forget the church that's today. This is at 334 00:18:34,240 --> 00:18:37,439 Speaker 1: a time when this guy is saying this and the 335 00:18:37,520 --> 00:18:39,600 Speaker 1: church has the power to burn you at the stake. 336 00:18:40,119 --> 00:18:44,600 Speaker 1: Like he was a stand up rational thinker, right, which 337 00:18:44,680 --> 00:18:47,919 Speaker 1: kind of makes him a hero of rationality today. But don't. 338 00:18:48,320 --> 00:18:51,200 Speaker 1: And this is another perfect example of how Accam's razor 339 00:18:51,240 --> 00:18:54,400 Speaker 1: gets confused. Accam himself gets confused too, he's a hero 340 00:18:54,480 --> 00:18:56,840 Speaker 1: of science, but it was also one of the more 341 00:18:56,880 --> 00:19:00,200 Speaker 1: devout human beings walking the earth at the time. It 342 00:19:00,359 --> 00:19:02,840 Speaker 1: was a monk for basically his whole life. 343 00:19:02,680 --> 00:19:05,719 Speaker 3: And also had a metal band called Medieval Synthesis. 344 00:19:06,440 --> 00:19:07,800 Speaker 1: Oh that is a good name, isn't it. 345 00:19:07,840 --> 00:19:09,760 Speaker 3: So he was just a conundrum. 346 00:19:09,920 --> 00:19:11,919 Speaker 1: Yeah, he was a conundrum for sure. And again he 347 00:19:11,960 --> 00:19:17,080 Speaker 1: got excommunicated. He had to escape by horse stolen horse. Oh, 348 00:19:17,200 --> 00:19:18,800 Speaker 1: I mean he was not very monk like. 349 00:19:19,760 --> 00:19:21,000 Speaker 3: No, But all right, So. 350 00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:24,879 Speaker 2: We were talking earlier about empirical evidence and how that 351 00:19:24,960 --> 00:19:26,879 Speaker 2: kind of fits in here, and the fact that if 352 00:19:26,880 --> 00:19:30,320 Speaker 2: you can't you know, like, you know the sky is 353 00:19:30,359 --> 00:19:32,080 Speaker 2: blue because you look up and you see it's blue. 354 00:19:32,119 --> 00:19:35,760 Speaker 2: You know a bird makes a whistle because you can 355 00:19:35,800 --> 00:19:37,040 Speaker 2: hear the bird make a whistle. 356 00:19:37,640 --> 00:19:41,520 Speaker 3: So it's very easy to sort of use. 357 00:19:41,400 --> 00:19:46,520 Speaker 2: That and say sure, but if you don't, if you 358 00:19:46,560 --> 00:19:49,240 Speaker 2: can't see it or hear it empirically or any of 359 00:19:49,280 --> 00:19:53,320 Speaker 2: the senses experience it, it's very easy to poo poo. 360 00:19:53,320 --> 00:19:57,000 Speaker 2: And you give a great example here with Lorenz and 361 00:19:57,040 --> 00:20:00,159 Speaker 2: Einstein and kind of which one would win out. So 362 00:20:00,600 --> 00:20:05,120 Speaker 2: both of these guys, both physicists, Einstein obviously more popular 363 00:20:05,560 --> 00:20:08,320 Speaker 2: will see. For a very important reason. They both had 364 00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:12,840 Speaker 2: the conclusion mathematically that with the space time continuum, the 365 00:20:12,880 --> 00:20:14,640 Speaker 2: closer we get to moving at the speed of light, 366 00:20:14,960 --> 00:20:17,920 Speaker 2: the more we slow down, which is hard to wrap 367 00:20:17,920 --> 00:20:21,639 Speaker 2: your head around. So Lorenz comes out and says, explains 368 00:20:21,640 --> 00:20:24,040 Speaker 2: it away because of changes that take place in the ether, 369 00:20:24,440 --> 00:20:26,679 Speaker 2: which he might as well have said, a bit of 370 00:20:26,720 --> 00:20:31,800 Speaker 2: magic happens. Einstein didn't, and so the one we talk 371 00:20:31,840 --> 00:20:35,439 Speaker 2: about today is Einstein and not Lorenz. That explanation of 372 00:20:35,480 --> 00:20:39,200 Speaker 2: Einstein was more rooted in science, and he didn't say 373 00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:42,080 Speaker 2: something wacky like the ether, which is something empirically you 374 00:20:42,119 --> 00:20:46,280 Speaker 2: can't see or smell or taste. So Einstein, you know, 375 00:20:47,480 --> 00:20:49,119 Speaker 2: he won that great battle. 376 00:20:49,320 --> 00:20:52,000 Speaker 1: Yeah, he very famously said, He goes, I don't know 377 00:20:52,040 --> 00:20:53,960 Speaker 1: what's what, but I know it ain't got nothing to 378 00:20:54,000 --> 00:20:54,760 Speaker 1: do with no ether. 379 00:21:00,240 --> 00:21:02,080 Speaker 2: My brain's gonna end up in a jar in some 380 00:21:02,119 --> 00:21:04,120 Speaker 2: guy's garage in New Jersey, right. 381 00:21:03,960 --> 00:21:06,439 Speaker 1: And everybody will love that picture of me with my 382 00:21:06,560 --> 00:21:07,639 Speaker 1: tongue sticking. 