1 00:00:03,040 --> 00:00:05,800 Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind from how stop 2 00:00:05,880 --> 00:00:14,520 Speaker 1: works dot com. Hey, you're welcome to stuff to Blow 3 00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:16,759 Speaker 1: your Mind. My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe 4 00:00:16,840 --> 00:00:19,000 Speaker 1: McCormick and Robert I want to put you in a scenario. 5 00:00:19,120 --> 00:00:21,840 Speaker 1: All right, let's do it. Okay, So just recently I 6 00:00:21,880 --> 00:00:25,080 Speaker 1: was at a family gathering, a wedding and old family event. 7 00:00:25,160 --> 00:00:27,600 Speaker 1: And when you go to a you know, family reunion 8 00:00:27,640 --> 00:00:29,280 Speaker 1: type event, you meet a lot of people you haven't 9 00:00:29,280 --> 00:00:30,800 Speaker 1: seen in a long time. You get to catch up 10 00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:33,440 Speaker 1: on what they're doing. So imagine you are at a 11 00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:36,720 Speaker 1: family reunion type event and you're talking to a distant 12 00:00:36,720 --> 00:00:39,720 Speaker 1: cousin of yours who's going to night school to get 13 00:00:39,760 --> 00:00:43,040 Speaker 1: her graduate degree. And you're like, oh, cool, yeah, I 14 00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:45,400 Speaker 1: do I do a science show. What what are you 15 00:00:45,400 --> 00:00:49,000 Speaker 1: studying at your your school? And she can give you 16 00:00:49,080 --> 00:00:51,360 Speaker 1: a couple of answers. Let's contemplate the first one. The 17 00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:54,920 Speaker 1: first answer is, oh, I study radio astronomy. So we 18 00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:57,440 Speaker 1: look at distant objects in the sky by measuring the 19 00:00:57,560 --> 00:01:00,880 Speaker 1: radio frequency energy they admit. And you're like, cool, so 20 00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:03,080 Speaker 1: how does that work? And she says, well, so we 21 00:01:03,160 --> 00:01:07,000 Speaker 1: aim radio telescope arrays at far away stars and galaxies, 22 00:01:07,319 --> 00:01:10,000 Speaker 1: and we collect the data and feeded into computers, and 23 00:01:10,040 --> 00:01:13,640 Speaker 1: that allows us to draw conclusions about the physical properties 24 00:01:13,680 --> 00:01:17,640 Speaker 1: of those objects. Sounds legit. Okay, here's another answer she 25 00:01:17,680 --> 00:01:22,160 Speaker 1: could give. She says, Oh, yeah, I study psychic astro sociology, 26 00:01:22,280 --> 00:01:25,760 Speaker 1: So we study distant civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy 27 00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:28,520 Speaker 1: by tuning into the psychic energies that they beam to 28 00:01:28,520 --> 00:01:32,120 Speaker 1: our planet through their Numa transmitters. The number of red 29 00:01:32,120 --> 00:01:35,600 Speaker 1: flags already, yeah, So you don't even really have to 30 00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:39,680 Speaker 1: be a scientist or even very scientifically literate to tell 31 00:01:39,720 --> 00:01:42,399 Speaker 1: that one of these answers refers to real science and 32 00:01:42,440 --> 00:01:46,399 Speaker 1: the other one does not. But the question you should 33 00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:49,960 Speaker 1: ask yourself is what is the criterion you have used. 34 00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:54,440 Speaker 1: You've intuitively used some kind of rule to rule in 35 00:01:54,560 --> 00:01:58,559 Speaker 1: one of those answers as real science and rule out 36 00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:01,320 Speaker 1: the other one as fake side and pseudoscience. It sounds 37 00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:03,840 Speaker 1: like garbage. So you know the difference when you see it, 38 00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:07,960 Speaker 1: But what is the principle that actually makes the difference right? 39 00:02:08,040 --> 00:02:11,000 Speaker 1: And and this question becomes ever more important when you 40 00:02:11,440 --> 00:02:14,280 Speaker 1: when you move away from the obvious examples and you 41 00:02:14,320 --> 00:02:18,880 Speaker 1: get into that h that stretch of gray area that 42 00:02:18,880 --> 00:02:24,240 Speaker 1: that that borders the dividing line. Um. Now, in terms 43 00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:26,119 Speaker 1: of pseudoscience, I do want to throw in real quick 44 00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:29,400 Speaker 1: that the oldest known use of the word pseudoscience dates 45 00:02:29,400 --> 00:02:34,320 Speaker 1: back from when the historian James Petite Andrew referred to 46 00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:40,720 Speaker 1: alchemy as quote a fantastical pseudoscience. And certainly, un you 47 00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:43,680 Speaker 1: can make that the case for that with alchemy. Well 48 00:02:44,480 --> 00:02:46,480 Speaker 1: maybe if you have a closed mine, I'm gonna get 49 00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:49,280 Speaker 1: some gold eventually. I mean, in some ways alchemy was 50 00:02:49,360 --> 00:02:53,800 Speaker 1: kind of a protoscience, but the the actual scientific properties 51 00:02:53,919 --> 00:02:55,760 Speaker 1: in alchemy, and this is kind of a topic for 52 00:02:55,800 --> 00:02:59,320 Speaker 1: another day, um are kind of lost amid all the 53 00:02:59,320 --> 00:03:05,400 Speaker 1: the cult concerns. But in the philosophy of science, exactly 54 00:03:05,440 --> 00:03:08,560 Speaker 1: this problem, this problem of what rule do you use 55 00:03:08,760 --> 00:03:12,959 Speaker 1: to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience has a name. 56 00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:17,520 Speaker 1: It's a named problem, right, Yeah, the demarcation problem. Yeah, 57 00:03:17,840 --> 00:03:21,040 Speaker 1: drawing the boundary, setting the border between one side and 58 00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:25,000 Speaker 1: the other, between truth and falsehood, between good and bad, 59 00:03:25,080 --> 00:03:28,320 Speaker 1: between sin and virtue. I mean it and it sounds 60 00:03:28,520 --> 00:03:32,160 Speaker 1: pretty simple, but it's a it's a very important concern 61 00:03:32,320 --> 00:03:35,240 Speaker 1: for the philosophy of science. For a couple of different reasons. 62 00:03:35,400 --> 00:03:39,160 Speaker 1: From a purely theoretical point of view, uh, it's important 63 00:03:39,320 --> 00:03:41,960 Speaker 1: philosophers talking to each other about what things mean and 64 00:03:41,960 --> 00:03:44,080 Speaker 1: the depth of their meaning. But also from a very 65 00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:48,160 Speaker 1: practical point and it's because obviously, science is humanity's most 66 00:03:48,200 --> 00:03:52,800 Speaker 1: reliable font of knowledge. It's the tower we've built that 67 00:03:52,880 --> 00:03:56,560 Speaker 1: we use to ascend to new heights. Uh, technologically speaking, 68 00:03:56,960 --> 00:04:01,600 Speaker 1: cosmologically speaking, it's our it's our best method for advancing solutions, 69 00:04:01,640 --> 00:04:07,200 Speaker 1: and something we're constantly touting in advertising, healthcare, criminal justice, 70 00:04:07,520 --> 00:04:12,760 Speaker 1: environmental policy, entertainment, politics, and everything in between. So science 71 00:04:12,840 --> 00:04:17,000 Speaker 1: is applied to science, isn't just uh, intellectual endeavor taking 72 00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:20,200 Speaker 1: place in a vacuum. Once we have a scientific conclusion, 73 00:04:20,279 --> 00:04:23,480 Speaker 1: we very often take that conclusion out and do something 74 00:04:23,480 --> 00:04:25,520 Speaker 1: with it. Yeah, it's not just in the monastery on 75 00:04:25,560 --> 00:04:29,000 Speaker 1: the hill. It's down in the marketplace, it's in the household. 76 00:04:29,040 --> 00:04:33,000 Speaker 1: It's it's factoring in your decisions. I mean, like we're 77 00:04:33,000 --> 00:04:35,839 Speaker 1: saying earlier, it's one thing to to hear someone's diet 78 00:04:35,839 --> 00:04:40,039 Speaker 1: tribe about some very fringe e topic and and instantly judge, oh, well, 79 00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:43,640 Speaker 1: that's that's complete malarchy. That's studioscience. But where it gets 80 00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:47,080 Speaker 1: gets weirder is when you're picking up a product at 81 00:04:47,080 --> 00:04:50,159 Speaker 1: the at the supermarket, you know, or you're you're you're 82 00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:53,239 Speaker 1: the vitamin supplement exactly hand, and then you start trying 83 00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:56,040 Speaker 1: to figure out, Wait, this is speaking the language of science. 84 00:04:56,040 --> 00:05:00,000 Speaker 1: It's not hitting those crazy keywords that my cousin knows 85 00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:03,160 Speaker 1: throwing out at this imagined wedding. What am I to do? 86 00:05:03,960 --> 00:05:07,680 Speaker 1: Mega vitea fan burns fat fast. Should I trust this? 87 00:05:08,160 --> 00:05:10,760 Speaker 1: I mean? Yeah? So it has real implications in the 88 00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:14,520 Speaker 1: real world that it impacts your wallet, and it impacts 89 00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:18,120 Speaker 1: the budgets of countries that fund scientific research. You don't 90 00:05:18,120 --> 00:05:22,760 Speaker 1: want the government funding research in something that is complete bunk. 91 00:05:24,120 --> 00:05:26,560 Speaker 1: So getting to this question of demarcation, like how do 92 00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:29,000 Speaker 1: you tell the difference? What rule do you use? One 93 00:05:29,160 --> 00:05:33,320 Speaker 1: one common dictionary definition of pseudoscience is something like quote 94 00:05:33,400 --> 00:05:37,480 Speaker 1: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being 95 00:05:37,520 --> 00:05:41,440 Speaker 1: based on the scientific method. Well that's not very helpful, 96 00:05:41,520 --> 00:05:44,039 Speaker 1: is it right, because that that just it's circular. It 97 00:05:44,120 --> 00:05:48,200 Speaker 1: invokes the concept of science to say what's not science? 98 00:05:48,240 --> 00:05:52,719 Speaker 1: So it's not helpful for solving the demarcation problem because 99 00:05:52,760 --> 00:05:55,560 Speaker 1: it just says pseudoscience is that which appears to be 100 00:05:55,640 --> 00:05:59,800 Speaker 1: science but is not those who are entering the tower 101 00:05:59,839 --> 00:06:02,719 Speaker 1: of science and not doing science there, or something to 102 00:06:02,760 --> 00:06:06,200 Speaker 1: that effect, because yeah, because the uh, the the scientific 103 00:06:06,240 --> 00:06:09,560 Speaker 1: method is still present, at least it's invoked, right, So 104 00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:13,039 Speaker 1: it becomes difficult to decipher. Yeah, So to really solve 105 00:06:13,080 --> 00:06:15,480 Speaker 1: the problem, you'd want to come up with some descriptive 106 00:06:15,600 --> 00:06:20,200 Speaker 1: rule that exclusively describes science. It's like a descriptive statement 107 00:06:20,720 --> 00:06:25,320 Speaker 1: that describes everything that is science and rules out everything 108 00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:28,120 Speaker 1: that is not science. But it's hard to come up 109 00:06:28,120 --> 00:06:30,919 Speaker 1: with a rule like that, isn't it. Yeah. I mean again, 110 00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:34,600 Speaker 1: especially as you you become closer and closer to the 111 00:06:34,640 --> 00:06:39,360 Speaker 1: boundary line. You know, it's um because it we'll discuss here. 112 00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:43,080 Speaker 1: It's it's kind of like imagine the border between two 113 00:06:43,080 --> 00:06:45,440 Speaker 1: states and you have you have a couple, you have 114 00:06:45,480 --> 00:06:48,720 Speaker 1: a couple of towns, right, and ones just immediately on 115 00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:50,800 Speaker 1: one side of the state line, the others on the other. 116 00:06:51,160 --> 00:06:53,960 Speaker 1: And if you're applying of it's a very strict understanding 117 00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:57,799 Speaker 1: of boundary lines here, then this one is definitely in Arkansas, 118 00:06:57,839 --> 00:07:00,359 Speaker 1: and this one's definitely in Tennessee. But then if you 119 00:07:00,400 --> 00:07:04,760 Speaker 1: start saying, well, actually, there's a little room, uh to 120 00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:07,520 Speaker 1: to go on either side. Then it just then you're confounded, 121 00:07:07,520 --> 00:07:08,960 Speaker 1: All right, is this one in Tennessee or is this 122 00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:10,720 Speaker 1: one in Arkansas? How about this one? Are they both 123 00:07:10,720 --> 00:07:13,200 Speaker 1: in both states? Or is it just how I feel 124 00:07:13,320 --> 00:07:15,960 Speaker 1: when I visit that town? Right? So, a lot of 125 00:07:16,000 --> 00:07:19,280 Speaker 1: the solutions to the demarcation problem try to draw some 126 00:07:19,400 --> 00:07:22,320 Speaker 1: clear line. Okay, here we have an exclusive rule that 127 00:07:22,480 --> 00:07:25,720 Speaker 1: makes the distinction. So I know a lot of scientists 128 00:07:25,720 --> 00:07:28,360 Speaker 1: and some philosophers of science would probably want to make 129 00:07:28,400 --> 00:07:32,720 Speaker 1: a distinction based on empiricism as as the first criteria here. Right. So, 130 00:07:33,040 --> 00:07:37,720 Speaker 1: empiricism is the idea that it involves observations. You know, 131 00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:40,720 Speaker 1: it's what you see or what you can measure externally. 