How I lost trust in scientists
Summary
TLDRThe speaker candidly expresses distrust in science and scientists, citing pseudoscience in physics foundations as an example. They argue that while climate change is real and human-caused, climate scientists may underestimate the severity due to fear of being labeled 'alarmist.' The speaker urges viewers to trust data, math, and logic rather than individuals, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking in scientific discourse.
Takeaways
- 🤔 The speaker expresses distrust in science and scientists, acknowledging the potential for being labeled a 'science denier'.
- 📚 The speaker has previously criticized research in the foundations of physics, considering much of it to be pseudoscience.
- 🧐 The speaker argues that the scientific method needs to evolve to better distinguish between genuine science and pseudoscience.
- 🔍 The speaker suggests that the pursuit of self-interest, particularly financial, can lead scientists to exaggerate the importance of their research.
- 🌐 The speaker initially worried that climate change might be a hoax due to observed issues in the field of physics.
- 🌡️ After researching, the speaker concludes that climate change is real and human-caused, dismissing common denier arguments as outdated.
- 🌍 The speaker acknowledges that climate models have limitations but suggests they may underestimate the severity of warming.
- 😨 Climate scientists are portrayed as being cautious in their public statements due to fear of backlash and misrepresentation.
- 🤨 The speaker advises not to trust scientists blindly but to trust in data, mathematics, and logical arguments.
- 📈 The speaker implies that social reinforcement within the scientific community can lead to an overemphasis on the importance of research.
- 💡 The speaker introduces a new knowledge-sharing platform called 'quiz with it', highlighting its features and community aspects.
Q & A
What is the speaker's stance on science and scientists?
-The speaker expresses distrust towards science and scientists, identifying as a 'science denier' and criticizing certain areas of scientific research as pseudoscience.
Why does the speaker deny the benefits of coffee as a joke?
-The speaker uses the denial of coffee's benefits as a humorous way to introduce their more serious skepticism about the scientific community.
What is the speaker's main criticism of research in the foundations of physics?
-The speaker criticizes the foundations of physics for being filled with pseudoscience, such as mathematical fiction, Multiverses, and tales about the origin of the universe that lack empirical evidence.
What historical example does the speaker provide to illustrate the evolution of pseudoscience?
-The speaker uses the example of early studies on extra sensory perception (ESP), which were once considered proper science but later deemed pseudoscience due to lack of evidence.
How does the speaker describe the mistake made by physicists regarding falsifiability?
-The speaker argues that physicists mistakenly believe that if something is written in mathematics and is falsifiable, it is scientific, when in fact, if something is scientific, it should be falsifiable.
What does the speaker suggest has happened in the natural evolution of sciences that led to the current state of physics?
-The speaker suggests that parts of physics have drifted into pseudoscience due to the lack of consequences for such drifts, unlike in the case of ESP studies, which were eventually discarded.
Why did the speaker initially worry that climate change might be a hoax?
-The speaker worried that climate change might be a hoax because they saw similarities between the pseudoscience in physics and the potential for climate science to be similarly flawed.
What does the speaker believe about the trustworthiness of scientists according to a study by the US-American National Academies of Sciences?
-The speaker refers to a study indicating that while 80% of people polled trust scientists, 20% doubt scientists' motives, particularly regarding financial interests.
How does the speaker describe the impact of self-interest on the scientific community?
-The speaker suggests that the pursuit of self-interest, mainly financial stability, drives some scientists to inflate the relevance of their research, which can lead to biases and social reinforcement within the community.
What is the speaker's conclusion about climate change after their research?
-The speaker concludes that climate change is real and caused by human activities, dismissing common denier arguments as outdated and stating that climate models may underestimate the pace of warming.
What advice does the speaker give regarding trust in scientific findings?
-The speaker advises to trust data, mathematics, and logic rather than individuals, as these are less likely to be wrong and are more objective measures of scientific validity.
What is the speaker's personal project mentioned at the end of the script?
-The speaker mentions a project called 'quiz with it', a knowledge sharing platform that allows users to create quizzes and courses linked to various types of content.