383 00:21:07,280 --> 00:21:10,240 Speaker 3: Out, and Walter Mattho will play me in a romantic comedy. 384 00:21:10,600 --> 00:21:14,760 Speaker 1: So Laurence violated that principle of plurality. Right. He added 385 00:21:14,800 --> 00:21:19,440 Speaker 1: something to this that required an additional basically like a 386 00:21:19,520 --> 00:21:22,080 Speaker 1: leap of faith. There was no empirical evidence that there 387 00:21:22,160 --> 00:21:23,520 Speaker 1: was such a thing as the ether. 388 00:21:23,400 --> 00:21:25,800 Speaker 3: And he said, did I say ether? And I didn't 389 00:21:25,800 --> 00:21:27,880 Speaker 3: mean ether? And never went no, no, no to. 390 00:21:27,880 --> 00:21:28,560 Speaker 1: You, late Laurent. 391 00:21:28,640 --> 00:21:29,600 Speaker 3: Well we heard you, buddy. 392 00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:32,080 Speaker 1: And he's still I mean, he's a respected he's a 393 00:21:32,119 --> 00:21:33,160 Speaker 1: respected physicist. 394 00:21:33,160 --> 00:21:33,360 Speaker 3: Still. 395 00:21:33,400 --> 00:21:35,600 Speaker 1: It's not like he was some crackpot or anything like that, 396 00:21:35,760 --> 00:21:38,920 Speaker 1: because if you put his equations in Einstein's equations side 397 00:21:38,960 --> 00:21:42,199 Speaker 1: by side, they came to the same conclusions. It was 398 00:21:42,320 --> 00:21:46,920 Speaker 1: just explaining how Lorenz seems to have misstepped right, right, 399 00:21:47,600 --> 00:21:50,720 Speaker 1: But he was obviously at least as brilliant as Einstein. 400 00:21:50,720 --> 00:21:52,920 Speaker 1: When it comes to that, he's just a little nuts apparently. 401 00:21:53,359 --> 00:21:56,199 Speaker 1: So he violates the principle of plurality. And now we 402 00:21:56,280 --> 00:22:00,840 Speaker 1: understand relativity rather than Lorenz's manic raven Yeah. 403 00:22:00,680 --> 00:22:02,880 Speaker 2: And I don't believe we mentioned there's a word for that. 404 00:22:02,960 --> 00:22:05,480 Speaker 2: If you can't prove it empirically, it doesn't exist. It's 405 00:22:05,520 --> 00:22:09,439 Speaker 2: called positivism. Yes, positivism isn't about having a good. 406 00:22:09,280 --> 00:22:12,000 Speaker 1: Attitude, right, and so this is and this also happened 407 00:22:12,040 --> 00:22:15,359 Speaker 1: during Einstein's working days too. There was a guy named 408 00:22:15,520 --> 00:22:22,200 Speaker 1: Ernest Mack, and Ernest Mock was so Ernst Mack, thank you. Yeah, 409 00:22:22,240 --> 00:22:27,240 Speaker 1: that's that's way better than Ernest. Ernst Mock. He was 410 00:22:27,400 --> 00:22:31,239 Speaker 1: so nuts on empiricism. He was a he was an 411 00:22:31,280 --> 00:22:34,080 Speaker 1: early I think he was a physicist, if not a mathematician, 412 00:22:34,119 --> 00:22:37,560 Speaker 1: one of the two. And he he basically said, like, 413 00:22:38,640 --> 00:22:42,119 Speaker 1: molecules don't exist. All this whole bubble over molecules and 414 00:22:42,160 --> 00:22:44,400 Speaker 1: atoms and all this stuff, you're all crazy. We can't 415 00:22:44,400 --> 00:22:48,000 Speaker 1: see him. They don't exist. So there's a there's this 416 00:22:48,160 --> 00:22:51,399 Speaker 1: kind of ironic twist that came from Einstein's working career 417 00:22:51,400 --> 00:22:57,399 Speaker 1: where he actually he beat Lorenz, his rival, to this 418 00:22:57,520 --> 00:23:03,520 Speaker 1: theory through this through Okham's raiser. But he also disproved 419 00:23:04,040 --> 00:23:08,520 Speaker 1: this idea of that Ernest Mock, this thing about only 420 00:23:08,560 --> 00:23:11,560 Speaker 1: believing what you can sense with your your senses, this 421 00:23:11,680 --> 00:23:14,560 Speaker 1: kind of other part of Okham's razor, in a subsequent 422 00:23:14,600 --> 00:23:17,480 Speaker 1: paper that came a few years later that showed that 423 00:23:17,600 --> 00:23:22,119 Speaker 1: molecules do exist. So the idea that that OCAM's razor 424 00:23:22,200 --> 00:23:25,600 Speaker 1: can be used both ways is something that just keeps 425 00:23:25,640 --> 00:23:28,640 Speaker 1: coming up again and again and again. And we'll we'll 426 00:23:28,680 --> 00:23:55,600 Speaker 1: talk about how after a break. How about that? Okay, Chuck, So, 427 00:23:56,400 --> 00:24:02,000 Speaker 1: who who uses Okham's raiser? Obviously everyone who was throwing 428 00:24:02,040 --> 00:24:05,840 Speaker 1: money down on the cockfight between Lorentz and Einstein were 429 00:24:05,920 --> 00:24:08,240 Speaker 1: using Okaham's rais? Were they all went with Einstein's because 430 00:24:08,240 --> 00:24:09,760 Speaker 1: this was the simplest. 