132 00:07:41,240 --> 00:07:44,960 Speaker 1: That science can't be just an internal logical exercise that 133 00:07:45,000 --> 00:07:48,480 Speaker 1: has no contact with something you see happening in the 134 00:07:48,520 --> 00:07:52,400 Speaker 1: real world. Yeah, there has to. It has it's evidence based. Right. Then. 135 00:07:52,440 --> 00:07:55,240 Speaker 1: Of course you've also got the you know, the scientific 136 00:07:55,360 --> 00:07:58,040 Speaker 1: method that you learned in elementary school. Some people would 137 00:07:58,040 --> 00:08:00,000 Speaker 1: look at that and say, okay, you know, that's basically 138 00:08:00,360 --> 00:08:02,600 Speaker 1: how science works. You ask a question, you make an 139 00:08:02,680 --> 00:08:05,480 Speaker 1: educated guess, that's your hypothesis. You do some kind of 140 00:08:05,560 --> 00:08:09,600 Speaker 1: empirical test on observable reality to see if your guess 141 00:08:09,640 --> 00:08:12,680 Speaker 1: is correct. Then you analyze the results and draw conclusions, 142 00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:15,480 Speaker 1: and you know, that's a good simplified version for kids 143 00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:17,760 Speaker 1: to learn. Yeah, I mean, how do you walk into 144 00:08:17,760 --> 00:08:21,240 Speaker 1: a dark room and find out what the what what 145 00:08:21,280 --> 00:08:25,600 Speaker 1: the room contains and accurately judge it without you know, 146 00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:28,240 Speaker 1: hitting your head on something. But there's a problem with 147 00:08:28,240 --> 00:08:31,000 Speaker 1: that if we're trying to describe science as it happens 148 00:08:31,000 --> 00:08:34,160 Speaker 1: in the real world of professional discoveries, because it doesn't. 149 00:08:34,559 --> 00:08:38,199 Speaker 1: That method doesn't very closely describe the process by which 150 00:08:38,200 --> 00:08:41,040 Speaker 1: we came up with all kinds of important and correct 151 00:08:41,200 --> 00:08:45,080 Speaker 1: scientific theories in history, Like lots of theories in physics, 152 00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:49,280 Speaker 1: for example, we're just conceived simply as abstract thought experiments, 153 00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:53,240 Speaker 1: and they went for a long time without empirical testing. 154 00:08:53,280 --> 00:08:56,360 Speaker 1: Now we've empirically tested them and we know. But they 155 00:08:56,480 --> 00:08:59,120 Speaker 1: just started in Einstein's head. There are a number of 156 00:08:59,120 --> 00:09:03,240 Speaker 1: scientific concept that were conceived or certainly that the the 157 00:09:03,880 --> 00:09:07,920 Speaker 1: people behind them attributed their conception to dreams, you know. 158 00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:12,800 Speaker 1: So it's hard to fit the dream world into any 159 00:09:12,960 --> 00:09:17,120 Speaker 1: serious contemplation of scientific method, right. Yeah, So there are 160 00:09:17,120 --> 00:09:19,720 Speaker 1: plenty of examples you can go through through history of 161 00:09:20,200 --> 00:09:24,040 Speaker 1: scientific theories that we didn't have empirical confirmation of for 162 00:09:24,120 --> 00:09:27,640 Speaker 1: a long time, even after people had accepted them as 163 00:09:27,679 --> 00:09:31,200 Speaker 1: probably true. You know, one good example that it comes 164 00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:33,199 Speaker 1: up in the debate we're gonna be talking about today 165 00:09:33,280 --> 00:09:36,959 Speaker 1: is the question of atoms. For a long time, scientists 166 00:09:37,040 --> 00:09:39,680 Speaker 1: knew that matter was based on atoms, but there was 167 00:09:39,720 --> 00:09:43,280 Speaker 1: no test they could do to confirm the existence of atoms. 168 00:09:43,800 --> 00:09:46,679 Speaker 1: Now there are, fortunately, but we didn't. We didn't have 169 00:09:46,720 --> 00:09:49,640 Speaker 1: those tests for a long time. Another problem with the 170 00:09:49,679 --> 00:09:52,880 Speaker 1: basic scientific method you learn an elementary school is that 171 00:09:52,920 --> 00:09:55,640 Speaker 1: if you just have some bad methodology, you can rule 172 00:09:55,679 --> 00:09:59,319 Speaker 1: in plenty of pseudoscience. Right Like, if you just use 173 00:09:59,400 --> 00:10:02,840 Speaker 1: the scientific method, but you use it poorly, you can 174 00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:08,240 Speaker 1: prove the existence of psychics, ghosts, aliens, whatever you want. Yeah, 175 00:10:08,240 --> 00:10:10,520 Speaker 1: I mean we see this time and time again. Right, 176 00:10:10,520 --> 00:10:12,760 Speaker 1: There'll be one guy who is able to create a 177 00:10:12,880 --> 00:10:16,200 Speaker 1: zero gravity state in a lab, and then any and 178 00:10:16,320 --> 00:10:19,160 Speaker 1: everyone else tries to replicate it, and they don't get 179 00:10:19,160 --> 00:10:23,560 Speaker 1: the same results. And therefore either either what everybody's wrong, 180 00:10:23,600 --> 00:10:26,160 Speaker 1: and this one guy got it right once. No, it's 181 00:10:26,200 --> 00:10:28,400 Speaker 1: the reverse. Yeah, he used the method. He just did 182 00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:31,960 Speaker 1: a really bad job of using the method. Another way 183 00:10:32,000 --> 00:10:34,160 Speaker 1: that I think some people would address how to define 184 00:10:34,280 --> 00:10:37,640 Speaker 1: science and uh and solve the demarcation problem is I 185 00:10:38,000 --> 00:10:40,920 Speaker 1: think totally useless. And they define science in a kind 186 00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:45,319 Speaker 1: of post talk back engineered pragmatic sense, as in, they 187 00:10:45,320 --> 00:10:48,960 Speaker 1: define sciences the method of inquiry which produces correct and 188 00:10:49,080 --> 00:10:52,959 Speaker 1: useful results. This is obviously not a helpful solution to 189 00:10:53,080 --> 00:10:56,720 Speaker 1: demarcation problem. Now, if you're hearing all of this and thinking, yeah, 190 00:10:56,800 --> 00:10:59,760 Speaker 1: but then again, I mean, scientists are just doing their 191 00:10:59,760 --> 00:11:03,240 Speaker 1: scientific work. Do they really need to worry about all 192 00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:06,320 Speaker 1: of this, Uh, this philosophical back and forth, Like, is 193 00:11:06,360 --> 00:11:08,480 Speaker 1: this just a lot of talk that doesn't really amount 194 00:11:08,520 --> 00:11:11,280 Speaker 1: to anything? I would argue, No, it is not. I 195 00:11:11,320 --> 00:11:17,439 Speaker 1: think these philosophical concepts are crucial to to doing good science. Yeah, 196 00:11:17,520 --> 00:11:20,560 Speaker 1: and uh, especially when you when you start facing the 197 00:11:20,640 --> 00:11:25,800 Speaker 1: realization that you can't just do the science right. Uh. 198 00:11:25,840 --> 00:11:28,760 Speaker 1: There's a there's a wonderful quote from Daniel Dennett from 199 00:11:28,760 --> 00:11:31,880 Speaker 1: his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which we've discussed this in 200 00:11:31,880 --> 00:11:36,200 Speaker 1: a previous episode, but he says, quote, scientists sometimes deceive 201 00:11:36,280 --> 00:11:39,760 Speaker 1: themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only at best 202 00:11:40,160 --> 00:11:45,880 Speaker 1: decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, 203 00:11:46,200 --> 00:11:49,320 Speaker 1: and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that 204 00:11:49,400 --> 00:11:53,680 Speaker 1: philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no 205 00:11:53,800 --> 00:11:57,120 Speaker 1: such thing as philosophy free science. There is only science 206 00:11:57,280 --> 00:12:01,920 Speaker 1: whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. I 207 00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:05,080 Speaker 1: entirely agree with that quote. I think that's right on 208 00:12:05,120 --> 00:12:07,520 Speaker 1: the money. I mean, if you hear a scientist say, 209 00:12:07,600 --> 00:12:11,000 Speaker 1: I don't bother with philosophy. I'm not interested in philosophical 210 00:12:11,000 --> 00:12:14,240 Speaker 1: content concepts. I just do the science. It's kind of 211 00:12:14,280 --> 00:12:17,520 Speaker 1: like if you had a person running for president who says, look, 212 00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:20,960 Speaker 1: I'm not political, I'm just gonna govern. Would you trust 213 00:12:21,040 --> 00:12:25,080 Speaker 1: that person? I mean, the reality is what they are 214 00:12:25,160 --> 00:12:28,240 Speaker 1: going to be governed by some kind of philosophy, whether 215 00:12:28,280 --> 00:12:31,760 Speaker 1: they acknowledge it or not. And uh in the person 216 00:12:31,800 --> 00:12:34,680 Speaker 1: who claims not to have a philosophy or not to 217 00:12:34,840 --> 00:12:37,880 Speaker 1: have you know, any kind of ideology guiding them is 218 00:12:37,960 --> 00:12:41,000 Speaker 1: just advertising the fact that they haven't thought very deeply 219 00:12:41,040 --> 00:12:44,280 Speaker 1: about this. Yeah, they because I like the idea of 220 00:12:44,320 --> 00:12:49,560 Speaker 1: a non political uh individual just judging without and just 221 00:12:49,679 --> 00:12:53,080 Speaker 1: ruling without any kind of uh you know, weird hang 222 00:12:53,200 --> 00:12:56,280 Speaker 1: ups and constraints and agenda. But for that to really work, 223 00:12:56,320 --> 00:12:58,800 Speaker 1: you'd have to have like a superhuman you have to 224 00:12:58,840 --> 00:13:02,400 Speaker 1: have someone with like a self moving soul. Was someone 225 00:13:02,440 --> 00:13:04,679 Speaker 1: who could who could think and approach the task at 226 00:13:04,720 --> 00:13:08,880 Speaker 1: hand with just pure logic, unmoved by the undercurrents of opinion, bias, 227 00:13:09,040 --> 00:13:12,120 Speaker 1: trauma or longing. Uh. You know. Part of the the 228 00:13:12,120 --> 00:13:15,319 Speaker 1: the issue here is that science itself, with the scientific 229 00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:18,320 Speaker 1: method as its backbone, it's it's kind of a perfect engine, 230 00:13:18,440 --> 00:13:22,080 Speaker 1: right uh and and we are it's flawed operators. So 231 00:13:22,080 --> 00:13:24,199 Speaker 1: for perhaps you know what we need here, I would 232 00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:26,959 Speaker 1: look at like the done universe, we need like Mentat scientists, 233 00:13:27,400 --> 00:13:31,560 Speaker 1: um or we would need Dounyane scientists or bodhisattvas of 234 00:13:31,600 --> 00:13:35,480 Speaker 1: scientific inquiry. What do you mean, Duniane? What is that? Oh? 235 00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:37,760 Speaker 1: They're a there are people that are kind of like 236 00:13:37,800 --> 00:13:42,240 Speaker 1: Mentats and m are Scott Baker's Second Apocalypse saga. So 237 00:13:42,280 --> 00:13:45,680 Speaker 1: they've been able to just really through just generations and 238 00:13:45,720 --> 00:13:51,720 Speaker 1: generations of selective breeding and uh and and personal training, 239 00:13:52,280 --> 00:13:55,720 Speaker 1: they've managed to enter the two to breed a people 240 00:13:55,920 --> 00:14:00,000 Speaker 1: that are completely uh, in the now completely in control 241 00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:03,160 Speaker 1: all of their of their soul and their mind states. 242 00:14:03,160 --> 00:14:06,559 Speaker 1: So they're they're not governed by uh, you know, past concerns, 243 00:14:06,600 --> 00:14:09,000 Speaker 1: and when they encounter people that are not doniating, they 244 00:14:09,000 --> 00:14:12,320 Speaker 1: can just completely manipulate them because they sort of stand 245 00:14:12,360 --> 00:14:15,520 Speaker 1: outside of that path. Humans engineered to no longer have 246 00:14:15,679 --> 00:14:19,840 Speaker 1: preferences to only be computers sort of yeah, yeah, pretty much. 247 00:14:19,880 --> 00:14:21,400 Speaker 1: And but that's the other thing. Maybe what we need 248 00:14:21,400 --> 00:14:24,760 Speaker 1: is an advanced hyper computer, some sort of you know, 249 00:14:24,920 --> 00:14:27,760 Speaker 1: super AI. They could do all of the science that 250 00:14:27,840 --> 00:14:32,640 Speaker 1: could that could be science without the human concerns. But 251 00:14:32,720 --> 00:14:34,760 Speaker 1: we don't have that right now. We just have the 252 00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:38,440 Speaker 1: humans with some help from the computers. Right. So today, 253 00:14:38,640 --> 00:14:40,840 Speaker 1: the main topic that we're going to be talking about 254 00:14:41,160 --> 00:14:46,560 Speaker 1: is the idea of empiricism and falsifiability in science. And 255 00:14:46,680 --> 00:14:49,760 Speaker 1: we're gonna get to what those what falsifiability means in 256 00:14:49,760 --> 00:14:52,760 Speaker 1: a second, but also about whether we have entered a 257 00:14:52,840 --> 00:14:55,520 Speaker 1: phase in science where there is room for a concept 258 00:14:55,600 --> 00:14:59,320 Speaker 1: to known as post empiricism. And if that sounds crazy 259 00:14:59,360 --> 00:15:02,600 Speaker 1: to you, we will explain what the arguments are in 260 00:15:02,680 --> 00:15:05,640 Speaker 1: just a bit. But we should bring it back to 261 00:15:05,720 --> 00:15:08,680 Speaker 1: the history of this demarcation problem. How do you separate 262 00:15:08,720 --> 00:15:11,480 Speaker 1: the science from the pseudoscience? And one of the most 263 00:15:11,520 --> 00:15:14,480 Speaker 1: common answers given by scientists today would be traceful back 264 00:15:14,480 --> 00:15:18,200 Speaker 1: to the twentieth century philosopher of science Carl Popper. So 265 00:15:18,360 --> 00:15:22,280 Speaker 1: who was Carl Popper? Now? Popper was an Austrian British 266 00:15:22,320 --> 00:15:25,480 Speaker 1: philosopher generally regarded as one of the twentieth centuries greatest 267 00:15:25,480 --> 00:15:29,960 Speaker 1: philosophers of science. And he identified demarcation as the chief 268 00:15:30,000 --> 00:15:32,920 Speaker 1: problem in the philosophy of science. Again, how to judge 269 00:15:32,960 --> 00:15:37,520 Speaker 1: science separated from from pseudoscience, separate the sin from the virtue. 270 00:15:37,560 --> 00:15:40,240 Speaker 1: Here to draw a really firm line in the sand 271 00:15:40,480 --> 00:15:44,400 Speaker 1: that we can stick by and judge everything accordingly. And 272 00:15:44,440 --> 00:15:47,560 Speaker 1: he thought he came up with an answer to the problem, right, yeah, yeah, 273 00:15:47,560 --> 00:15:49,600 Speaker 1: he thought he came up with with a pretty solid answer. 