Outlines
🤔 Skepticism Towards Science and Scientists
The speaker begins by expressing their distrust in science and scientists, acknowledging the potential label of 'science denier' that may follow. They argue that there are valid reasons for this mistrust, citing the lack of merit in much of the foundational research in physics, which they liken to pseudoscience. The speaker also criticizes the reliance on mathematical models without empirical evidence, suggesting that this has led to the acceptance of unfounded theories in physics. They express concern that such issues in scientific methodology could extend to other fields, including climate science, and worry that this could undermine public trust in scientific findings.
🌍 Climate Science and the Issue of Trust
The speaker delves into the topic of climate science, admitting their initial skepticism about climate change due to observed issues in physics. However, after extensive research and engagement with the field, they conclude that climate change is real and human-induced. They discuss the problems within the scientific community, such as the lack of self-reflection on biases and the social reinforcement that can lead to overestimation of research importance. The speaker also addresses the unique challenges faced by climate scientists, including public scrutiny and fear of being misrepresented, which can introduce a bias towards downplaying the severity of climate change. They emphasize the importance of trusting data, mathematics, and logical arguments over the individuals presenting them.
🚀 Personal Project Launch and Community Building
In the final paragraph, the speaker shifts focus to their personal endeavors, introducing a new knowledge-sharing platform called 'quiz with it'. This platform allows users to create quizzes and courses linked to various types of content, fostering interaction and learning. The speaker highlights the platform's features, such as the ability to embed quizzes on websites or videos and monetize content, and mentions the existence of both free and premium features. They invite viewers to join the growing community and express excitement about this new venture.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Science Denier
💡Pseudoscience
💡Falsifiability
💡Climate Change
💡Statistical Methods
💡Self-Interest
💡Social Reinforcement
💡Climate Models
💡Alarmist
💡Trust
💡Data
Highlights
The speaker expresses distrust towards science and scientists, acknowledging the potential for criticism.
Denial of evidence against the benefits of coffee is humorously presented as a personal bias.
The speaker questions the trustworthiness of a stereotypical image of a scientist.
Criticism of climate scientists is introduced as a topic of discussion.
The speaker's past work criticizing the foundations of physics is referenced.
A claim that much of foundational physics is pseudoscience due to a lack of empirical evidence.
The historical context of ESP studies as a comparison to the current state of physics.
The development of better statistical methods as a response to pseudoscience in the past.
A critique of the scientific method in physics, specifically the criterion of falsifiability.
The lack of consequences for pseudoscientific practices in physics is highlighted as a problem.
The speaker's personal journey from writing a book to questioning the reality of climate change.
A recent study is cited to show public mistrust in scientists' motives.
The influence of self-interest, particularly financial, on scientific research is discussed.
The absence of requirements for scientists to address their own biases is criticized.
Social reinforcement within the scientific community and its potential negative effects.
The speaker's personal investigation into climate science and the findings that contradict climate change denial.
Climate models are acknowledged to have issues, but they tend to underestimate the pace of warming.
The social problems within the climate science community and their impact on research.
A call to trust data, maths, and logic rather than individuals in the scientific community.
The speaker introduces a personal project, a knowledge sharing platform called 'quiz with it'.
Transcripts
I don’t trust science and I don’t trust scientists. There, I said it. Yes,
it’s taken me some courage. Because after you’ve watched this video some of you will call me a
science denier. And maybe you’re right, you know, maybe that’s what I’ve become.
I certainly deny any evidence against the benefits of coffee. Yes, make that triple.
But seriously. I have good reasons to mistrust science, and scientists and so do you. I mean
look at this stock image of a scientist. Would you trust that guy? I wouldn’t.
Yes, that means you shouldn’t trust me, either. And you shouldn’t trust climate scientists. No, I
don’t. And that’s what I want to talk about today. Some of you have been following me since
approximately the Mesozoic Era, and you’ll remember that I’ve been highly critical of
research in the foundations of physics. I’ve literally written an entire book about this,
back then when people still read books, in the Mesocoic Era.
Today we do 10 minutes YouTube videos, so to make a long book short,
most of what physicists do in the foundations is pseudoscience. It’s paper production with no
scientific merit that teaches us nothing about nature. It’s mathematical fiction, Multiverses,
tales about the origin of the universe, and invisible particles that no one ever finds.