431 00:24:09,320 --> 00:24:10,360 Speaker 3: Right, Yeah? 432 00:24:10,440 --> 00:24:11,480 Speaker 1: Who else uses it? 433 00:24:12,160 --> 00:24:12,360 Speaker 3: Well? 434 00:24:12,400 --> 00:24:14,879 Speaker 2: I mean you have a great section in this article 435 00:24:14,920 --> 00:24:18,520 Speaker 2: about skeptics, and I know over the years of the show, 436 00:24:18,560 --> 00:24:20,240 Speaker 2: over the past ten years, we've had a lot of 437 00:24:22,119 --> 00:24:25,160 Speaker 2: minor scraps with the skeptic community. 438 00:24:25,320 --> 00:24:27,120 Speaker 1: That's a pretty minor Is that fair to say? 439 00:24:27,320 --> 00:24:30,000 Speaker 2: Yeah, because I mean we have our skeptical side for sure, 440 00:24:30,040 --> 00:24:35,159 Speaker 2: but they're you know, when it comes to skepticism and skeptics, 441 00:24:35,000 --> 00:24:38,320 Speaker 2: it's sort of on a sliding scale. There's a range 442 00:24:38,880 --> 00:24:41,520 Speaker 2: of how you might feel about certain things, and you 443 00:24:41,640 --> 00:24:43,919 Speaker 2: very astutely, i think, point out that if you are 444 00:24:43,960 --> 00:24:47,280 Speaker 2: a true skeptic, then you will not use Akham's raiser 445 00:24:47,520 --> 00:24:52,760 Speaker 2: like I did earlier as a tool to disprove something right, 446 00:24:53,440 --> 00:24:55,679 Speaker 2: that you will only use it as a tool to 447 00:24:55,800 --> 00:24:59,240 Speaker 2: consider different explanations. And that's there's a big difference there. 448 00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:02,440 Speaker 1: There is so like like that whole idea of seeing 449 00:25:02,440 --> 00:25:07,080 Speaker 1: a ghost on film. Right, So there there's there's this 450 00:25:07,240 --> 00:25:12,720 Speaker 1: example where somebody could say, so you just explained something 451 00:25:12,760 --> 00:25:16,480 Speaker 1: about light and refracting and something with the film and 452 00:25:17,480 --> 00:25:21,000 Speaker 1: there was moisture in the air. What's Isn't it just 453 00:25:21,040 --> 00:25:24,439 Speaker 1: simpler to say, no, that was a ghost exactly. And 454 00:25:24,480 --> 00:25:27,200 Speaker 1: in that case, if you were a skeptic, you would 455 00:25:27,320 --> 00:25:29,960 Speaker 1: you would you're you pull a little tuft of your 456 00:25:30,040 --> 00:25:33,960 Speaker 1: hair out, maybe just start scraping at your cheeks until 457 00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:39,480 Speaker 1: you bleed. Uh. Ideally, what you would say is I 458 00:25:39,560 --> 00:25:42,320 Speaker 1: get what you're saying, but you're bringing something into this 459 00:25:42,440 --> 00:25:44,800 Speaker 1: that we don't know exists. Like we do know light exists, 460 00:25:44,840 --> 00:25:47,239 Speaker 1: we do know it refracts off of vapor, we do 461 00:25:47,359 --> 00:25:49,920 Speaker 1: know how this can be captured on film. So yes, 462 00:25:50,000 --> 00:25:56,679 Speaker 1: that sounds very complicated. But the the ghosts don't exist 463 00:25:56,840 --> 00:25:59,040 Speaker 1: as far as we know. We can't send the empirically. 464 00:25:59,480 --> 00:26:02,800 Speaker 1: But I would keep my mind open to the idea 465 00:26:02,840 --> 00:26:05,840 Speaker 1: that ghosts could consumably exist. The fact that I just 466 00:26:06,080 --> 00:26:09,280 Speaker 1: showed that this is reflect the reflection of light off 467 00:26:09,320 --> 00:26:12,920 Speaker 1: of water vapor in this graveyard does not mean that 468 00:26:13,280 --> 00:26:16,440 Speaker 1: your hypothesis about ghosts existing is wrong. It just means 469 00:26:16,760 --> 00:26:20,560 Speaker 1: that's what's in this picture? Right, that's a true skeptic. 470 00:26:20,400 --> 00:26:24,000 Speaker 2: Right, because because things happen and they can later on, 471 00:26:24,680 --> 00:26:28,240 Speaker 2: the more fantastical explanation could. 