274 00:15:49,640 --> 00:15:52,800 Speaker 1: And really I was reading about his life like he 275 00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:55,720 Speaker 1: stuck to his guns, like towards the end of his life, 276 00:15:55,920 --> 00:15:57,640 Speaker 1: you know, he had he had He had plenty of 277 00:15:57,680 --> 00:16:00,000 Speaker 1: critics who said, actually, just doesn't work, blah blah blah. 278 00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:02,760 Speaker 1: We'll get into the specifics in a second. But he 279 00:16:03,000 --> 00:16:05,320 Speaker 1: was devoted and he would he spent his time either 280 00:16:05,840 --> 00:16:09,960 Speaker 1: clarifying what he had said or shooting down his critics. So, yeah, 281 00:16:10,040 --> 00:16:12,440 Speaker 1: he's he's specked with his guns on this. But what 282 00:16:12,480 --> 00:16:14,720 Speaker 1: was his answer? How can you tell the difference between 283 00:16:14,720 --> 00:16:19,640 Speaker 1: science and pseudoscience? What qualifies something as real science? Yeah? 284 00:16:19,640 --> 00:16:22,680 Speaker 1: What is what is the litmus test? Right? The answer 285 00:16:22,760 --> 00:16:26,840 Speaker 1: he gave is falsifiability. So what does that mean? So, 286 00:16:27,200 --> 00:16:30,360 Speaker 1: according to Popper, in order for a proposition right or 287 00:16:30,400 --> 00:16:35,120 Speaker 1: wrong to be scientific in nature, it has to be falsifiable, 288 00:16:35,240 --> 00:16:39,640 Speaker 1: meaning you have to be able to describe empirical results, 289 00:16:39,680 --> 00:16:42,400 Speaker 1: test results in the real world that would show the 290 00:16:42,480 --> 00:16:46,080 Speaker 1: proposition to be false. And then in order to to 291 00:16:46,160 --> 00:16:48,920 Speaker 1: strengthen the theory, to build confidence in it, you have 292 00:16:49,000 --> 00:16:52,200 Speaker 1: to continually seek these exceptions to your rule. You have 293 00:16:52,280 --> 00:16:55,520 Speaker 1: to keep looking for ways to break your theory, and 294 00:16:55,560 --> 00:16:58,480 Speaker 1: you have to fail to attain them over and over. Yeah. 295 00:16:58,520 --> 00:17:01,320 Speaker 1: And this means there has to be such thing as 296 00:17:01,360 --> 00:17:05,240 Speaker 1: a critical test for any given proposition proposition in order 297 00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:07,760 Speaker 1: for it to be scientific in nature. Right. Uh? And 298 00:17:07,800 --> 00:17:11,199 Speaker 1: so let's give some examples in in science, just throughout 299 00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:13,800 Speaker 1: a theory what the rule is, and then explain how 300 00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:17,120 Speaker 1: how could you falsify it? So here's one. Einstein's special 301 00:17:17,160 --> 00:17:19,320 Speaker 1: theory of relativity says the speed of light and a 302 00:17:19,400 --> 00:17:23,399 Speaker 1: vacuum is the same for all observers. Now, if you 303 00:17:23,440 --> 00:17:26,439 Speaker 1: could get people in spaceships moving at different speeds to 304 00:17:26,520 --> 00:17:28,480 Speaker 1: measure the speed of light and a vacuum and get 305 00:17:28,480 --> 00:17:32,640 Speaker 1: different results, than special relativity is wrong. It's falsified. The 306 00:17:32,640 --> 00:17:36,919 Speaker 1: theory is, in principle, falsifiable. Another one would be how 307 00:17:36,920 --> 00:17:40,720 Speaker 1: about common descent. Uh. Common descent says that all life 308 00:17:40,760 --> 00:17:43,320 Speaker 1: on Earth is related and it evolved from a single 309 00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:46,840 Speaker 1: organism known as the last Universal common ancestor or LUCA. 310 00:17:47,560 --> 00:17:49,840 Speaker 1: So if we looked at the genomes of plants and 311 00:17:49,880 --> 00:17:53,639 Speaker 1: animals and bacteria l the different kingdoms of life, and 312 00:17:53,680 --> 00:17:57,479 Speaker 1: we found that they had all completely different genes and 313 00:17:57,600 --> 00:18:01,560 Speaker 1: use different genetic tools to accomplish the same basic survival 314 00:18:01,600 --> 00:18:06,360 Speaker 1: tasks like say metabolism, metabolizing sugars or something, this would 315 00:18:06,400 --> 00:18:09,239 Speaker 1: probably falsify common descent. It would make it look like 316 00:18:09,280 --> 00:18:12,480 Speaker 1: the kingdoms of life had multiple different origins. But that's 317 00:18:12,520 --> 00:18:14,879 Speaker 1: not what we find. So there there is support for 318 00:18:14,920 --> 00:18:18,000 Speaker 1: common descent. And here's one example that's often was often 319 00:18:18,040 --> 00:18:22,200 Speaker 1: touted by Paper himself. So astronomers of the nineteenth century 320 00:18:22,400 --> 00:18:27,560 Speaker 1: looked to the the the orbit of Uranus. Okay, something 321 00:18:27,560 --> 00:18:30,440 Speaker 1: seemed a bit off here, so two separate astronomers they 322 00:18:30,480 --> 00:18:33,600 Speaker 1: pointed out that the orbit of Uranis could be explained 323 00:18:33,840 --> 00:18:37,760 Speaker 1: via Newtonian physics as being caused by a seventh and 324 00:18:37,840 --> 00:18:41,960 Speaker 1: previously unknown planet, which of course turns out to be Neptune. 325 00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:47,120 Speaker 1: Astronomers uh subsequently discover Neptune, and it's exactly where these 326 00:18:47,119 --> 00:18:51,280 Speaker 1: two different astronomers predicted that it would be. So Papa 327 00:18:51,440 --> 00:18:54,600 Speaker 1: argued that in this Newton's theory was subjected to a 328 00:18:54,600 --> 00:18:59,200 Speaker 1: critical test and it passed. But critics would have a 329 00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:03,119 Speaker 1: different view of this. Critics such as uh Emmor Lactose 330 00:19:03,760 --> 00:19:06,560 Speaker 1: point out that if they'd been in error, if the 331 00:19:06,720 --> 00:19:09,199 Speaker 1: if the two scientists here had been wrong, if we 332 00:19:09,280 --> 00:19:13,000 Speaker 1: hadn't found Neptune exactly where it is, we wouldn't have 333 00:19:13,080 --> 00:19:16,840 Speaker 1: thrown out Newtonian physics right. We would have looked for 334 00:19:16,920 --> 00:19:20,119 Speaker 1: other possible culprits, any of the number of reasons that 335 00:19:20,280 --> 00:19:24,080 Speaker 1: those that their their their theory here could have been wrong. 336 00:19:24,640 --> 00:19:27,600 Speaker 1: So it was hardly a test of Newtonian physics at all. 337 00:19:27,920 --> 00:19:33,440 Speaker 1: The falsification corroboration disjunction might very well, just be too simplistic. Yeah, 338 00:19:33,480 --> 00:19:36,720 Speaker 1: and that's true that there are plenty of criticisms of 339 00:19:36,800 --> 00:19:41,440 Speaker 1: the poparian Is that the word poparian the the falsification 340 00:19:41,560 --> 00:19:45,040 Speaker 1: criteria in the philosophy of science. But but this has 341 00:19:45,119 --> 00:19:47,800 Speaker 1: been one of the big ones that people have have 342 00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:53,840 Speaker 1: latched onto over the past century. Now to continue exploring falsification. 343 00:19:53,920 --> 00:19:56,879 Speaker 1: On the contrary, imagine what it's like to have a 344 00:19:56,920 --> 00:20:00,560 Speaker 1: proposition where you can't come up with any in principle 345 00:20:00,680 --> 00:20:05,240 Speaker 1: empirical test that would provide strong evidence against it. If 346 00:20:05,280 --> 00:20:07,840 Speaker 1: you have something like that, this is not a good thing. 347 00:20:08,320 --> 00:20:11,720 Speaker 1: So imagine a psychic medium claims to get information from 348 00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:14,520 Speaker 1: the spirit world. Okay, well, well, let's come up with 349 00:20:14,680 --> 00:20:17,600 Speaker 1: some tests for this. Let's say, let's test the information 350 00:20:17,640 --> 00:20:19,760 Speaker 1: that he's getting from the spirit world and find out 351 00:20:19,840 --> 00:20:24,000 Speaker 1: if it accurately reflects information about dead people that he 352 00:20:24,000 --> 00:20:27,119 Speaker 1: wouldn't have been able to know. He can always say, well, actually, 353 00:20:27,160 --> 00:20:29,560 Speaker 1: wait a minute, my powers aren't going to work in 354 00:20:29,600 --> 00:20:34,120 Speaker 1: the presence of the negative energy created by skeptics. Uh so, well, well, 355 00:20:34,160 --> 00:20:36,520 Speaker 1: maybe we can put some believers in place and blind 356 00:20:36,560 --> 00:20:39,280 Speaker 1: them to the test and see if you're getting accurate information. 357 00:20:39,920 --> 00:20:42,080 Speaker 1: The psychic could still say, well, wait a minute, there 358 00:20:42,080 --> 00:20:45,520 Speaker 1: are also malicious spirits who are responsible for feeding me 359 00:20:45,680 --> 00:20:50,239 Speaker 1: incorrect information. Uh so in in the end, there is 360 00:20:50,280 --> 00:20:54,760 Speaker 1: no evidence that could really count against his powers. Anything 361 00:20:54,920 --> 00:20:58,679 Speaker 1: that could count against it is explained away. Yeah, you 362 00:20:58,680 --> 00:21:01,520 Speaker 1: can see this with a lot of supernatural ideas, like 363 00:21:01,520 --> 00:21:03,359 Speaker 1: one of the big ones, of course, one that I 364 00:21:03,560 --> 00:21:07,680 Speaker 1: often think about is the hand of God. Uh. Analogy here, So, 365 00:21:08,640 --> 00:21:13,199 Speaker 1: if God exists outside of our universe, all right, if 366 00:21:13,240 --> 00:21:15,560 Speaker 1: he's outside of our universe, we can't really do anything 367 00:21:15,600 --> 00:21:18,040 Speaker 1: to disapprove or prove, right, because he's not a part 368 00:21:18,080 --> 00:21:20,639 Speaker 1: of the observable universe that we can test and we 369 00:21:20,640 --> 00:21:24,560 Speaker 1: can measure. Now, it's been argued that if the hand 370 00:21:24,600 --> 00:21:28,040 Speaker 1: of God then reaches into our universe to do things 371 00:21:28,119 --> 00:21:30,840 Speaker 1: you know, uh, you know, create life, turn a city, 372 00:21:30,880 --> 00:21:35,919 Speaker 1: to solve whatever, then that hand has to interact with 373 00:21:36,000 --> 00:21:39,360 Speaker 1: our universe. It has to interact with atoms and molecules, 374 00:21:39,560 --> 00:21:43,560 Speaker 1: and therefore we would be able to measure a supernatural presence, 375 00:21:43,880 --> 00:21:46,280 Speaker 1: a presence from the outside reaching into our own by 376 00:21:46,280 --> 00:21:50,320 Speaker 1: the way it moved. Our molecules are atoms our world. 377 00:21:50,440 --> 00:21:52,920 Speaker 1: Oh okay, so that makes it sound like the presence 378 00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:56,840 Speaker 1: of supernatural interaction should be in theory testable. But when 379 00:21:56,840 --> 00:21:59,560 Speaker 1: you bring that up people because because then you say, 380 00:21:59,560 --> 00:22:01,680 Speaker 1: when we've ever observed that, people will say, oh, well, 381 00:22:02,080 --> 00:22:05,360 Speaker 1: he doesn't have to he or she does not have 382 00:22:05,440 --> 00:22:07,959 Speaker 1: to move the molecules. And then but then you're just saying, oh, well, 383 00:22:07,960 --> 00:22:10,000 Speaker 1: then they don't have to obey any of the laws, 384 00:22:10,119 --> 00:22:13,600 Speaker 1: and so it's super untestable. Right, You're removing all possible 385 00:22:13,680 --> 00:22:17,280 Speaker 1: conditions that could falsify what you're claiming. Right, it kind 386 00:22:17,280 --> 00:22:21,800 Speaker 1: of becomes like an argument between kindergarteners about who just 387 00:22:21,840 --> 00:22:24,359 Speaker 1: blasted who with a laser gun on the playground, Like 388 00:22:24,480 --> 00:22:27,680 Speaker 1: they can both deny that they've been vaporized by a 389 00:22:27,720 --> 00:22:31,840 Speaker 1: laser gun based on, uh, you know, increasingly preposterous ideas 390 00:22:31,880 --> 00:22:33,840 Speaker 1: about how the laser gun worked and what kind of 391 00:22:33,880 --> 00:22:37,280 Speaker 1: imaginary armor they were wearing. Right, But of course, theories 392 00:22:37,320 --> 00:22:42,520 Speaker 1: that are unfalsifiable in nature don't necessarily just appeal to 393 00:22:42,560 --> 00:22:46,280 Speaker 1: the paranormals, psychics and you know, ghosts and aliens and 394 00:22:46,280 --> 00:22:50,240 Speaker 1: stuff like that. You could also have secular unfalsifiable theories. 395 00:22:50,280 --> 00:22:53,600 Speaker 1: How about this one, We are living inside a computer simulation? 396 00:22:54,400 --> 00:22:56,520 Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I love this one. Now, there might be 397 00:22:56,600 --> 00:22:59,159 Speaker 1: some ways that smart people could come up with to 398 00:22:59,280 --> 00:23:01,880 Speaker 1: test whether not this is true. You could say, well, 399 00:23:01,920 --> 00:23:04,840 Speaker 1: you know, on a computer simulation, we'd expect to find X. 400 00:23:05,080 --> 00:23:07,919 Speaker 1: If we don't find X, that's evidence against it. Maybe, 401 00:23:08,119 --> 00:23:10,280 Speaker 1: But as far as I know, there's no test you 402 00:23:10,320 --> 00:23:13,879 Speaker 1: could perform to falsify the statement that we're living in 403 00:23:13,920 --> 00:23:16,920 Speaker 1: a computer simulation. There's no way to prove this isn't correct. 404 00:23:17,640 --> 00:23:20,520 Speaker 1: And thus it's just sort of like one of those things. 405 00:23:20,520 --> 00:23:24,159 Speaker 1: Well that's interesting to think about, but it seems unscientific 406 00:23:24,160 --> 00:23:26,760 Speaker 1: in nature, because if we're in a perfect simulation, we're 407 00:23:26,800 --> 00:23:29,400 Speaker 1: in a perfect simulation, and how would you possibly see 408 00:23:29,400 --> 00:23:33,600 Speaker 1: outside of it? It's um, it's kind of like this. Uh. 409 00:23:33,680 --> 00:23:38,720 Speaker 1: There's a fabulous description of human sight that was related 410 00:23:38,760 --> 00:23:40,679 Speaker 1: to me over the weekend, and that's the idea that 411 00:23:41,200 --> 00:23:44,399 Speaker 1: when you look at something with your through your vision, um, 412 00:23:44,480 --> 00:23:48,919 Speaker 1: you're essentially regarding a timeline of the evolution of human vision. 