472 00:26:27,960 --> 00:26:31,280 Speaker 3: Be true and has been true. Uh. And you point 473 00:26:31,280 --> 00:26:31,760 Speaker 3: out very. 474 00:26:33,160 --> 00:26:35,920 Speaker 2: Very plainly here that there's a couple of problems with this, 475 00:26:36,400 --> 00:26:38,840 Speaker 2: and to me, this kind of says it all, is 476 00:26:38,880 --> 00:26:42,800 Speaker 2: that it's subjective. Like the whole notion of determining is 477 00:26:43,280 --> 00:26:47,520 Speaker 2: this is the most simple explanation is completely subjective because 478 00:26:47,560 --> 00:26:50,679 Speaker 2: the ghost explanation, one person might say, no, the ghost 479 00:26:51,280 --> 00:26:54,640 Speaker 2: explanation is clearly the simplest because I can just say 480 00:26:54,640 --> 00:26:58,600 Speaker 2: one word ghost, see there, and then you could fire 481 00:26:58,680 --> 00:27:01,880 Speaker 2: right back. Well know, I can fire back two words 482 00:27:03,200 --> 00:27:07,840 Speaker 2: photographic mishap, right, or maybe just mishapp Yeah, if they 483 00:27:07,840 --> 00:27:10,639 Speaker 2: want to keep it completely equal, And that's the most simple. 484 00:27:11,000 --> 00:27:14,800 Speaker 2: So it's completely subjective as to which one or anything 485 00:27:14,840 --> 00:27:16,320 Speaker 2: that it's the most simple. 486 00:27:16,359 --> 00:27:19,880 Speaker 1: Right exactly. And then again the idea that you can 487 00:27:19,960 --> 00:27:23,920 Speaker 1: use Acam's razor to disprove something just by showing that 488 00:27:23,920 --> 00:27:28,320 Speaker 1: that it's not the simplest explanation, that doesn't that's not correct, 489 00:27:28,359 --> 00:27:31,440 Speaker 1: that's not right, And so scientists will use Occam's razor 490 00:27:31,480 --> 00:27:34,720 Speaker 1: and all sorts of different disciplines like for example, if 491 00:27:34,760 --> 00:27:38,480 Speaker 1: you're making an artificial neural network, right, like a learning machine, 492 00:27:39,000 --> 00:27:42,520 Speaker 1: you might use decision trees, and you will use some 493 00:27:42,560 --> 00:27:45,560 Speaker 1: sort of simple decision tree over a more complicated one 494 00:27:45,600 --> 00:27:48,480 Speaker 1: that can get the same job done. That doesn't mean 495 00:27:48,480 --> 00:27:52,400 Speaker 1: that it's necessarily the right one, but there are demonstrably 496 00:27:53,720 --> 00:27:57,160 Speaker 1: good reasons for picking a simpler one over. It's less 497 00:27:57,240 --> 00:28:00,720 Speaker 1: likely to break, it takes less time, it takes less 498 00:28:00,840 --> 00:28:03,119 Speaker 1: energy to come to the computations. There are things that 499 00:28:03,160 --> 00:28:06,119 Speaker 1: are valuable about it, but it doesn't mean that the 500 00:28:06,200 --> 00:28:10,440 Speaker 1: other one is just wrong. And again, when you're using 501 00:28:10,520 --> 00:28:13,679 Speaker 1: Okham's razors, say, if you're making a neural network, or 502 00:28:13,720 --> 00:28:16,480 Speaker 1: you're pouring through a data set or something like that, 503 00:28:16,600 --> 00:28:19,440 Speaker 1: or you're trying to interpret a big data set, yeah, 504 00:28:20,359 --> 00:28:24,199 Speaker 1: you're making again like you're saying, not just a subjective 505 00:28:24,400 --> 00:28:28,359 Speaker 1: judgment about what's simpler. But that's all there is to it. 506 00:28:28,400 --> 00:28:33,320 Speaker 1: You're making a subjective judgment about what's simpler, not what's right. 507 00:28:33,960 --> 00:28:36,160 Speaker 1: It's not saying what's right. And this is a recurring 508 00:28:36,200 --> 00:28:38,920 Speaker 1: theme that you just have to know because there's so 509 00:28:39,040 --> 00:28:43,200 Speaker 1: many people out there that use Okham's razor to disprove 510 00:28:43,280 --> 00:28:46,960 Speaker 1: other people's ideas, and that's just not at all what 511 00:28:47,040 --> 00:28:49,800 Speaker 1: it was originally intended for. It's just a complete perversion 512 00:28:49,840 --> 00:28:52,160 Speaker 1: of it and it's just wrong, and that's not how 513 00:28:52,200 --> 00:28:54,800 Speaker 1: science works. So if you see somebody out there doing this, 514 00:28:55,840 --> 00:28:57,000 Speaker 1: thump them in the forehead. 515 00:28:58,080 --> 00:29:00,000 Speaker 2: Yeah and boy, then when you get into the outle 516 00:29:00,320 --> 00:29:03,440 Speaker 2: it gets really interesting because this is sort of a 517 00:29:03,760 --> 00:29:09,760 Speaker 2: prime example of the simplest explanation from a believer's point 518 00:29:09,760 --> 00:29:12,960 Speaker 2: of view, is very easy to say, No, the Big 519 00:29:13,000 --> 00:29:18,640 Speaker 2: Bang is incredibly complex and complicated, and it's pretty clear 520 00:29:18,680 --> 00:29:21,960 Speaker 2: that the easiest explanation here and the simplest thing is 521 00:29:22,320 --> 00:29:25,800 Speaker 2: God created life in seven days, right, But that's also 522 00:29:26,040 --> 00:29:30,600 Speaker 2: discounting the process that it took God to create Earth, 523 00:29:30,680 --> 00:29:33,160 Speaker 2: if that's what you believe, and just kind of bundle 524 00:29:33,160 --> 00:29:35,920 Speaker 2: it up in a tidy package, say God created life. 525 00:29:36,200 --> 00:29:40,040 Speaker 2: The Big Bang is super complicated, so and very coincidental 526 00:29:40,960 --> 00:29:42,880 Speaker 2: if you really look at it. So this is the 527 00:29:42,920 --> 00:29:46,360 Speaker 2: simplest explanation, Okham Trazer proofs that God. 528 00:29:46,200 --> 00:29:49,640 Speaker 1: Exists, right, And so that's been used time and time 529 00:29:49,680 --> 00:29:54,160 Speaker 1: again by creationists, right, or people who believe in ghosts 530 00:29:54,160 --> 00:29:59,720 Speaker 1: are people who counter empiricism in a lot of ways. Right, Yeah, 531 00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:02,200 Speaker 1: But on the other hand, you can you can find 532 00:30:02,240 --> 00:30:05,160 Speaker 1: atheists to use OCAM's razor to show that God does 533 00:30:05,200 --> 00:30:09,120 Speaker 1: not exist, because their point is if the universe tends 534 00:30:09,160 --> 00:30:12,760 Speaker 1: towards simplicity and God is perfect and simplicity is perfection, 535 00:30:13,200 --> 00:30:15,600 Speaker 1: then if God existed, the universe would be a lot 536 00:30:15,640 --> 00:30:18,400 Speaker 1: more simpler. There wouldn't be this big bang thing that 537 00:30:18,440 --> 00:30:22,320 Speaker 1: we have that happen it would You would be right creationists, 538 00:30:22,320 --> 00:30:25,920 Speaker 1: and the fact that you're wrong means that means that 539 00:30:25,960 --> 00:30:29,040 Speaker 1: there is no God, which is just like, my head's 540 00:30:29,040 --> 00:30:31,360 Speaker 1: starting to spin a little bit with this, But it's 541 00:30:31,400 --> 00:30:34,360 Speaker 1: a good example of how you can use OCAM's razor. 542 00:30:34,440 --> 00:30:37,240 Speaker 1: Both sides can use OCAM's razor to disprove the other 543 00:30:37,280 --> 00:30:40,400 Speaker 1: person's point, which against it shows how it's not meant 544 00:30:40,400 --> 00:30:41,320 Speaker 1: to be used that way. 545 00:30:41,600 --> 00:30:43,400 Speaker 2: Well yeah, and then you point out too and talk 546 00:30:43,440 --> 00:30:47,560 Speaker 2: about a headspinner like something like photosynthesis is a pretty 547 00:30:47,600 --> 00:30:52,640 Speaker 2: complex mechanism in nature. But I mean, who's to say 548 00:30:52,680 --> 00:30:56,520 Speaker 2: that that isn't the simplest way to achieve food production 549 00:30:56,600 --> 00:30:58,720 Speaker 2: in a plant. Maybe that is the simplest. 550 00:30:58,920 --> 00:31:00,960 Speaker 1: Yeah, we have no way of knowing that there is 551 00:31:01,000 --> 00:31:04,760 Speaker 1: a simpler model of the universe or photosynthesis or of 552 00:31:04,800 --> 00:31:08,360 Speaker 1: a shark or anything like that, and that even something 553 00:31:08,400 --> 00:31:12,560 Speaker 1: that does seem superfluous, we can't say that in the 554 00:31:12,760 --> 00:31:16,680 Speaker 1: larger scheme of things, that it's actually the simplest way 555 00:31:16,800 --> 00:31:21,520 Speaker 1: to do that, right. So like like a shark seems like, man, 556 00:31:21,640 --> 00:31:24,680 Speaker 1: maybe do you need that extra fin or something like that, 557 00:31:25,240 --> 00:31:27,440 Speaker 1: Or does a cow really need eight stomachs? Or do 558 00:31:27,560 --> 00:31:29,040 Speaker 1: we really need two kidneys? 559 00:31:29,280 --> 00:31:29,480 Speaker 3: Right? 560 00:31:29,840 --> 00:31:32,840 Speaker 1: But what this point is saying is that there's we 561 00:31:32,920 --> 00:31:35,680 Speaker 1: don't have the information to look at everything on such 562 00:31:35,680 --> 00:31:38,400 Speaker 1: a grand scheme of things to say no, there if 563 00:31:38,480 --> 00:31:41,440 Speaker 1: humans only had one kidney, this other larger system would 564 00:31:41,440 --> 00:31:43,760 Speaker 1: break down, and this is actually the simplest way to 565 00:31:43,800 --> 00:31:44,480 Speaker 1: do it, right. 566 00:31:44,560 --> 00:31:46,360 Speaker 3: Or there's a cow with one stomach that we can 567 00:31:46,400 --> 00:31:47,920 Speaker 3: compare it to right. 