413 00:23:49,560 --> 00:23:53,080 Speaker 1: So the corners of your eyes, you you're encountering just 414 00:23:53,240 --> 00:23:57,360 Speaker 1: blurry shapes, less color, less detail, and as you move 415 00:23:57,440 --> 00:23:59,840 Speaker 1: in towards the center of your eye, that's where you 416 00:24:00,000 --> 00:24:02,600 Speaker 1: and actually make out the details and and and very 417 00:24:02,720 --> 00:24:06,640 Speaker 1: precise movements and changes and and so it's a it's 418 00:24:06,640 --> 00:24:09,720 Speaker 1: a timeline that converges at the center. But then that 419 00:24:09,760 --> 00:24:13,680 Speaker 1: makes it kind of difficult and not impossible to envision 420 00:24:13,760 --> 00:24:16,800 Speaker 1: things further along in the timeline because it's not a 421 00:24:16,840 --> 00:24:20,439 Speaker 1: linear system, you know. Huh, it's a it's it's closed 422 00:24:20,520 --> 00:24:23,920 Speaker 1: to us. I guess if that makes sense. That's a 423 00:24:24,040 --> 00:24:27,680 Speaker 1: very interesting statement. I've never heard that before. Yeah, yeah, 424 00:24:27,720 --> 00:24:30,760 Speaker 1: I keep keep thinking about it because it's I think 425 00:24:30,760 --> 00:24:33,119 Speaker 1: it's appliable to a lot of things, a lot of 426 00:24:33,680 --> 00:24:37,600 Speaker 1: topics concerning the limits of our of our observation, the 427 00:24:37,680 --> 00:24:42,160 Speaker 1: limits of our of our experience, completely unrelated side note. 428 00:24:42,760 --> 00:24:46,120 Speaker 1: Did you know that if you have people hold up 429 00:24:46,160 --> 00:24:48,600 Speaker 1: colored flags at the very edge of your vision, you 430 00:24:48,640 --> 00:24:51,160 Speaker 1: will not be able to tell what color they are? Oh? Yeah, 431 00:24:51,160 --> 00:24:53,800 Speaker 1: well that makes sense because to go with the timeline analogy, 432 00:24:53,840 --> 00:24:55,960 Speaker 1: you are seeing out of your corner. You're seeing with 433 00:24:56,040 --> 00:24:58,159 Speaker 1: a very primitive form of vision. But we have the 434 00:24:58,200 --> 00:25:01,240 Speaker 1: illusion that the corners of our eyes have color to 435 00:25:01,320 --> 00:25:04,200 Speaker 1: them when you look out, Yeah, my peripheral vision has 436 00:25:04,240 --> 00:25:06,080 Speaker 1: just as much color as the center of my vision. 437 00:25:06,280 --> 00:25:08,320 Speaker 1: You can test this and show it to be false 438 00:25:08,440 --> 00:25:11,919 Speaker 1: that statement is falsifiable and has been falsified because when 439 00:25:11,960 --> 00:25:13,880 Speaker 1: you hold up these red flags at the very edge 440 00:25:13,880 --> 00:25:16,600 Speaker 1: of your vision, you can't tell the difference between red 441 00:25:16,640 --> 00:25:19,760 Speaker 1: blue orange. Try it out. Yeah, yeah, no matter what 442 00:25:19,800 --> 00:25:21,879 Speaker 1: your memory says, because your mind is up stitching it 443 00:25:21,920 --> 00:25:25,240 Speaker 1: all together into some form that makes sense at least 444 00:25:25,560 --> 00:25:27,800 Speaker 1: you know, at a glance. Okay, so we've got this 445 00:25:27,880 --> 00:25:32,439 Speaker 1: criterion here for for the demarcation problem. Real science is falsifiable. 446 00:25:32,440 --> 00:25:36,600 Speaker 1: It makes predictions, and it says, if this were true, 447 00:25:36,800 --> 00:25:40,520 Speaker 1: my theory would be false. Ideas that don't conform to 448 00:25:40,600 --> 00:25:43,760 Speaker 1: this are in our experience, in our experience, incredibly annoying 449 00:25:43,760 --> 00:25:47,160 Speaker 1: to interrogate. And also, I would say, in our experience, 450 00:25:47,400 --> 00:25:53,080 Speaker 1: do not generate accurate predictions, technologies, or new knowledge. Yeah. Yeah, 451 00:25:53,119 --> 00:25:54,679 Speaker 1: because if it's just if it's an idea that you 452 00:25:54,720 --> 00:25:56,919 Speaker 1: can't test, you can't prove, you can't do experiments on it. 453 00:25:57,080 --> 00:25:58,720 Speaker 1: All you can do is just sort of is either 454 00:25:58,840 --> 00:26:03,280 Speaker 1: nod along or shake your head. You're not gonna conduct 455 00:26:03,320 --> 00:26:06,960 Speaker 1: any experiments and learn something more about the the the 456 00:26:06,960 --> 00:26:10,280 Speaker 1: inner workings of reality. Yeah. One last distinction I want 457 00:26:10,320 --> 00:26:12,280 Speaker 1: to make before we start to get to this weird 458 00:26:12,359 --> 00:26:16,680 Speaker 1: world of the idea of post empiricism. So there's another 459 00:26:16,840 --> 00:26:19,760 Speaker 1: type of empirical theory of science that's simply a corall 460 00:26:19,800 --> 00:26:22,520 Speaker 1: area I would say a falsification, and that's verification. And 461 00:26:22,560 --> 00:26:26,399 Speaker 1: this is actually the older theory. So it's they're both empirical. 462 00:26:26,440 --> 00:26:29,520 Speaker 1: They're really two halves of the same coin. Right. But 463 00:26:29,600 --> 00:26:33,159 Speaker 1: with verification, you make a positive prediction and then you 464 00:26:33,240 --> 00:26:36,280 Speaker 1: test to see if that's the case. So my prediction 465 00:26:36,960 --> 00:26:42,240 Speaker 1: is that all cows on Earth are brown. Um, so 466 00:26:42,520 --> 00:26:44,640 Speaker 1: you go out and look, and let's say you find 467 00:26:44,640 --> 00:26:48,480 Speaker 1: some brown cows. Oh, what do you know? My theory 468 00:26:48,560 --> 00:26:51,280 Speaker 1: is correct. So you can sort of see the problem 469 00:26:51,320 --> 00:26:53,600 Speaker 1: with this. You can keep testing and looking for brown 470 00:26:53,680 --> 00:26:57,199 Speaker 1: cows and finding brown cows, and if you were to 471 00:26:57,280 --> 00:27:00,040 Speaker 1: regard these the fact that you keep finding brown on 472 00:27:00,160 --> 00:27:04,600 Speaker 1: cows as an evidence that your theory is correct. Instead, 473 00:27:04,640 --> 00:27:07,880 Speaker 1: what you should be doing is looking for non brown cows, 474 00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:10,919 Speaker 1: and you keep looking for them, and eventually if you 475 00:27:11,000 --> 00:27:14,920 Speaker 1: find a non brown cow, then your theory has been falsified. Right. 476 00:27:14,920 --> 00:27:17,240 Speaker 1: It's like finding a black swan, Yeah, and then it 477 00:27:17,320 --> 00:27:20,480 Speaker 1: changes what you know about swans as they actually exist. Now, 478 00:27:20,480 --> 00:27:23,120 Speaker 1: of course, the fact that all the statement that all 479 00:27:23,280 --> 00:27:26,800 Speaker 1: cows are brown is wrong. That is wrong, even if 480 00:27:26,800 --> 00:27:28,920 Speaker 1: it is formulated in such a way that it could 481 00:27:28,920 --> 00:27:33,520 Speaker 1: be falsified. An unfalsifiable version of the same idea would 482 00:27:33,520 --> 00:27:38,359 Speaker 1: be cows that appear brown to all observers and instruments 483 00:27:38,359 --> 00:27:43,200 Speaker 1: are nevertheless not really brown. That that is worse than 484 00:27:43,240 --> 00:27:47,639 Speaker 1: being wrong. It's not even wrong, it's unfalsifiable. But so 485 00:27:47,720 --> 00:27:50,280 Speaker 1: one takeaway from this, of course, is that you never 486 00:27:50,359 --> 00:27:54,360 Speaker 1: actually verify a theory under the criterion of falsifiability. There's 487 00:27:54,400 --> 00:27:57,640 Speaker 1: no such thing as one confidence that a theory is correct. 488 00:27:58,080 --> 00:28:01,119 Speaker 1: You just keep building up higher and higher levels of 489 00:28:01,160 --> 00:28:04,800 Speaker 1: confidence every time you try to find an exception, every 490 00:28:04,800 --> 00:28:08,240 Speaker 1: time you try to falsify it, and you can't. Yeah, 491 00:28:08,280 --> 00:28:11,280 Speaker 1: So that I mean, in that sense, the boundaries of 492 00:28:11,320 --> 00:28:16,840 Speaker 1: scientific understanding are constantly shifting, the constantly changing um at 493 00:28:16,920 --> 00:28:21,160 Speaker 1: least you know in the realms beyond like extremely verified fact. Right, 494 00:28:21,520 --> 00:28:23,920 Speaker 1: But his red wine good for you? Is coffee good 495 00:28:23,960 --> 00:28:27,000 Speaker 1: for you? This is a line that is that is 496 00:28:27,040 --> 00:28:29,720 Speaker 1: continually changing. Right, And that's a problem because that that 497 00:28:29,840 --> 00:28:32,240 Speaker 1: that question is not well defined. What do you mean 498 00:28:32,320 --> 00:28:35,159 Speaker 1: good for me? On average? How do you compare the 499 00:28:35,200 --> 00:28:39,680 Speaker 1: different goods versus bads, goods and bads? What are studied 500 00:28:39,680 --> 00:28:42,320 Speaker 1: by science? All right, we're gonna take a quick break, 501 00:28:42,320 --> 00:28:44,440 Speaker 1: but when we come back, we're going to get into 502 00:28:44,800 --> 00:28:55,640 Speaker 1: post empiricism. Okay, So we've established that some scientists and 503 00:28:55,640 --> 00:28:59,920 Speaker 1: philosophers of science have latched onto this idea of falsifiabile 504 00:29:00,280 --> 00:29:04,600 Speaker 1: or at least some version of empirical confirmation, as as 505 00:29:04,760 --> 00:29:08,320 Speaker 1: the criterion you use to tell science from pseudoscience. But 506 00:29:08,960 --> 00:29:12,320 Speaker 1: are there any scientific problems that would lead a non 507 00:29:12,560 --> 00:29:16,080 Speaker 1: quack that would lead a respectable scientist who does real 508 00:29:16,160 --> 00:29:22,960 Speaker 1: work with with real data, to propose a non falsifiable hypothesis. Actually, 509 00:29:23,000 --> 00:29:25,840 Speaker 1: there are some cases where we have very smart, very 510 00:29:25,880 --> 00:29:30,920 Speaker 1: respectable scientists who are doing work on hypotheses that are 511 00:29:30,960 --> 00:29:35,560 Speaker 1: widely agreed to be non falsifiable, at least today. And 512 00:29:35,720 --> 00:29:40,200 Speaker 1: so how about fundamental physics. What's at the bottom of 513 00:29:40,240 --> 00:29:44,680 Speaker 1: our physical theory of the universe? Well depends on who 514 00:29:44,720 --> 00:29:48,280 Speaker 1: you ask, But if you ask a certain portion of 515 00:29:48,320 --> 00:29:52,600 Speaker 1: the scientific community and the philosophic community, they will say 516 00:29:52,680 --> 00:29:55,600 Speaker 1: string is at the bottom of everything. Yes, And we're 517 00:29:55,600 --> 00:29:57,480 Speaker 1: of course talking about string theory. Now I know what 518 00:29:57,520 --> 00:29:59,800 Speaker 1: you're thinking out there, are you thinking, Hey, Robert and 519 00:29:59,880 --> 00:30:02,800 Speaker 1: j I didn't sign up for string theory on this episode. 520 00:30:03,040 --> 00:30:05,600 Speaker 1: While you're getting some string theory. But well, we're gonna 521 00:30:05,600 --> 00:30:08,080 Speaker 1: blow through just a very quick definition of what it 522 00:30:08,200 --> 00:30:10,160 Speaker 1: is a reminder of what it is so that we 523 00:30:10,160 --> 00:30:13,760 Speaker 1: can proceed. And uh, we're we're gonna be fairly limited 524 00:30:13,800 --> 00:30:16,000 Speaker 1: in this, I think, yeah, yeah, yeah, We're not gonna 525 00:30:16,000 --> 00:30:18,560 Speaker 1: go in too deep on this. Uh, I mean you 526 00:30:18,600 --> 00:30:22,560 Speaker 1: can really leave it at just imagining a cartoon character 527 00:30:22,600 --> 00:30:25,280 Speaker 1: and a sweater and what happens when someone pulls on 528 00:30:25,320 --> 00:30:28,480 Speaker 1: the threat at the bottom of everything unravels. That is true, 529 00:30:28,520 --> 00:30:31,160 Speaker 1: that is the full scientific definition. But but to go 530 00:30:31,240 --> 00:30:34,160 Speaker 1: a little deeper, Um, okay, So you have particle physicists 531 00:30:34,160 --> 00:30:37,760 Speaker 1: to define elementary particles or fundamental particles as the smallest 532 00:30:37,760 --> 00:30:40,560 Speaker 1: building blocks in the universe. In other words, particles such 533 00:30:40,600 --> 00:30:43,600 Speaker 1: as leptons and quarks have no substructure. There As small 534 00:30:43,600 --> 00:30:46,760 Speaker 1: as it gets, you can't split them up. Now, that's 535 00:30:46,800 --> 00:30:48,640 Speaker 1: not the case for string theorists to think we need 536 00:30:48,680 --> 00:30:52,240 Speaker 1: to venture deeper or smaller than our current technology allows. 537 00:30:52,520 --> 00:30:56,000 Speaker 1: So they propose that each so called fundamental particle fundamental 538 00:30:56,000 --> 00:31:00,520 Speaker 1: particle actually contains a tiny vibrating one dimensional loop of string. 539 00:31:00,840 --> 00:31:04,320 Speaker 1: The vibration of the string determines the charge and mass 540 00:31:04,480 --> 00:31:08,560 Speaker 1: of the greater particle. So superstring theories take this idea 541 00:31:08,640 --> 00:31:11,960 Speaker 1: and build the entire universe from the bottom up. Uh 542 00:31:12,440 --> 00:31:14,920 Speaker 1: And it's it's a challenging task. And that's why we 543 00:31:14,960 --> 00:31:17,959 Speaker 1: speak of string of theories in the plural, because there 544 00:31:18,000 --> 00:31:20,440 Speaker 1: are several different string theories that attempt to make it 545 00:31:20,480 --> 00:31:24,880 Speaker 1: all work. At least ten dimensions are called for um. 546 00:31:25,360 --> 00:31:29,000 Speaker 1: A lot of math physicists proposed that any dimensions beyond 547 00:31:29,080 --> 00:31:31,800 Speaker 1: time and visible space are folded up out of sight 548 00:31:32,200 --> 00:31:36,600 Speaker 1: into these you know, very complex uh, extra dimensional shapes 549 00:31:36,640 --> 00:31:39,400 Speaker 1: that you often see are rendered both computer graphics on 550 00:31:39,480 --> 00:31:43,640 Speaker 1: string theory articles, tiny extra dimensions that that that we 551 00:31:43,680 --> 00:31:45,960 Speaker 1: can't even measure. They're they're just too small for us 552 00:31:46,040 --> 00:31:49,120 Speaker 1: to perceive, crawling with shadow creatures that come out to 553 00:31:49,120 --> 00:31:53,360 Speaker 1: grab children. Um. So and and it is and is 554 00:31:53,400 --> 00:31:56,640 Speaker 1: that that what indicates a superstring theory is still developing, 555 00:31:56,920 --> 00:31:59,760 Speaker 1: meaning that physicists continue to work out the kinks in 556 00:31:59,800 --> 00:32:03,280 Speaker 1: the individual stringth theories, but they're eventually What they're aiming 557 00:32:03,320 --> 00:32:07,680 Speaker 1: to do is is fulfill Einstein's unrealized goal of unifying 558 00:32:07,800 --> 00:32:10,920 Speaker 1: general relativity with quantum theory. And that's why string theory 559 00:32:11,600 --> 00:32:14,760 Speaker 1: is also sometimes called a theory of everything, because it 560 00:32:14,800 --> 00:32:18,720 Speaker 1: would serve someday as a foundation for all future scientists, 561 00:32:19,280 --> 00:32:23,280 Speaker 1: scientific discovery, and innovation. The idea that it is an 562 00:32:23,560 --> 00:32:27,400 Speaker 1: incomplete section in this grand bridge. Yeah. So another way 563 00:32:27,600 --> 00:32:31,920 Speaker 1: string theories often characterized is that that it's a unification attempts. 564 00:32:31,960 --> 00:32:35,640 Speaker 1: It attempts to bring together macrophysics, things like relativity you 565 00:32:35,640 --> 00:32:38,800 Speaker 1: know that happened on huge energies and and and scales 566 00:32:39,280 --> 00:32:42,120 Speaker 1: with microphysics, the stuff in the quantum world, you know, 567 00:32:42,440 --> 00:32:46,280 Speaker 1: very very small. Right now, we have strong theories of 568 00:32:46,320 --> 00:32:50,520 Speaker 1: microphysics that explain very well what we see at those scales, 569 00:32:50,560 --> 00:32:53,240 Speaker 1: and we have strong theories of relativity that explain very 570 00:32:53,240 --> 00:32:56,040 Speaker 1: well what we see, you know, with gravity at huge scales. 571 00:32:56,080 --> 00:32:59,440 Speaker 1: But they just don't mesh together very well. And so 572 00:32:59,560 --> 00:33:03,000 Speaker 1: string theory would attempt to explain all those things with 573 00:33:03,160 --> 00:33:07,479 Speaker 1: one underlying theory that that implies both of them. And 574 00:33:07,520 --> 00:33:11,280 Speaker 1: in reality, the theory is just a set of mathematical models, 575 00:33:11,360 --> 00:33:14,960 Speaker 1: right It's mathematical models showing the behavior of these strings 576 00:33:15,920 --> 00:33:18,640 Speaker 1: and how they could produce the effects of the universe 577 00:33:18,720 --> 00:33:22,360 Speaker 1: we see at these different scales. But there's a problem, right. 578 00:33:23,480 --> 00:33:27,680 Speaker 1: String physics phenomena are too tiny to observe even with 579 00:33:27,760 --> 00:33:32,120 Speaker 1: our most powerful experimental instruments. They can't be found by 580 00:33:32,120 --> 00:33:35,240 Speaker 1: our particle colliders or anything else were likely to build 581 00:33:35,280 --> 00:33:39,240 Speaker 1: in the near future. So we can make a mathematical 582 00:33:39,320 --> 00:33:43,920 Speaker 1: string theory model that very beautifully explains everything we already know, 583 00:33:44,720 --> 00:33:47,840 Speaker 1: but we can't use it to predict any new physical 584 00:33:47,880 --> 00:33:50,440 Speaker 1: results that we'd be able to detect and use to 585 00:33:50,480 --> 00:33:55,200 Speaker 1: confirm or falsify it. So that's sort of a problem. 586 00:33:55,360 --> 00:33:58,640 Speaker 1: Right Is this still science? Wait a minute, now, if 587 00:33:58,680 --> 00:34:03,440 Speaker 1: we're just coming up with mathematical instruments that explain what 588 00:34:03,520 --> 00:34:07,520 Speaker 1: we already know but don't make predictions that we can 589 00:34:07,560 --> 00:34:13,680 Speaker 1: experimentally test, well, is it science and is it useful? Yeah? 590 00:34:13,680 --> 00:34:15,440 Speaker 1: It's It sounds like it's like putting the car in 591 00:34:16,160 --> 00:34:18,879 Speaker 1: if not parked, then at least neutral, you know, it's 592 00:34:19,000 --> 00:34:22,120 Speaker 1: it's going to stop moving after a while, right right? Uh, 593 00:34:22,400 --> 00:34:25,920 Speaker 1: here's another one. How about cosmology? Oh yeah, what's the 594 00:34:26,040 --> 00:34:29,600 Speaker 1: ultimate nature of the universe. It's a big question with 595 00:34:29,640 --> 00:34:33,840 Speaker 1: big answers, Big answers that we often cannot test. Um 596 00:34:34,120 --> 00:34:37,279 Speaker 1: generally cannot test and going you on one side just 597 00:34:37,320 --> 00:34:40,160 Speaker 1: say the existence of God or God's but also you 598 00:34:40,200 --> 00:34:43,680 Speaker 1: get into multiverse theory, the idea that our universe is 599 00:34:43,760 --> 00:34:47,120 Speaker 1: just one of many and essentially the library of babble, 600 00:34:47,280 --> 00:34:51,359 Speaker 1: right right, Yeah, so it's that movie multiplicity. Wait, what 601 00:34:51,400 --> 00:34:53,400 Speaker 1: was that movie? Is that the one one more jetly 602 00:34:53,760 --> 00:34:55,680 Speaker 1: kills all the other jet leads to game power? No, 603 00:34:55,800 --> 00:34:58,439 Speaker 1: I think that's the one. That's a really good one. Though, 604 00:34:59,080 --> 00:35:01,239 Speaker 1: now I'm thinking, what's the one that has lots of 605 00:35:03,680 --> 00:35:06,319 Speaker 1: Michael Keaton? Yeah, that the clone Michael Keaton's I think 606 00:35:06,320 --> 00:35:10,600 Speaker 1: it's multiplicity, Okay, yeah, no, no no, no, I was confusing 607 00:35:10,600 --> 00:35:13,719 Speaker 1: it mentally with virtuosity. The one oh that has with 608 00:35:13,719 --> 00:35:17,680 Speaker 1: the Russell Crowe is like a synthetic human clone. Yeah, 609 00:35:17,680 --> 00:35:22,160 Speaker 1: and Denzel Washington, Yeah, yeah, each other. I just remember 610 00:35:22,160 --> 00:35:26,840 Speaker 1: he had like there's a blue Blood or something like that. Well, anyway, 611 00:35:27,360 --> 00:35:30,359 Speaker 1: like string theory, that there's this idea of the multiverse 612 00:35:30,440 --> 00:35:34,600 Speaker 1: that's pretty much untestable. It's but it could be a 613 00:35:34,680 --> 00:35:37,839 Speaker 1: very elegant outworking of the data we already have. So 614 00:35:38,000 --> 00:35:41,439 Speaker 1: we have a bunch of observations. We say, if there 615 00:35:41,480 --> 00:35:45,520 Speaker 1: were many, many universes. It would explain some of the 616 00:35:45,600 --> 00:35:49,560 Speaker 1: things we see. But we can't make a prediction based 617 00:35:49,600 --> 00:35:52,360 Speaker 1: on the belief in the many, many universes that we 618 00:35:52,400 --> 00:35:55,200 Speaker 1: can test. At least there's not a clear one. In fact, 619 00:35:55,360 --> 00:35:58,319 Speaker 1: I think I have read some physicists suggesting that multiverse 620 00:35:58,719 --> 00:36:01,640 Speaker 1: could maybe be potential really tested in theory, based on 621 00:36:01,760 --> 00:36:05,080 Speaker 1: something about spacetime geometry. But I think that's an ongoing 622 00:36:05,160 --> 00:36:08,160 Speaker 1: debate that I don't fully understand. Yeah, a lot of 623 00:36:08,160 --> 00:36:12,520 Speaker 1: this kind of it boils down to the prospect of 624 00:36:12,560 --> 00:36:15,520 Speaker 1: building a bridge into the darkness, and how far into 625 00:36:15,560 --> 00:36:19,719 Speaker 1: the darkness are you willing to build that bridge accepting 626 00:36:19,920 --> 00:36:24,200 Speaker 1: that the necessary substructure will be there? Right? Okay, Well, 627 00:36:24,680 --> 00:36:28,200 Speaker 1: in this case, if we are talking about science, and 628 00:36:28,400 --> 00:36:32,400 Speaker 1: you know, real science and maybe multiverse cosmology or string 629 00:36:32,480 --> 00:36:36,360 Speaker 1: theory being some people would have a problem with that 630 00:36:36,440 --> 00:36:39,560 Speaker 1: statement exactly. No, no, no, I'm saying, if we consider 631 00:36:39,640 --> 00:36:43,840 Speaker 1: these things science, uh, it seems like we need to 632 00:36:44,440 --> 00:36:49,240 Speaker 1: sort of revise what are demarcation problem solution is right, 633 00:36:49,440 --> 00:36:51,880 Speaker 1: assuming we were starting with false liability, which a lot 634 00:36:51,880 --> 00:36:56,000 Speaker 1: of modern philosophers of science probably wouldn't um. And so 635 00:36:56,120 --> 00:37:00,320 Speaker 1: here's where we get into the idea of post empiricism, 636 00:37:00,360 --> 00:37:05,120 Speaker 1: the idea of so just meaning after empiricism, after only 637 00:37:05,160 --> 00:37:08,960 Speaker 1: being based on observations and physical tests. And I want 638 00:37:08,960 --> 00:37:14,040 Speaker 1: to talk about a theoretical physicist turned philosopher named Richard 639 00:37:14,160 --> 00:37:17,440 Speaker 1: Davitt who has studied and written in favor of the 640 00:37:17,480 --> 00:37:21,160 Speaker 1: concept of post empiricism on behalf of string theory. And 641 00:37:21,239 --> 00:37:23,759 Speaker 1: he he had this interview with three Am magazine that 642 00:37:23,800 --> 00:37:27,279 Speaker 1: was published in July. He but he also wrote a 643 00:37:27,320 --> 00:37:31,040 Speaker 1: book called String Theory and the Scientific Method, and he 644 00:37:31,080 --> 00:37:33,160 Speaker 1: tries to make a case for a new sort of 645 00:37:33,239 --> 00:37:37,400 Speaker 1: philosophy of evaluating the scientific merits of theories that isn't 646 00:37:37,520 --> 00:37:42,080 Speaker 1: just based on empirical testing. Uh, that sounds kind of crazy, right, 647 00:37:42,120 --> 00:37:45,040 Speaker 1: But let's see what he has to say. So, you've 648 00:37:45,080 --> 00:37:47,480 Speaker 1: got string theory. You've got this problem that you can 649 00:37:47,520 --> 00:37:52,719 Speaker 1: paint a self consistent picture of the mathematical properties of strings. 650 00:37:52,880 --> 00:37:56,120 Speaker 1: And if they existed, they'd answer a lot of questions, right, 651 00:37:56,160 --> 00:37:59,359 Speaker 1: they would help unify our view of physics. But there's 652 00:37:59,400 --> 00:38:03,080 Speaker 1: currently no way we know of to directly detect strings 653 00:38:03,280 --> 00:38:06,920 Speaker 1: or their effects. So in what sense is string theory 654 00:38:07,040 --> 00:38:11,440 Speaker 1: different from saying invisible acid gremlins push all the particles 655 00:38:11,440 --> 00:38:14,760 Speaker 1: in the universe around to produce the effects we interpret 656 00:38:14,800 --> 00:38:19,359 Speaker 1: as microphysics and general relativity. Is it any better and 657 00:38:19,360 --> 00:38:23,280 Speaker 1: and Davitt would argue that these are not equally valid claims, 658 00:38:23,320 --> 00:38:27,040 Speaker 1: that string theory is actually much better as a scientific claim, 659 00:38:27,080 --> 00:38:31,400 Speaker 1: even if it's not empirically testable. And the thing is 660 00:38:31,480 --> 00:38:34,960 Speaker 1: that that feels like a true statement, right, Yeah, but 661 00:38:35,080 --> 00:38:39,720 Speaker 1: not everyone would agree. So instead, Davitt thinks that even 662 00:38:39,760 --> 00:38:43,440 Speaker 1: in cases where you can't falsify a theory empirically, you 663 00:38:43,480 --> 00:38:46,759 Speaker 1: can establish confidence in the theory with the use of 664 00:38:46,800 --> 00:38:52,640 Speaker 1: philosophical and probabilistic arguments. Sort of about the research program 665 00:38:52,880 --> 00:38:56,560 Speaker 1: that produced the theory. It's sort of a meta science. 666 00:38:56,600 --> 00:39:01,200 Speaker 1: It's judging the quality of science by the scientific situation 667 00:39:01,320 --> 00:39:05,239 Speaker 1: that created it. Okay, So let's try to give some 668 00:39:05,320 --> 00:39:07,960 Speaker 1: examples of the arguments he would give on behalf of 669 00:39:08,000 --> 00:39:11,880 Speaker 1: something like string theory. One argument is the lack of 670 00:39:11,920 --> 00:39:15,719 Speaker 1: alternative theories. Okay, So it kind of goes back to 671 00:39:16,320 --> 00:39:19,359 Speaker 1: Holmes logic. Yeah, it's it's the only game in town. 672 00:39:19,440 --> 00:39:23,440 Speaker 1: Davitt says, string theory is the only theory that integrates 673 00:39:23,480 --> 00:39:27,080 Speaker 1: into one overall theory. Our topical understanding of high energy 674 00:39:27,120 --> 00:39:30,640 Speaker 1: physics based on gauge field theory and our understanding of 675 00:39:30,680 --> 00:39:35,040 Speaker 1: cosmology based on general relativity. So he's saying that there 676 00:39:35,080 --> 00:39:38,680 Speaker 1: just aren't any other theories that explain all this stuff. 677 00:39:38,680 --> 00:39:41,640 Speaker 1: It's the only one we've come up with that seems viable. 678 00:39:42,719 --> 00:39:45,400 Speaker 1: And Dovit also argues that in the past, when we 679 00:39:45,520 --> 00:39:48,920 Speaker 1: had no alternative to a consistent theory, that theory was 680 00:39:49,000 --> 00:39:52,520 Speaker 1: often later shown to be correct. So there's sort of 681 00:39:52,560 --> 00:39:55,640 Speaker 1: a precedent for saying, well, when scientists are working on 682 00:39:55,680 --> 00:39:59,040 Speaker 1: a question and they come up with a theory that 683 00:39:59,239 --> 00:40:03,520 Speaker 1: answers the question, even if it's not empirically testable at 684 00:40:03,560 --> 00:40:07,480 Speaker 1: the time, we later learned that they were right if 685 00:40:07,520 --> 00:40:10,479 Speaker 1: it was the only theory they could come up with. Right, Yeah, 686 00:40:10,520 --> 00:40:13,520 Speaker 1: and that makes sense, right, You to proceed to actually 687 00:40:13,600 --> 00:40:20,440 Speaker 1: push forward, sometimes you have to envision what that reality 688 00:40:20,480 --> 00:40:22,960 Speaker 1: may be. You have to create this model and then 689 00:40:23,320 --> 00:40:26,399 Speaker 1: see how it plays out over time exactly. So he 690 00:40:26,480 --> 00:40:30,440 Speaker 1: also says, look, it has proven conceptually useful. That's a 691 00:40:30,480 --> 00:40:34,920 Speaker 1: second argument. So Dobvitt suggests that string theorists have given 692 00:40:35,239 --> 00:40:39,920 Speaker 1: physicists insights into other problems in physics that they weren't 693 00:40:39,920 --> 00:40:43,239 Speaker 1: originally setting out to solve when the theory was conceived, 694 00:40:43,640 --> 00:40:47,000 Speaker 1: so it explains more than it was originally meant to explain. 695 00:40:47,680 --> 00:40:50,720 Speaker 1: That seems like another good tick in the evidence column. 696 00:40:51,080 --> 00:40:53,759 Speaker 1: In other words, it's not predicting a physical outcome that 697 00:40:53,840 --> 00:40:58,520 Speaker 1: we tested, but it's sort of yielding some mathematical results 698 00:40:58,560 --> 00:41:03,000 Speaker 1: that that that fit together in interesting ways. And then 699 00:41:03,040 --> 00:41:05,400 Speaker 1: the last major argument he gives is sort of that 700 00:41:06,120 --> 00:41:07,960 Speaker 1: the way I would put it is that it grows 701 00:41:08,120 --> 00:41:12,200 Speaker 1: from proper scientific soil. You know, it's not like saying, 702 00:41:12,440 --> 00:41:16,920 Speaker 1: uh saying acid gremlins. That it comes out of a 703 00:41:17,040 --> 00:41:21,520 Speaker 1: research project of high energy physics. And this research project 704 00:41:21,600 --> 00:41:24,439 Speaker 1: of high energy physics has generated all kinds of other 705 00:41:24,560 --> 00:41:28,719 Speaker 1: ideas that have been testable empirically and have been accurate. 706 00:41:29,080 --> 00:41:31,160 Speaker 1: All right, well, all three of these are making sense. 707 00:41:32,120 --> 00:41:35,319 Speaker 1: He seems logical, sure, And he gives another example from 708 00:41:35,360 --> 00:41:37,360 Speaker 1: the past. I think it's when we mentioned earlier, but 709 00:41:37,400 --> 00:41:39,640 Speaker 1: he says, you know, if if you look at the past, 710 00:41:40,080 --> 00:41:43,120 Speaker 1: what about atomists, people who thought that the matter in 711 00:41:43,160 --> 00:41:46,600 Speaker 1: the world was made of atoms. According to Davitt, scientists 712 00:41:46,600 --> 00:41:49,040 Speaker 1: thought that the world was made of atoms long before 713 00:41:49,080 --> 00:41:54,160 Speaker 1: they had any way of experimentally confirming predictions of atomic theory. 