568 00:31:47,880 --> 00:31:51,800 Speaker 1: Right exactly, So this whole thing, this is the point, Chuck, 569 00:31:51,840 --> 00:31:58,200 Speaker 1: where I reach this very glaring idea that o COM's 570 00:31:58,280 --> 00:32:05,280 Speaker 1: razor or what Aristotle said that simplicity is perfection, that's 571 00:32:05,320 --> 00:32:08,840 Speaker 1: all man made, that's human made. Sure, that's a human 572 00:32:08,880 --> 00:32:13,680 Speaker 1: made concept. To value simplicity is human made. It is 573 00:32:13,920 --> 00:32:16,240 Speaker 1: possible the universe complicated you can come up with all 574 00:32:16,280 --> 00:32:20,280 Speaker 1: sorts of examples of the universe being seemingly pretty complicated. 575 00:32:20,680 --> 00:32:24,520 Speaker 1: Just the universe itself seems pretty complicated, frankly, right, So 576 00:32:25,440 --> 00:32:29,760 Speaker 1: that doesn't necessarily mean that the universe tends towards simplicity. 577 00:32:29,840 --> 00:32:34,640 Speaker 1: It seems like humans value simplicity and the universe uses 578 00:32:34,680 --> 00:32:38,239 Speaker 1: simplicity a lot, But that doesn't mean that simplicity is 579 00:32:38,400 --> 00:32:41,680 Speaker 1: perfection or correctness. That's a human construct. 580 00:32:41,880 --> 00:32:44,560 Speaker 2: Well, yeah, and like let's say, in terms of engineering, 581 00:32:45,200 --> 00:32:47,800 Speaker 2: it's probably a decent model to think, hey, the more 582 00:32:48,600 --> 00:32:51,960 Speaker 2: complex the system is that I'm engineering, the more things 583 00:32:51,960 --> 00:32:54,480 Speaker 2: that are to break. So we should probably try and 584 00:32:54,520 --> 00:32:56,960 Speaker 2: make it as simple as possible. That still gets the 585 00:32:57,040 --> 00:33:00,920 Speaker 2: job done. But that's not to say that it can 586 00:33:00,960 --> 00:33:03,760 Speaker 2: be rudimentary, like you might need it might need to 587 00:33:03,760 --> 00:33:06,480 Speaker 2: be a little bit complicated to run at its most. 588 00:33:06,280 --> 00:33:09,160 Speaker 1: Efficient, you know, yeah, exactly. 589 00:33:09,080 --> 00:33:11,320 Speaker 2: Or art I mean, that's a whole different can of worms. 590 00:33:12,400 --> 00:33:16,520 Speaker 2: You know, that's entirely subjective. Like is you might find 591 00:33:16,520 --> 00:33:22,640 Speaker 2: one drummer that says less is more. You just need 592 00:33:22,640 --> 00:33:26,560 Speaker 2: to provide that basic backbeat and leave room, and then 593 00:33:26,600 --> 00:33:29,720 Speaker 2: you Stuart Copeland comes in the room and laughs and 594 00:33:29,760 --> 00:33:32,360 Speaker 2: punches you in the face because you look like sting. 595 00:33:32,280 --> 00:33:35,320 Speaker 1: Thumps you in the head. 596 00:33:34,280 --> 00:33:34,520 Speaker 3: You know. 597 00:33:34,640 --> 00:33:37,560 Speaker 2: So that's that's entirely subjective when it comes to art, 598 00:33:37,680 --> 00:33:39,720 Speaker 2: like you know, you've been to a museum and seen 599 00:33:39,760 --> 00:33:46,200 Speaker 2: a twelve inch by twelve inch square painted red, and 600 00:33:46,240 --> 00:33:50,120 Speaker 2: then you've also seen Jackson Pollock or Free de Collo. 601 00:33:51,960 --> 00:33:56,280 Speaker 2: So again, it's just subjective as to simplicity. And maybe 602 00:33:56,320 --> 00:33:58,080 Speaker 2: I don't know, can you apply it to art? 603 00:33:58,320 --> 00:33:59,640 Speaker 3: Am I wrong? There? 604 00:34:00,120 --> 00:34:02,920 Speaker 1: No, not necessarily. I think that's a good point because 605 00:34:03,760 --> 00:34:08,080 Speaker 1: it's still it's it's subjectively valuing something, whether it's complexity 606 00:34:08,200 --> 00:34:12,239 Speaker 1: or whether it's simplicity. It's it doesn't mean it's right. 607 00:34:12,560 --> 00:34:14,640 Speaker 1: That's the point, right that. I think that's your point. 608 00:34:14,719 --> 00:34:17,080 Speaker 1: Is one's not right over the other. 609 00:34:17,640 --> 00:34:18,880 Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's my point. 610 00:34:19,200 --> 00:34:22,120 Speaker 1: And then there's also plenty of circumstances where Akam's razor 611 00:34:22,280 --> 00:34:28,480 Speaker 1: just doesn't help very much, like very famously Ptolemy's idea 612 00:34:28,719 --> 00:34:32,600 Speaker 1: of the universe. The Earth is the center of the universe. 613 00:34:32,600 --> 00:34:35,920 Speaker 1: The geocentric universe, I think, is what it's called, where 614 00:34:36,160 --> 00:34:38,560 Speaker 1: the Earth is the center of the universe, the Sun, 615 00:34:38,640 --> 00:34:40,520 Speaker 1: the Moon, and all the planets and all the stars 616 00:34:40,520 --> 00:34:44,200 Speaker 1: revolve around Earth is known to be wrong now, but 617 00:34:44,320 --> 00:34:46,719 Speaker 1: for a long time that's what everyone thought until the 618 00:34:46,760 --> 00:34:52,560 Speaker 1: Copernican Revolution, where we realize that not a universe, but 619 00:34:52,600 --> 00:34:55,279 Speaker 1: our solar system is sun centered. The Sun is at 620 00:34:55,280 --> 00:34:57,440 Speaker 1: the center, and the Earth is actually moving around it. 621 00:34:58,800 --> 00:35:00,920 Speaker 1: The thing is is, if you look, if you look 622 00:35:00,960 --> 00:35:05,800 Speaker 1: at the explanations between the two, they are pretty close, 623 00:35:06,480 --> 00:35:14,160 Speaker 1: and one's not necessarily less simple than the other. And 624 00:35:14,719 --> 00:35:16,840 Speaker 1: if you put them side by side Ockham's razors, that 625 00:35:16,840 --> 00:35:20,000 Speaker 1: doesn't really help. You have to dig a little deeper 626 00:35:20,040 --> 00:35:22,799 Speaker 1: and figure it out that actually know this one's right 627 00:35:22,840 --> 00:35:25,880 Speaker 1: based on these observations. We think this one's right, but 628 00:35:25,920 --> 00:35:29,200 Speaker 1: it has nothing necessarily to do with complexity. And then 629 00:35:29,239 --> 00:35:32,120 Speaker 1: on the other side of the equation, just because something's 630 00:35:32,200 --> 00:35:36,000 Speaker 1: complex doesn't mean that it's wrong. So the next time 631 00:35:36,120 --> 00:35:40,239 Speaker 1: somebody starts flailing some Occam's razor stuff at you, you 632 00:35:40,280 --> 00:35:45,080 Speaker 1: tell them I'm gonna thump you. Do you want to 633 00:35:45,080 --> 00:35:45,600 Speaker 1: be thumped? 634 00:35:45,920 --> 00:35:49,280 Speaker 3: You don'tump and everybody me, yeah. 635 00:35:49,160 --> 00:35:51,320 Speaker 1: Well, because they're asking for it. 636 00:35:51,360 --> 00:35:55,439 Speaker 3: Is it just a very mild act of violence? Yeah, 637 00:35:56,080 --> 00:35:57,680 Speaker 3: you don't want to be two. You don't want to 638 00:35:57,680 --> 00:35:58,520 Speaker 3: punch someone in the face. 639 00:35:58,800 --> 00:36:00,799 Speaker 1: No, no, and plus I mean think you shouldn't you 640 00:36:00,800 --> 00:36:03,920 Speaker 1: shouldn't thump anybody and way I was totally kidding it. Okay, okay, 641 00:36:04,120 --> 00:36:06,800 Speaker 1: thanks for setting me up for that one. Sure. Oh 642 00:36:06,840 --> 00:36:09,560 Speaker 1: one other thing, A lot of people say that OCAM's 643 00:36:09,680 --> 00:36:13,319 Speaker 1: razor squashes free thought, So I think that does kind 644 00:36:13,320 --> 00:36:15,200 Speaker 1: of tie in with your art thing, you know what 645 00:36:15,280 --> 00:36:18,040 Speaker 1: I mean, like, feel free to go be complex, there's 646 00:36:18,040 --> 00:36:21,200 Speaker 1: nothing wrong with it, doesn't like not everything has to 647 00:36:21,280 --> 00:36:24,400 Speaker 1: be funneled through this Okham's razor thing and made simpler 648 00:36:24,680 --> 00:36:27,759 Speaker 1: just to make it better. Yeah, well, Chuck, we made 649 00:36:27,760 --> 00:36:32,719 Speaker 1: it through this one sort of It's better than Jackhammers. 650 00:36:32,719 --> 00:36:34,200 Speaker 3: I'll tell you that I think you did well. 651 00:36:34,640 --> 00:36:37,040 Speaker 1: I think you did as well man. That means that 652 00:36:37,160 --> 00:36:40,399 Speaker 1: it was a good episode. If you want to learn 653 00:36:40,400 --> 00:36:43,840 Speaker 1: more about Akham's razor, you could read my SOSO article 654 00:36:43,920 --> 00:36:46,600 Speaker 1: on the site how Stuffworks dot com. Just type it 655 00:36:46,640 --> 00:36:48,200 Speaker 1: in the search bar. And since I said so, so 656 00:36:48,280 --> 00:36:49,439 Speaker 1: it's time for a listener mail. 657 00:36:51,040 --> 00:36:52,960 Speaker 2: All right, I'm gonna call this North Korea Part two. 658 00:36:53,040 --> 00:36:57,880 Speaker 2: We heard from a woman in Australia. We were corrected. 659 00:36:58,960 --> 00:36:59,919 Speaker 2: It just starts with a nest. 660 00:37:00,040 --> 00:37:00,400 Speaker 3: There is no. 661 00:37:00,480 --> 00:37:04,439 Speaker 2: Awe, right, a woman in Australia named Claire Sutherland who 662 00:37:04,920 --> 00:37:09,200 Speaker 2: actually had an interaction away with North Korea when she 663 00:37:09,440 --> 00:37:15,200 Speaker 2: was editor at Australian newspaper called Little m Big X. 664 00:37:16,160 --> 00:37:17,879 Speaker 3: Okay, it's MX. 665 00:37:17,600 --> 00:37:19,600 Speaker 1: But it's just X. 666 00:37:20,360 --> 00:37:21,960 Speaker 3: Oh is it No? I don't know know. 667 00:37:22,280 --> 00:37:24,200 Speaker 1: They don't say awe before Australia. 