714 00:41:54,360 --> 00:41:58,240 Speaker 1: Of course we have those experiments now, but atomic theory 715 00:41:58,320 --> 00:42:01,040 Speaker 1: was the only serious theory of matter on the table, 716 00:42:01,160 --> 00:42:05,080 Speaker 1: so there were no alternatives. It yielded insights that it 717 00:42:05,120 --> 00:42:07,839 Speaker 1: didn't set out to yield, Like, it explained more than 718 00:42:07,880 --> 00:42:11,600 Speaker 1: it was designed to explain. That's his second case with 719 00:42:11,960 --> 00:42:14,880 Speaker 1: string theory, and he says it emerged from a research 720 00:42:14,960 --> 00:42:18,440 Speaker 1: program that had success in making other predictions that were 721 00:42:18,480 --> 00:42:22,600 Speaker 1: empirically verified, you know, not from It didn't come from demonology. 722 00:42:23,320 --> 00:42:27,440 Speaker 1: It came from chemistry and physics. So that's interesting to me. 723 00:42:27,520 --> 00:42:29,960 Speaker 1: Now we're going to get into some serious criticisms of 724 00:42:30,000 --> 00:42:33,280 Speaker 1: this way of thinking, but this does kind of broaden 725 00:42:33,360 --> 00:42:37,480 Speaker 1: the picture and suggest that maybe our way of thinking 726 00:42:37,520 --> 00:42:41,560 Speaker 1: about what's a good scientific idea should be more complicated 727 00:42:41,600 --> 00:42:44,279 Speaker 1: than just saying like, well, it's something where you can 728 00:42:44,320 --> 00:42:47,520 Speaker 1: do a physical test with an observable result, and you 729 00:42:47,560 --> 00:42:50,359 Speaker 1: can say what would falsify it? And you show that 730 00:42:50,360 --> 00:42:54,239 Speaker 1: that's not the case. Yeah, it, you know, and I 731 00:42:54,680 --> 00:42:59,640 Speaker 1: can't help but think of examples such as geocentricism, uh, hedio, 732 00:42:59,640 --> 00:43:02,160 Speaker 1: centrist is um. You know, in terms of all of this, 733 00:43:02,200 --> 00:43:06,120 Speaker 1: you know, certainly false theories that we eventually realized, oh, well, 734 00:43:06,160 --> 00:43:08,520 Speaker 1: the Earth isn't the center of the universe. The Sun 735 00:43:08,640 --> 00:43:10,839 Speaker 1: is at the center of the universe. And yet all 736 00:43:10,920 --> 00:43:14,840 Speaker 1: those theories were still they were still useful models thinking 737 00:43:14,880 --> 00:43:19,600 Speaker 1: about the structure of the Solar system before we really 738 00:43:19,640 --> 00:43:23,480 Speaker 1: had a more nuanced understanding of what it was. But 739 00:43:23,600 --> 00:43:27,000 Speaker 1: with something like string theory, it's such a complex and 740 00:43:27,120 --> 00:43:31,640 Speaker 1: robust uh creation. You know, it was such a robust 741 00:43:31,760 --> 00:43:33,759 Speaker 1: theory that it seems like there's there's much more on 742 00:43:33,800 --> 00:43:38,160 Speaker 1: the line, and there's much more room to potentially create 743 00:43:38,239 --> 00:43:40,800 Speaker 1: something that is not so Yeah. Well, and with string 744 00:43:40,840 --> 00:43:45,160 Speaker 1: theory also, should we treat string theory differently than other 745 00:43:45,280 --> 00:43:49,279 Speaker 1: theories because it's supposedly a final theory? You know, if 746 00:43:49,280 --> 00:43:52,640 Speaker 1: it's the ultimate theory of matter in the universe, should 747 00:43:52,640 --> 00:43:55,799 Speaker 1: there be different rules for assessing it than there would 748 00:43:55,840 --> 00:43:59,320 Speaker 1: be for assessing you know, some theory of genes selection 749 00:43:59,480 --> 00:44:02,360 Speaker 1: or some other you know, some theory in in biology 750 00:44:02,440 --> 00:44:05,520 Speaker 1: or regular chemistry or something. Because it doesn't set itself 751 00:44:05,640 --> 00:44:08,640 Speaker 1: up to evolve, and of course hindsight, but you look 752 00:44:08,680 --> 00:44:11,759 Speaker 1: back at heliocentricism and you can see its place in 753 00:44:11,800 --> 00:44:14,840 Speaker 1: an evolution of thought. But but certainly when people are 754 00:44:14,880 --> 00:44:17,120 Speaker 1: arguing strength theory, they're not saying, well, this is strength 755 00:44:17,120 --> 00:44:19,640 Speaker 1: theory and hopefully we'll work up to wool theory and 756 00:44:20,160 --> 00:44:24,120 Speaker 1: nylon theory, you know, or whatever. Like you said, it's 757 00:44:24,160 --> 00:44:27,560 Speaker 1: it's it's it's argued as a as a as a 758 00:44:27,560 --> 00:44:30,520 Speaker 1: as a fix to the end of the line. But yeah, 759 00:44:30,760 --> 00:44:33,520 Speaker 1: that's that's a very good point you make about heliocentrism, 760 00:44:33,560 --> 00:44:38,960 Speaker 1: because it's like, um, it was less wrong. That was 761 00:44:39,000 --> 00:44:42,800 Speaker 1: the important thing was that it was less wrong than geocentrism, 762 00:44:43,040 --> 00:44:45,920 Speaker 1: and though it was still wrong, and it still allowed 763 00:44:45,960 --> 00:44:49,040 Speaker 1: you to have a pretty accurate understanding of the of 764 00:44:49,080 --> 00:44:59,360 Speaker 1: immediate solar mechanics. Yeah, so to me, there does seem 765 00:44:59,360 --> 00:45:02,800 Speaker 1: to be something interesting going on in what David is saying, 766 00:45:03,040 --> 00:45:06,400 Speaker 1: Like it's not, um, it's not just a bunch of junk. 767 00:45:06,640 --> 00:45:09,400 Speaker 1: Then again, there might be limits to how far you 768 00:45:09,440 --> 00:45:12,799 Speaker 1: can extend these ideas he's propounding in in how you're 769 00:45:12,800 --> 00:45:15,520 Speaker 1: going to define science. It almost makes it seem like 770 00:45:15,520 --> 00:45:18,759 Speaker 1: it would have to be a case by case scenario. Uh, 771 00:45:18,840 --> 00:45:20,640 Speaker 1: you'd have to take him on a case by case basis, 772 00:45:20,960 --> 00:45:24,719 Speaker 1: and that that means there's no absolute rule. It thinks 773 00:45:24,760 --> 00:45:27,319 Speaker 1: there's just some guidelines and then we have to weigh 774 00:45:27,360 --> 00:45:29,440 Speaker 1: in on it. Yeah, so I want to read some 775 00:45:29,440 --> 00:45:34,560 Speaker 1: some criticisms. One of them is the theoretical physicist Sabine Hassenfelder. 776 00:45:34,960 --> 00:45:38,439 Speaker 1: She responded to this interview that I mentioned, and first 777 00:45:38,480 --> 00:45:42,600 Speaker 1: of all, she says, flatly, post empirical science is an oxymoron, 778 00:45:43,480 --> 00:45:46,360 Speaker 1: just flat out there is no such thing. Now, David 779 00:45:46,440 --> 00:45:49,600 Speaker 1: actually defends himself by saying that he doesn't advocate quote 780 00:45:49,840 --> 00:45:56,160 Speaker 1: post empirical science, just post empirical theory assessment, which is honest, 781 00:45:56,400 --> 00:45:58,680 Speaker 1: I have to admit as a distinction which I have 782 00:45:58,840 --> 00:46:04,479 Speaker 1: failed to grasp thenificance of. But well it's maybe there's 783 00:46:04,480 --> 00:46:09,839 Speaker 1: something there. But anyway, Hassenfelder, her response to this, had 784 00:46:09,880 --> 00:46:11,680 Speaker 1: a really good quote that I wanted to read that 785 00:46:12,120 --> 00:46:15,279 Speaker 1: I thought sums up the attitude of the critics of 786 00:46:15,320 --> 00:46:19,880 Speaker 1: post empiricism pretty well. She said, quote this non empirical 787 00:46:19,920 --> 00:46:24,040 Speaker 1: theory assessment, while important, can however only be means to 788 00:46:24,120 --> 00:46:28,920 Speaker 1: the end of an eventual empirical assessment without making contact 789 00:46:28,960 --> 00:46:33,360 Speaker 1: to observation. A theory isn't useful to describe the natural world, 790 00:46:34,000 --> 00:46:37,840 Speaker 1: not part of the natural sciences, and not physics. These 791 00:46:37,880 --> 00:46:41,600 Speaker 1: insights that Davitt speaks of are thus not assessments that 792 00:46:41,640 --> 00:46:45,880 Speaker 1: can ever validate an idea as being good to describe nature, 793 00:46:46,440 --> 00:46:50,040 Speaker 1: and a theory based on non empirical assessment does not 794 00:46:50,239 --> 00:46:56,200 Speaker 1: belong in the natural sciences. So I think she's acknowledging 795 00:46:56,280 --> 00:47:01,000 Speaker 1: that maybe there is something to non empirical theory assessment, 796 00:47:01,440 --> 00:47:04,239 Speaker 1: only in the sense that it might help bridge us 797 00:47:04,280 --> 00:47:07,040 Speaker 1: along until we can get to a time when there 798 00:47:07,160 --> 00:47:10,759 Speaker 1: is empirical confirmation. Maybe if we can eventually come up 799 00:47:10,800 --> 00:47:14,799 Speaker 1: with ways of testing the predictions of string theory. But 800 00:47:15,000 --> 00:47:17,680 Speaker 1: until but if we don't ever get there, then this 801 00:47:17,760 --> 00:47:21,480 Speaker 1: assessment is type of assessment is useless, right And then, 802 00:47:21,480 --> 00:47:22,960 Speaker 1: of course, how do you get to the point where 803 00:47:22,960 --> 00:47:25,240 Speaker 1: you can test it if you're not working towards that point, 804 00:47:25,800 --> 00:47:28,359 Speaker 1: you know, you know, just say, oh, accidentally, we're now 805 00:47:28,360 --> 00:47:30,400 Speaker 1: in a position to test out this theory that we 806 00:47:30,520 --> 00:47:34,719 Speaker 1: refused to give credence earlier. Now, another voice on this 807 00:47:34,760 --> 00:47:38,520 Speaker 1: matter that we came across is a cal Tech physicist 808 00:47:38,760 --> 00:47:42,320 Speaker 1: Sean Carroll, who wrote on edge dot org answering the 809 00:47:42,400 --> 00:47:49,160 Speaker 1: question what scientific idea is ready for retirement? His answer falsifiability. Um, 810 00:47:49,200 --> 00:47:53,520 Speaker 1: you know, he he sticks by empiricism, but once a 811 00:47:53,719 --> 00:48:00,239 Speaker 1: different empirical paradigm, not post empiricism, but post falsifiability. Simply put, 812 00:48:00,280 --> 00:48:03,600 Speaker 1: and this is a quote from from his paper, refusing 813 00:48:03,640 --> 00:48:07,360 Speaker 1: to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some 814 00:48:07,560 --> 00:48:10,800 Speaker 1: a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial 815 00:48:10,880 --> 00:48:14,200 Speaker 1: role in how the world works, is as non scientific 816 00:48:14,280 --> 00:48:17,560 Speaker 1: as it gets. Yeah, and I think Carol makes a 817 00:48:17,600 --> 00:48:21,400 Speaker 1: good point. They're like, so there may in fact be 818 00:48:21,520 --> 00:48:24,880 Speaker 1: strings at the bottom of reality, you know, matter, the 819 00:48:25,000 --> 00:48:28,960 Speaker 1: universe may be based on strings and and membranes. Uh. 820 00:48:28,960 --> 00:48:31,960 Speaker 1: And there may in fact be a multiverse. There may 821 00:48:32,000 --> 00:48:35,719 Speaker 1: be other universes out there and stuff like that. It 822 00:48:36,040 --> 00:48:38,800 Speaker 1: doesn't make sense for us to say, well, we can't 823 00:48:39,000 --> 00:48:43,880 Speaker 1: entertain that possibility because it doesn't fit with our model 824 00:48:44,080 --> 00:48:48,120 Speaker 1: of the solution to the demarcation problem. You know, He's saying, 825 00:48:48,120 --> 00:48:50,680 Speaker 1: we should have we should be coming up with ways 826 00:48:51,080 --> 00:48:54,399 Speaker 1: to assess these things, even if it doesn't classically fit 827 00:48:54,920 --> 00:48:59,880 Speaker 1: the philosophy of science, definition of science. And of course, Carol, 828 00:49:00,200 --> 00:49:02,719 Speaker 1: he posits a couple of different criteria, so he he 829 00:49:02,800 --> 00:49:06,279 Speaker 1: still wants to stick with empiricism, but he proposes I 830 00:49:06,320 --> 00:49:09,799 Speaker 1: think that that it must be what definite and empirical 831 00:49:10,239 --> 00:49:13,440 Speaker 1: rather than falsifiable. Uh So, that it has to be 832 00:49:13,760 --> 00:49:16,279 Speaker 1: a theory that is scientific in nature, has to be 833 00:49:16,360 --> 00:49:21,120 Speaker 1: well defined, it's described in a clear, unambiguous way, and 834 00:49:21,200 --> 00:49:25,680 Speaker 1: it also has to interact with empirical data in some way, 835 00:49:25,800 --> 00:49:28,319 Speaker 1: like it has to take into account what we know 836 00:49:28,440 --> 00:49:31,600 Speaker 1: empirically about the universe, which, of course, like string theory 837 00:49:31,680 --> 00:49:35,080 Speaker 1: and the multiverse do, they explain what we already know. 838 00:49:35,200 --> 00:49:38,480 Speaker 1: The problem is they don't make predictions about what we 839 00:49:38,560 --> 00:49:41,200 Speaker 1: could know in the future that can be tested. Right, 840 00:49:41,239 --> 00:49:43,520 Speaker 1: So you couldn't You couldn't use it as a way 841 00:49:43,560 --> 00:49:46,759 Speaker 1: to prop up your own hollow earth theories. Yeah, all right, 842 00:49:46,800 --> 00:49:52,160 Speaker 1: So what else do we have here in terms of criticism, agreement, etcetera. 843 00:49:52,200 --> 00:49:55,320 Speaker 1: In the string wars. Well, I've came across a Nature 844 00:49:55,480 --> 00:49:59,640 Speaker 1: comment piece from December by the mathematician George Ellis in 845 00:49:59,680 --> 00:50:03,640 Speaker 1: the physic theist Joe Silk called scientific method defend the 846 00:50:03,680 --> 00:50:07,960 Speaker 1: integrity of physics, and they were taking a stand against 847 00:50:08,120 --> 00:50:11,719 Speaker 1: post empiricism, or against at least some uses of it. 848 00:50:12,520 --> 00:50:15,239 Speaker 1: Uh So that they start off by saying that, you know, 849 00:50:15,320 --> 00:50:17,880 Speaker 1: some scientists now argue that if a theory is quote 850 00:50:17,920 --> 00:50:23,240 Speaker 1: sufficiently elegant and explanatory. It doesn't have to be tested experimentally. 851 00:50:23,560 --> 00:50:27,480 Speaker 1: And some examples they give our string theory, the kaleidoscopic multiverse, 852 00:50:27,840 --> 00:50:31,480 Speaker 1: the many worlds interpretation of quantum reality. That's one. You know, 853 00:50:31,480 --> 00:50:34,120 Speaker 1: so you've got the the equations of quantum physics. We 854 00:50:34,320 --> 00:50:37,359 Speaker 1: those are very well tested, we know they're accurate. But 855 00:50:37,480 --> 00:50:40,000 Speaker 1: what do they mean when you have the you know, 856 00:50:40,080 --> 00:50:43,040 Speaker 1: the supposed collapse of the way of function or whatever, 857 00:50:44,200 --> 00:50:47,120 Speaker 1: what do they mean really happens in reality when a 858 00:50:47,160 --> 00:50:52,160 Speaker 1: probabilistic wave function event happens. Well, one way of interpreting 859 00:50:52,200 --> 00:50:55,360 Speaker 1: it is saying, okay, every time there's a quantum event 860 00:50:55,400 --> 00:50:58,680 Speaker 1: that could go one way or another, reality actually splits 861 00:50:58,800 --> 00:51:02,280 Speaker 1: into different reality and you have different worlds where both 862 00:51:02,280 --> 00:51:05,560 Speaker 1: are true. Now in the multiverse, right, yeah, different type 863 00:51:05,560 --> 00:51:09,560 Speaker 1: of multiverse, the many worlds quantum reality multiverse. Another one 864 00:51:09,560 --> 00:51:12,520 Speaker 1: would be pre Big Bang concepts. They say, you know, 865 00:51:13,320 --> 00:51:16,040 Speaker 1: trying to do math about what happened before the Big Bang, 866 00:51:16,080 --> 00:51:19,239 Speaker 1: if that makes any sense, Like what happened before the 867 00:51:19,239 --> 00:51:22,520 Speaker 1: initial singularity of all existence? Like was it in a 868 00:51:22,560 --> 00:51:28,680 Speaker 1: giant's pocket? Some marbles on the back of a turtle exactly. Uh. 869 00:51:28,680 --> 00:51:31,560 Speaker 1: And so they say, if you if you d couple 870 00:51:31,760 --> 00:51:37,920 Speaker 1: science from experimental false falsification, quote, theoretical physics risks becoming 871 00:51:38,040 --> 00:51:42,600 Speaker 1: a no man's land between mathematics, physics, and philosophy, that 872 00:51:42,719 --> 00:51:46,960 Speaker 1: does not truly meet the requirements of any I love 873 00:51:47,000 --> 00:51:50,040 Speaker 1: that quote. That's a great quote from from the article. Yeah, 874 00:51:50,280 --> 00:51:54,320 Speaker 1: does it become this own purely? You know? Did it 875 00:51:54,440 --> 00:51:57,520 Speaker 1: become just an abstraction? Right? Has it left the realm 876 00:51:57,560 --> 00:52:00,600 Speaker 1: of the natural sciences without yet just because coming a 877 00:52:00,680 --> 00:52:06,920 Speaker 1: philosophical discussion or or abstract mathematics in in truth, so 878 00:52:07,120 --> 00:52:10,160 Speaker 1: they make a couple of specific examples about string theory 879 00:52:10,239 --> 00:52:14,359 Speaker 1: where they disagree with with Davitt's arguments. Um. But then 880 00:52:14,400 --> 00:52:16,560 Speaker 1: they also go on to say, you know, look, history 881 00:52:16,640 --> 00:52:20,560 Speaker 1: is full of examples of elegant and compelling theories ideas 882 00:52:20,840 --> 00:52:24,919 Speaker 1: that lead scientists in the wrong direction. They cite Ptolemy's 883 00:52:25,040 --> 00:52:30,560 Speaker 1: geocentric universe, Lord Kelvin's vortex theory of the atom, Hoyle's 884 00:52:30,600 --> 00:52:34,920 Speaker 1: steady state universe, you know, the the eternal unchanging universe. 885 00:52:35,880 --> 00:52:37,759 Speaker 1: And in the end they say, quote, in our view, 886 00:52:37,800 --> 00:52:42,160 Speaker 1: the issue boils down to clarifying one question. What potential 887 00:52:42,239 --> 00:52:46,120 Speaker 1: observational or experimental evidence is there that would persuade you 888 00:52:46,239 --> 00:52:49,279 Speaker 1: that the theory is wrong and lead you to abandon it. 889 00:52:49,600 --> 00:52:52,600 Speaker 1: If there is none, it is not a scientific theory. 890 00:52:53,200 --> 00:52:56,520 Speaker 1: So here they're staking out basically with falsification. They're saying 891 00:52:56,600 --> 00:52:59,840 Speaker 1: it's got to be falsifiable in in a testable physical 892 00:53:00,040 --> 00:53:03,399 Speaker 1: a or it is just not science. This is not 893 00:53:03,719 --> 00:53:07,960 Speaker 1: meeting the definition. And they also mentioned some practical considerations 894 00:53:07,960 --> 00:53:10,080 Speaker 1: that that are worth considering. One of them is that 895 00:53:10,120 --> 00:53:12,960 Speaker 1: they say, you know, even if there's some merit to 896 00:53:13,160 --> 00:53:17,759 Speaker 1: post empirical theory assessment in niche subject areas where we 897 00:53:17,800 --> 00:53:22,200 Speaker 1: can't perform experiments like string theory and stuff, public discussion 898 00:53:22,400 --> 00:53:27,600 Speaker 1: of this could have disastrous consequences. It could cause confusion 899 00:53:27,719 --> 00:53:31,560 Speaker 1: and undermine public confidence in uh in science generally, and 900 00:53:31,680 --> 00:53:36,839 Speaker 1: especially in politically charged scientific ideas like climate change, evolution, vaccines, 901 00:53:37,000 --> 00:53:40,799 Speaker 1: GMO safety, all of which are empirically based. But if 902 00:53:40,840 --> 00:53:44,520 Speaker 1: you start introducing this idea but what waits some science 903 00:53:44,680 --> 00:53:48,480 Speaker 1: isn't based on empirical testing, You're going to hurt people's 904 00:53:48,520 --> 00:53:51,239 Speaker 1: confidence in the science. That is, yeah, it ceases to 905 00:53:51,280 --> 00:53:55,279 Speaker 1: become this this pure engine of learning and knowledge and 906 00:53:55,320 --> 00:53:58,600 Speaker 1: truth and becomes this more abstract thing where people, if 907 00:53:58,920 --> 00:54:01,319 Speaker 1: you're always asking, well is driving it? Yeah, people are 908 00:54:01,320 --> 00:54:03,920 Speaker 1: asking this, Wait a minute, so what is just people 909 00:54:04,000 --> 00:54:07,840 Speaker 1: doing weird intellectual experiments in their ivory towers that can't 910 00:54:07,840 --> 00:54:11,920 Speaker 1: be confirmed or denied by by experiments. Um. And then 911 00:54:12,120 --> 00:54:14,640 Speaker 1: so they go on to say also that claiming the 912 00:54:14,640 --> 00:54:17,840 Speaker 1: theory is too good for testing opens the door to 913 00:54:18,040 --> 00:54:21,080 Speaker 1: two genuine pseudoscientists to would claim the same thing about 914 00:54:21,080 --> 00:54:24,400 Speaker 1: their ideas. My my psychic powers are are just too 915 00:54:24,480 --> 00:54:27,960 Speaker 1: elegant and too well explanatory, you know, they explain the 916 00:54:27,960 --> 00:54:32,120 Speaker 1: facts too perfectly to be suggested subjected to this you know, 917 00:54:32,200 --> 00:54:34,800 Speaker 1: prediction problem. Yeah, this is kind of the scenario you 918 00:54:34,840 --> 00:54:39,600 Speaker 1: get into the hand of god argument or conversation, the 919 00:54:39,640 --> 00:54:43,279 Speaker 1: one might have with with someone where you can you 920 00:54:43,760 --> 00:54:46,440 Speaker 1: throughout the criticisms you point out to where it wouldn't work, 921 00:54:46,480 --> 00:54:49,040 Speaker 1: But then they can always they can always change the 922 00:54:49,120 --> 00:54:52,719 Speaker 1: argument until it's it's there's no way to possibly refute it. Right, 923 00:54:52,800 --> 00:54:55,680 Speaker 1: And so they end by saying the imperimeter of science 924 00:54:55,680 --> 00:54:58,400 Speaker 1: should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. 925 00:54:58,480 --> 00:55:02,200 Speaker 1: Only then can we defend science from attack. And to me, 926 00:55:03,239 --> 00:55:05,759 Speaker 1: these seem like concerns that are a very important part 927 00:55:05,760 --> 00:55:09,200 Speaker 1: of the conversation about science communication. It's almost more about 928 00:55:09,239 --> 00:55:12,399 Speaker 1: what you and I do, Robert, But they don't seem 929 00:55:12,520 --> 00:55:15,960 Speaker 1: especially relevant to me, at least to the internal conversation 930 00:55:16,080 --> 00:55:19,680 Speaker 1: between scientists about what kind of work in physics is 931 00:55:19,719 --> 00:55:22,759 Speaker 1: worth doing and how much confidence we should have in 932 00:55:22,880 --> 00:55:25,839 Speaker 1: ideas like string theory. I don't know what you think 933 00:55:25,840 --> 00:55:28,399 Speaker 1: about that, but it seems to me like that that's 934 00:55:28,480 --> 00:55:32,640 Speaker 1: kind of irrelevant. That's more just a public policy conversation. Yeah, 935 00:55:32,680 --> 00:55:34,560 Speaker 1: I would, I would agree, though. I mean, when it 936 00:55:34,560 --> 00:55:36,800 Speaker 1: comes to reading about physics, I have to admit I 937 00:55:36,840 --> 00:55:40,600 Speaker 1: would probably choose to read about theoretical physics before I 938 00:55:40,680 --> 00:55:47,840 Speaker 1: would read anymore about experimental experimental things. Yeah. Um, And 939 00:55:47,880 --> 00:55:49,920 Speaker 1: of course we should point out that not all theoretical 940 00:55:49,960 --> 00:55:53,439 Speaker 1: physics is is removed from experiment. I mean, I think, 941 00:55:53,640 --> 00:55:56,279 Speaker 1: I think most theoretical physics, you know, they're interacting with 942 00:55:56,320 --> 00:55:59,680 Speaker 1: particle colliders and and and all the experiments that were 943 00:55:59,680 --> 00:56:03,440 Speaker 1: out there doing gathering data on But yeah, I don't know. 944 00:56:03,520 --> 00:56:05,839 Speaker 1: I don't know what you're supposed to do in these 945 00:56:05,880 --> 00:56:10,680 Speaker 1: cases where where it's not just that string theorists decided 946 00:56:10,760 --> 00:56:14,360 Speaker 1: that they didn't want to test their their theories. You know, 947 00:56:14,520 --> 00:56:18,160 Speaker 1: that they are by necessity dealing with a part of 948 00:56:18,239 --> 00:56:21,879 Speaker 1: reality that we can't access experimentally. That that's just how 949 00:56:21,920 --> 00:56:24,800 Speaker 1: it is. They didn't design it that way, you know 950 00:56:24,840 --> 00:56:28,160 Speaker 1: what I mean, Like, they didn't pick it. It's just 951 00:56:28,239 --> 00:56:32,680 Speaker 1: a problem with our powers. And another thing I think 952 00:56:32,719 --> 00:56:35,600 Speaker 1: I would acknowledge is that it seems like almost all 953 00:56:35,640 --> 00:56:38,480 Speaker 1: of these people who are critics of the the idea 954 00:56:38,520 --> 00:56:42,480 Speaker 1: of post empirical theory assessment, you know, using these criteria 955 00:56:42,600 --> 00:56:48,160 Speaker 1: other than physical testing, acknowledge that there's something to it. 956 00:56:48,440 --> 00:56:51,560 Speaker 1: They seem to say, okay, yeah, they would probably admit 957 00:56:52,000 --> 00:56:55,040 Speaker 1: that string theory has more going for it than the 958 00:56:55,080 --> 00:56:59,480 Speaker 1: acid gremlin's hypothesis. There, so there is something to the 959 00:56:59,560 --> 00:57:04,080 Speaker 1: non empirical uh theory assessment. They just don't seem to 960 00:57:04,160 --> 00:57:07,840 Speaker 1: say that it's enough to call it science. Yeah, you know, 961 00:57:07,880 --> 00:57:09,719 Speaker 1: I can't help me. Be reminded in all this of 962 00:57:10,160 --> 00:57:15,360 Speaker 1: nineteenth century German philosopher Frederick of Wilhelm Joseph Schilling's Natural 963 00:57:15,360 --> 00:57:19,800 Speaker 1: Philosophy Um Philosophy of Nature in German Um. And this 964 00:57:19,880 --> 00:57:23,040 Speaker 1: is a concept um he developed as a sort of 965 00:57:23,320 --> 00:57:26,880 Speaker 1: augmentation to science that would allow science to investigate the 966 00:57:26,920 --> 00:57:30,680 Speaker 1: human spirit, because he saw nature or the force nature 967 00:57:31,400 --> 00:57:34,840 Speaker 1: and the human spirit or the forced geist as the 968 00:57:34,880 --> 00:57:37,760 Speaker 1: two great opposing forces in cosmos, with the human mind 969 00:57:37,800 --> 00:57:41,960 Speaker 1: at the center of everything. So nature, according to two Shilling, 970 00:57:42,440 --> 00:57:46,360 Speaker 1: is the visible spirit of the invisible spirit of the mind. 971 00:57:47,040 --> 00:57:48,960 Speaker 1: But again the mind is very much at the center 972 00:57:49,120 --> 00:57:54,200 Speaker 1: of the equation um. Now he was this This concept 973 00:57:54,320 --> 00:57:57,640 Speaker 1: was attacked for, among other things, lack of empirical orientation, 974 00:57:58,280 --> 00:58:00,320 Speaker 1: And indeed a lot of it seems to inge on 975 00:58:00,400 --> 00:58:04,960 Speaker 1: the investigation of the invisible, the comprehension of the scientific 976 00:58:05,080 --> 00:58:08,960 Speaker 1: getting unverifiable through the lens of something at least linked 977 00:58:09,040 --> 00:58:12,440 Speaker 1: to the substance of science. So it's it's hard to 978 00:58:12,960 --> 00:58:14,880 Speaker 1: I think I thought of that a lot when I 979 00:58:14,880 --> 00:58:16,680 Speaker 1: was reading over some of the material, because it seems 980 00:58:16,720 --> 00:58:23,960 Speaker 1: like a good example of sort of bad post empirical science. Yeah, 981 00:58:24,240 --> 00:58:27,320 Speaker 1: the idea that you're gonna you're gonna, you're gonna take, 982 00:58:27,360 --> 00:58:28,920 Speaker 1: you're gonna go as far as science will take, and 983 00:58:28,920 --> 00:58:34,200 Speaker 1: then you're just gonna completely extrapolate it into the unseen um. 984 00:58:34,240 --> 00:58:36,960 Speaker 1: But then the counter argument is, then, how is that different? 985 00:58:36,960 --> 00:58:39,840 Speaker 1: How is that ultimately different from something like string theory. Yeah, 986 00:58:39,880 --> 00:58:43,440 Speaker 1: I mean we're back to the demarcation problem, right, Yeah, Like, 987 00:58:43,720 --> 00:58:45,960 Speaker 1: what is the rule we're using to tell the difference? 988 00:58:46,000 --> 00:58:48,760 Speaker 1: I sense a difference to a sense that there's something 989 00:58:48,920 --> 00:58:53,360 Speaker 1: much more respectable about string theory and multiverse cosmology than 990 00:58:53,400 --> 00:58:58,200 Speaker 1: there is about the the invisible spirit um. But it's 991 00:58:58,320 --> 00:59:01,200 Speaker 1: hard to articulate exactly what that is though, though I 992 00:59:01,200 --> 00:59:04,320 Speaker 1: would say that Davitt's criteria are somewhat useful in that 993 00:59:04,400 --> 00:59:07,400 Speaker 1: regard that they give you some criteria for saying, Okay, 994 00:59:07,440 --> 00:59:11,160 Speaker 1: we're not running a test, but here are some characteristics 995 00:59:11,200 --> 00:59:15,360 Speaker 1: of these theories that do seem to make them probabilistically 996 00:59:15,880 --> 00:59:20,480 Speaker 1: and historically more likely to be correct than just gremlins 997 00:59:20,560 --> 00:59:24,720 Speaker 1: or invisible spirits. You know, it reminds me of something else, 998 00:59:24,760 --> 00:59:28,120 Speaker 1: and that is the the Ian and Banks Culture books, 999 00:59:28,120 --> 00:59:30,360 Speaker 1: which I know would bring up a lot but but 1000 00:59:30,360 --> 00:59:32,280 Speaker 1: but he managed to fit a lot of science into these, 1001 00:59:32,640 --> 00:59:35,800 Speaker 1: at least in the earlier books. It's established that in 1002 00:59:35,880 --> 00:59:39,360 Speaker 1: this uh, in this culture known as the culture, you 1003 00:59:39,400 --> 00:59:42,320 Speaker 1: have all these ai minds that are really ruling everything, 1004 00:59:42,400 --> 00:59:44,760 Speaker 1: that rule these giant warships, and they make all the 1005 00:59:44,800 --> 00:59:49,040 Speaker 1: decisions and they they do all the heavy thinking and 1006 00:59:49,080 --> 00:59:52,040 Speaker 1: heavy lifting for the humans and humanoids that make up 1007 00:59:52,040 --> 00:59:54,720 Speaker 1: the culture, but they keep the human humans around and 1008 00:59:54,720 --> 00:59:57,320 Speaker 1: they occasionally have the humans you know, engaging and very 1009 00:59:57,360 --> 01:00:02,080 Speaker 1: important roles. And part of this uh it's it's it's 1010 01:00:02,200 --> 01:00:07,320 Speaker 1: uh proposed is because the humans will occasionally make leaps 1011 01:00:07,360 --> 01:00:12,320 Speaker 1: in judgment or in theory that the machines do not cannot, 1012 01:00:13,200 --> 01:00:15,200 Speaker 1: which comes back to that that idea that I put 1013 01:00:15,240 --> 01:00:18,480 Speaker 1: forth earlier about how if you had a pure computer, 1014 01:00:18,600 --> 01:00:23,320 Speaker 1: a pure, pure logical entity doing the science, Um, would 1015 01:00:23,360 --> 01:00:25,560 Speaker 1: there be limitations to that? Would would there be this 1016 01:00:25,640 --> 01:00:30,080 Speaker 1: place where you would need a non empirical jumping logic 1017 01:00:30,160 --> 01:00:34,800 Speaker 1: that only a human who is abound and shackled to 1018 01:00:35,000 --> 01:00:37,840 Speaker 1: their prior beliefs and their philosophies, that only they could 1019 01:00:37,920 --> 01:00:40,960 Speaker 1: make what a what a skeptical engine? You know, a 1020 01:00:40,960 --> 01:00:46,160 Speaker 1: computer of scientific investigation not be able to make intuitive speculations. 