668 00:37:24,320 --> 00:37:25,319 Speaker 3: So oh, I got you. 669 00:37:25,440 --> 00:37:26,600 Speaker 1: Probably not the Little Lamp. 670 00:37:27,320 --> 00:37:32,200 Speaker 2: Well, she's based in Elbourne and they have editions in Melbourne, 671 00:37:32,239 --> 00:37:34,840 Speaker 2: Sydney and Brisbane. And she says, during the London Olympics 672 00:37:34,840 --> 00:37:38,640 Speaker 2: in our daily metal tally graphic, we listed North and 673 00:37:38,680 --> 00:37:43,560 Speaker 2: South Korea as a naughty Korea and nice Korea. Just 674 00:37:43,640 --> 00:37:45,560 Speaker 2: kind of a cheeky thing, I guess, she said. We've 675 00:37:45,560 --> 00:37:47,160 Speaker 2: been doing this for about a week when we received 676 00:37:47,160 --> 00:37:49,719 Speaker 2: a call from a Wall Street Journal reporter based in 677 00:37:49,760 --> 00:37:52,759 Speaker 2: Seoul seeking comment about the fact that North Korea just 678 00:37:52,800 --> 00:37:56,680 Speaker 2: issued an official condemnation of our paper and its editor. 679 00:37:57,280 --> 00:37:58,440 Speaker 3: At first, our assumption was. 680 00:37:58,400 --> 00:38:02,520 Speaker 2: We were being punked, but he directed us to the 681 00:38:02,520 --> 00:38:05,360 Speaker 2: official PR website of North Korea. Sure enough, there was 682 00:38:05,400 --> 00:38:11,440 Speaker 2: a flowery diatribe and Communist English which misnamed their paper 683 00:38:12,040 --> 00:38:15,880 Speaker 2: Metro by the Way, and called us sordid bullying and 684 00:38:16,040 --> 00:38:20,120 Speaker 2: petty thieves, declaring we would be cursed long in Olympic history. 685 00:38:21,000 --> 00:38:24,320 Speaker 2: I think my favorite extract is this, She says, editors 686 00:38:24,360 --> 00:38:27,080 Speaker 2: of the paper were so incompetent as to tarnish the 687 00:38:27,160 --> 00:38:31,200 Speaker 2: reputation of the paper by themselves by producing the article 688 00:38:31,320 --> 00:38:34,040 Speaker 2: like that. There is a saying a straw may show 689 00:38:34,520 --> 00:38:37,640 Speaker 2: which way the wind blows, a single article may exhibit 690 00:38:37,719 --> 00:38:41,640 Speaker 2: the level of the paper. Wow came down on her, 691 00:38:41,640 --> 00:38:44,800 Speaker 2: She says. The Wall Street Journal described the official statement 692 00:38:44,840 --> 00:38:47,640 Speaker 2: as most unusual, and we ended up making some minor 693 00:38:47,680 --> 00:38:50,799 Speaker 2: international headlines because of it. We ran the statement in 694 00:38:50,880 --> 00:38:55,239 Speaker 2: full with a story about our sudden entry into world 695 00:38:55,239 --> 00:38:58,080 Speaker 2: affairs on the front page. The headline was North Korea 696 00:38:58,239 --> 00:39:01,600 Speaker 2: fires missive. At the time we thought it was equal 697 00:39:01,600 --> 00:39:04,399 Speaker 2: parts ridiculous and funny. It happened today at probably try 698 00:39:04,400 --> 00:39:08,320 Speaker 2: and arrange new identities for me and my staff. Anyway, 699 00:39:08,360 --> 00:39:12,000 Speaker 2: thanks from me and my dog for the show. Looking 700 00:39:12,000 --> 00:39:15,040 Speaker 2: forward to seeing you in Melbourne. That is from Claire Sutherland. 701 00:39:15,600 --> 00:39:19,719 Speaker 1: Thanks Claire, that was a great story. Well you really 702 00:39:19,760 --> 00:39:21,560 Speaker 1: want this one over, don't you. 703 00:39:21,840 --> 00:39:22,160 Speaker 3: Sure? 704 00:39:23,200 --> 00:39:24,719 Speaker 1: If you want to get in touch with me and 705 00:39:24,800 --> 00:39:27,080 Speaker 1: Chuck with a great story, you can tweet to us, 706 00:39:27,160 --> 00:39:29,719 Speaker 1: I'm at Josh M. Clark, Chuck's at movie Crush, We're 707 00:39:29,760 --> 00:39:33,160 Speaker 1: both at s YSK podcast. Chuck's on Facebook dot com 708 00:39:33,160 --> 00:39:35,719 Speaker 1: slash Charles W. Chuck Bryant, and we're at Facebook dot 709 00:39:35,800 --> 00:39:38,840 Speaker 1: com slash stuff You should know. You can send us 710 00:39:38,880 --> 00:39:41,440 Speaker 1: an email to Stuff Podcast at HowStuffWorks dot com and 711 00:39:41,520 --> 00:39:43,240 Speaker 1: is always joining us at our home on the web, 712 00:39:43,480 --> 00:39:50,800 Speaker 1: Stuff youshould know dot com For more on this and 713 00:39:50,880 --> 00:40:03,400 Speaker 1: thousands of other topics. What is it HowStuffWorks dot com