1021 01:00:46,680 --> 01:00:49,440 Speaker 1: You would have to have the the the the Devil's 1022 01:00:49,480 --> 01:00:55,080 Speaker 1: advocate computer. Right, Yeah, throw weird ideas out there and 1023 01:00:55,120 --> 01:01:02,080 Speaker 1: then allow for testing. Soh this this veil of testing. Indeed, 1024 01:01:02,640 --> 01:01:05,000 Speaker 1: so one more thing I wanted to mention before the 1025 01:01:05,080 --> 01:01:06,960 Speaker 1: end of this. I was actually inspired to do this 1026 01:01:07,000 --> 01:01:10,280 Speaker 1: episode by reading a really good article on this whole 1027 01:01:10,320 --> 01:01:14,200 Speaker 1: subject of, you know, post empiricism and falsifiability in science 1028 01:01:14,960 --> 01:01:18,840 Speaker 1: by the philosopher of science Massimo Peleucci that he wrote 1029 01:01:18,880 --> 01:01:21,720 Speaker 1: in Eon magazine, which is always one of our favorites 1030 01:01:21,760 --> 01:01:24,640 Speaker 1: around And they're nonprofit now, so if you really like 1031 01:01:24,760 --> 01:01:28,440 Speaker 1: what they're doing over there, you can donate to the cause. 1032 01:01:28,480 --> 01:01:32,120 Speaker 1: By the way. Yeah, but uh so, Peleucci mates makes 1033 01:01:32,120 --> 01:01:35,640 Speaker 1: a point in his approach to this topic. He wonders 1034 01:01:35,760 --> 01:01:41,120 Speaker 1: if what if science is not it can't be demarcated 1035 01:01:41,360 --> 01:01:45,200 Speaker 1: in a way that a word like triangle can. So 1036 01:01:45,280 --> 01:01:48,640 Speaker 1: there's a word triangle that has a very clear definition, 1037 01:01:48,880 --> 01:01:53,480 Speaker 1: has what he would call quote necessary and jointly sufficient properties, 1038 01:01:53,520 --> 01:01:56,920 Speaker 1: and that just means it has a description which includes 1039 01:01:57,000 --> 01:01:59,760 Speaker 1: everything that could possibly be a triangle and rules out 1040 01:01:59,800 --> 01:02:02,960 Speaker 1: everything that is not a triangle. It has three angles 1041 01:02:03,000 --> 01:02:07,520 Speaker 1: that add up to eight degrees um perfect description of 1042 01:02:07,560 --> 01:02:10,960 Speaker 1: all triangles and nothing else. What if science is simply 1043 01:02:11,120 --> 01:02:14,800 Speaker 1: not like that? There aren't statements that are a perfect 1044 01:02:14,800 --> 01:02:19,800 Speaker 1: description of science and nothing else, and rather science is 1045 01:02:19,880 --> 01:02:24,240 Speaker 1: more a concept that is based on what Wittgenstein would 1046 01:02:24,240 --> 01:02:30,000 Speaker 1: call family resemblances in that it's a term like game. Now, 1047 01:02:30,000 --> 01:02:32,360 Speaker 1: could you come up with a definition or a description 1048 01:02:32,400 --> 01:02:35,960 Speaker 1: of what games are that includes everything that's a game 1049 01:02:36,440 --> 01:02:40,240 Speaker 1: and excludes everything that's not a game. Yeah, this is 1050 01:02:40,240 --> 01:02:43,320 Speaker 1: actually something that comes up a lot when I play games, 1051 01:02:43,320 --> 01:02:47,160 Speaker 1: such as my argument that apples what apples to apples? 1052 01:02:47,400 --> 01:02:51,640 Speaker 1: Apples to apples? Yeah, not a game? Um as fun 1053 01:02:51,720 --> 01:02:54,320 Speaker 1: as the other one is? What is it? The one 1054 01:02:54,600 --> 01:02:57,040 Speaker 1: with all the awful cards and it cards against Humanity? 1055 01:02:57,120 --> 01:02:59,800 Speaker 1: Also very fun, but not a game according to you? 1056 01:03:00,000 --> 01:03:01,760 Speaker 1: According to mean, some people would say it's a game. 1057 01:03:01,960 --> 01:03:04,200 Speaker 1: Is chopping would a game? You know? When I was 1058 01:03:04,240 --> 01:03:06,880 Speaker 1: a kid, I really love chopping woods. Some people think 1059 01:03:06,960 --> 01:03:08,680 Speaker 1: that as a chore, but I don't know. I guess 1060 01:03:08,680 --> 01:03:11,360 Speaker 1: it was just fun to swing an axe. Uh, well, 1061 01:03:11,520 --> 01:03:14,040 Speaker 1: certainly that's the thing. You can turn non games into 1062 01:03:14,080 --> 01:03:18,120 Speaker 1: games by establishing a set of rules for your completion 1063 01:03:18,160 --> 01:03:20,880 Speaker 1: of that task. Yeah. Yeah, you can turn things that 1064 01:03:20,920 --> 01:03:23,320 Speaker 1: shouldn't be a game at all into a game. But 1065 01:03:23,440 --> 01:03:26,040 Speaker 1: you could get a room full of people to have 1066 01:03:26,120 --> 01:03:29,320 Speaker 1: a list of activities like chopping wood, apples to apples, 1067 01:03:30,040 --> 01:03:32,520 Speaker 1: a whole bunch of things like that, and say, is 1068 01:03:32,560 --> 01:03:34,560 Speaker 1: this a game or is it not? And mostly I 1069 01:03:34,600 --> 01:03:38,240 Speaker 1: think they'd agree, you know, you'd get general agreement on 1070 01:03:38,280 --> 01:03:40,160 Speaker 1: the on the use of this term as it applies 1071 01:03:40,160 --> 01:03:42,320 Speaker 1: to things. And yet we can't come up with this 1072 01:03:42,480 --> 01:03:46,800 Speaker 1: necessary and jointly sufficient description of what games are. Maybe 1073 01:03:46,840 --> 01:03:49,520 Speaker 1: science is like that. So in a sense, science is 1074 01:03:49,560 --> 01:03:51,640 Speaker 1: a thing that would not be able to see itself. 1075 01:03:51,680 --> 01:03:54,600 Speaker 1: It would not be able to set itself because it 1076 01:03:54,720 --> 01:04:00,400 Speaker 1: itself does not fall into the uh specificity of form 1077 01:04:00,440 --> 01:04:04,560 Speaker 1: that science requires. Yeah, that could be. I don't know. Um, 1078 01:04:04,880 --> 01:04:07,520 Speaker 1: I I find this topic very interesting because I don't 1079 01:04:07,560 --> 01:04:09,640 Speaker 1: quite know what the answer is. I'm not sure how 1080 01:04:09,680 --> 01:04:12,160 Speaker 1: I feel about it. Obviously, I'm not a physicist, so 1081 01:04:12,200 --> 01:04:15,600 Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not working in these fields like multiverse 1082 01:04:15,640 --> 01:04:19,200 Speaker 1: cosmology and string theory, so I'm not even educated enough 1083 01:04:19,240 --> 01:04:22,280 Speaker 1: in them to really judge the intrinsic merits of the ideas, 1084 01:04:22,320 --> 01:04:27,680 Speaker 1: but just accepting that they are very good theoretical solutions. Yeah. Well, 1085 01:04:27,680 --> 01:04:29,440 Speaker 1: I think this is the that this is the appropriate 1086 01:04:29,440 --> 01:04:33,480 Speaker 1: feeling to have about it, because we're talking about theories 1087 01:04:33,600 --> 01:04:36,640 Speaker 1: that take us to the edge of human understanding and 1088 01:04:36,720 --> 01:04:40,720 Speaker 1: extrapolate beyond, and that's that is a place where I 1089 01:04:40,720 --> 01:04:44,400 Speaker 1: think where we can all agree it's okay to feel inadequate, 1090 01:04:44,680 --> 01:04:47,800 Speaker 1: It's okay to feel befuddled and unsure, because that is 1091 01:04:47,840 --> 01:04:52,280 Speaker 1: the nature of the edge. Yeah. Um, so yeah, I 1092 01:04:52,280 --> 01:04:54,120 Speaker 1: guess in the end, like I, I sort of see 1093 01:04:54,160 --> 01:04:57,120 Speaker 1: what Dovid is saying and like his his distinctions do 1094 01:04:57,240 --> 01:04:59,080 Speaker 1: make sense to me. I also see what the critics 1095 01:04:59,160 --> 01:05:02,360 Speaker 1: are saying about that not quite being science, or at 1096 01:05:02,400 --> 01:05:04,800 Speaker 1: least not science in the same way that all the 1097 01:05:04,800 --> 01:05:09,160 Speaker 1: science we really care about is uh. I wonder how 1098 01:05:09,200 --> 01:05:12,320 Speaker 1: that should work out in terms of practical concerns like funding, 1099 01:05:13,120 --> 01:05:17,240 Speaker 1: Like should we be funding uh, using public money to 1100 01:05:17,480 --> 01:05:20,880 Speaker 1: fund string theory research in the same way that we're 1101 01:05:20,920 --> 01:05:25,640 Speaker 1: funding stuff that is being tested and falsified. Yeah. I 1102 01:05:25,680 --> 01:05:27,720 Speaker 1: mean it seems to me you often encounter problems when 1103 01:05:27,720 --> 01:05:32,240 Speaker 1: you start opening up the discussion to the merits of 1104 01:05:32,280 --> 01:05:35,320 Speaker 1: this particular scientific inquiry versus all the others. You know, 1105 01:05:35,360 --> 01:05:36,840 Speaker 1: you kind of get into that hole, why are you 1106 01:05:36,880 --> 01:05:39,960 Speaker 1: doing this when we haven't cured cancer? And then you 1107 01:05:39,960 --> 01:05:43,480 Speaker 1: your answers like, well, this is this is theoretical physicist physics. Here, 1108 01:05:43,560 --> 01:05:47,760 Speaker 1: we weren't going to actually achieve a cure for cancer, 1109 01:05:48,320 --> 01:05:51,800 Speaker 1: as that's not our area of expertise. Yeah, like the 1110 01:05:51,600 --> 01:05:54,160 Speaker 1: the sort of false assumption of a zero sum game 1111 01:05:54,600 --> 01:05:57,040 Speaker 1: in the investigation of science. This is something that comes 1112 01:05:57,080 --> 01:05:59,400 Speaker 1: up a lot, you know, as somebody does a study 1113 01:05:59,440 --> 01:06:03,480 Speaker 1: that has an interesting but not necessarily technological results, and 1114 01:06:03,600 --> 01:06:07,280 Speaker 1: people comment under the article why are they studying this 1115 01:06:07,320 --> 01:06:09,200 Speaker 1: when they could be curing cancer? Right, as though, what 1116 01:06:09,280 --> 01:06:12,200 Speaker 1: the shrimp on a treadmill scenario where it's just become 1117 01:06:12,200 --> 01:06:13,880 Speaker 1: at all, I can't believe it. Our tax dollars are 1118 01:06:13,880 --> 01:06:16,200 Speaker 1: paying for shrimps on a treadmill. And then you ignore 1119 01:06:16,200 --> 01:06:18,800 Speaker 1: the fact that well it's it's it's still advancing science. 1120 01:06:18,840 --> 01:06:21,360 Speaker 1: If it's a you know, it's a valid study, it's 1121 01:06:21,400 --> 01:06:24,560 Speaker 1: just maybe not as as sexy or as a uh 1122 01:06:24,640 --> 01:06:29,400 Speaker 1: you knows, as obvious an advancement. And you don't even 1123 01:06:29,440 --> 01:06:32,920 Speaker 1: know in the future in what ways it may inform 1124 01:06:33,040 --> 01:06:36,520 Speaker 1: future technologies and other applications. I mean, that's always the 1125 01:06:36,520 --> 01:06:38,600 Speaker 1: thing with science. We we don't always know what the 1126 01:06:38,640 --> 01:06:40,920 Speaker 1: outcomes are going to be of learning something. Yeah, as 1127 01:06:40,960 --> 01:06:43,920 Speaker 1: this thing called science continues to creep out, sometimes into 1128 01:06:43,960 --> 01:06:47,400 Speaker 1: snail's pace, uh, sometimes a bit faster into the unknown. 1129 01:06:49,040 --> 01:06:50,920 Speaker 1: All Right, So how about you, how do you feel 1130 01:06:50,960 --> 01:06:53,480 Speaker 1: about this particular topic. And do you think the so 1131 01:06:53,600 --> 01:06:56,440 Speaker 1: called string wars that we're talking about here, do these, 1132 01:06:56,480 --> 01:07:00,120 Speaker 1: as some critics charge, distract from the real bad that 1133 01:07:00,160 --> 01:07:02,960 Speaker 1: should be going on against pseudoscience and the misuse of 1134 01:07:02,960 --> 01:07:06,080 Speaker 1: science by various outlets. Is this kind of the uh, 1135 01:07:06,600 --> 01:07:09,320 Speaker 1: you know, the wars of the of the Seven Kingdoms 1136 01:07:09,360 --> 01:07:13,000 Speaker 1: that are occurring while the White Walkers of pseudoscience marched 1137 01:07:13,080 --> 01:07:15,680 Speaker 1: down from the north. That that is true? Also, I mean, 1138 01:07:15,760 --> 01:07:18,680 Speaker 1: are are we sitting here arguing about what physicists should 1139 01:07:18,800 --> 01:07:23,160 Speaker 1: or shouldn't be contemplating? Meanwhile, we've got alternative medicine peddlers 1140 01:07:23,160 --> 01:07:26,840 Speaker 1: who are at the gates who knows. Uh. We'd love 1141 01:07:26,880 --> 01:07:29,080 Speaker 1: to hear from all you guys and gals about that. 1142 01:07:29,480 --> 01:07:31,080 Speaker 1: And if you we want to get in touch with us, 1143 01:07:31,080 --> 01:07:32,560 Speaker 1: you want to learn more about what we do, there 1144 01:07:32,600 --> 01:07:34,600 Speaker 1: are several ways to do so. First of all, Stuff 1145 01:07:34,600 --> 01:07:37,040 Speaker 1: to Blow your Mind dot Com is the mothership. That's 1146 01:07:37,080 --> 01:07:39,480 Speaker 1: where we have all of our podcasts, videos, blog posts, 1147 01:07:39,480 --> 01:07:41,640 Speaker 1: et cetera, as well as links out to our various 1148 01:07:41,640 --> 01:07:44,920 Speaker 1: social media accounts such as Twitter and Facebook and Instagram. 1149 01:07:45,400 --> 01:07:47,640 Speaker 1: We're active on all of those and Stuff to Blow 1150 01:07:47,680 --> 01:07:51,400 Speaker 1: your Mind dot Com itself has just recently experienced a redesign, 1151 01:07:51,840 --> 01:07:54,720 Speaker 1: so everything's coming together there. It's looking really sharp. If 1152 01:07:54,720 --> 01:07:56,320 Speaker 1: you haven't checked it out, or if you checked out 1153 01:07:56,320 --> 01:07:59,320 Speaker 1: in the past, make sure you visited again. And if 1154 01:07:59,320 --> 01:08:01,160 Speaker 1: you want to get into touch with us with feedback 1155 01:08:01,200 --> 01:08:03,120 Speaker 1: on this episode or any other, or you want to 1156 01:08:03,160 --> 01:08:05,080 Speaker 1: let us know something you think we should cover in 1157 01:08:05,080 --> 01:08:07,320 Speaker 1: the future, you can always email us and blow the 1158 01:08:07,360 --> 01:08:19,240 Speaker 1: mind at how stuff works dot com for more onness 1159 01:08:19,320 --> 01:08:21,800 Speaker 1: and thousands of other topics. Is it how stuff works 1160 01:08:21,800 --> 01:08:45,080 Speaker 1: dot com