But that in and of itself is not the problem. Wait, I’m serious, dammit!
It happens every once in a while that some research area drifts off into
pseudoscience. For example, the early studies on extra sensory perception, ESP for short,
that’s telepathy, telekinesis and so on. That was once proper science. It was a phenomenon
worth investigating. I mean who hasn’t wished they could use one or the other magical force
of course scientists were on the case. But as time went on, it became clear
that there was nothing to find, and the people who were still working on
it were just pretending to do science with sloppy statistics.
So, pseudoscience. Pretends to be science, but isn’t.
This happens because scientists not only make mistakes, they sometimes make new
mistakes. If that happens, the scientific method itself needs to develop to demark
the new mistake as pseudoscience. ESP studies for example led to the
development of better statistical methods such as double-blind trials.
The new mistake in physics was that physicists came to believe that if you can write it in
maths and it’s falsifiable then it’s scientific. Unfortunately, it’s the other way round, if it’s
scientific then it’s falsifiable. Now if you make that mistake then suddenly all kinds of nonsense
ideas become “scientific”. And that in a nutshell is what’s happened in the foundations of physics.
But the problem isn’t that parts of physics drifted off into pseudoscience per se,
because this happens every once in a while, in the natural evolution of the sciences. The
problem is that it hasn’t had any consequences. We’ve recognized the problem with ESP studies,
chucked them out of universities, and updated statistical methods to prevent
that from happening again. But physicists have been inventing unobservable things that
no one ever finds for half a century and are still happily doing it, believing it’s proper
science. And if it can happen in physics, it can happen in other disciplines, too.
That’s why, after I finished writing my book in 2016, I began to worry that climate change was
indeed a hoax. I can’t blame people for looking at the foundations of physics, concluding that
much of it is obviously bullshit, and then saying well see you can’t trust scientists,
they’re just making up climate change. Because I worried about the exact same thing.
I haven’t talked about this because I’m afraid that this will just give some people another
justification to question science. But I’ve come to think that not talking about it just
makes it worse. It makes it look like we’ve got something to hide.
If you mistrust scientists you’re not alone. A recent study by members of the
Strategic Council of the US-American National Academies of Sciences found
that about 80 percent of those polled say scientists are competent and trustworthy.
But the remaining 20 percent doubt scientists’ motives. They doubt that
scientists will stick with science when it goes against the scientists’ self-interest,
like access to grants or other financial support. I think they have good reason for this doubt.
Indeed the pursuit of self-interests, mostly financial stability, is what’s
driving the problem in physics. It’s baked into the current organization of the research system.
The vast majority of scientists I know are not doing research
to get rich. If you’re interested in money you do something else, like,
getting born rich. But still they need some income to pay rent and feed the kids, right?
And this is why they have a strong incentive to inflate the relevance of their research. To
most of them this comes naturally, because they’re excited about what they’re doing.
But the scientific community has still no requirements whatsoever
that scientists address their own biases. There’s no education no training no guidelines, nothing.
That you expect scientists to generally exaggerate the relevance of their research
isn’t just a problem for the public perception, it feeds back into the community. You now have
all these people telling each other constantly that what they do is super important and they
come to believe it. It’s a classic example of what’s called social reinforcement.
Yes, same spirit that keeps flat earther’s going. And is the same thing going on in climate
science? Of course. Does that mean that climate change is a hoax. No, it’s worse than that.
I’m not a climate scientist and I swear I have no aspirations to become
one. But I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand the basics, read lots of papers,
and textbooks and attended seminars and talked to climate scientists etc. I’m
not asking you to trust me or anyone really. But I have found no major reason for concern
about climate science. Is the climate changing yes. Are we causing it yes.
Every other option for what could be causing climate change, all the denier arguments that
you have heard, have long been ruled out. It’s the sun, we’re coming out of the little ice age,
cosmic rays, and so on. It’s not like climate scientists ignored these possibilities,
the deniers are just repeating stuff that was laid to rest decades ago.
Yes, climate models have some problems which I’ve talked about a few times before, but their biggest
problem seems to be that they underestimate the pace of warming and the uncertainty.
And this returns me to the social problem. I’ve found that climate scientists clearly
*do have social problems in their community. But these problems present themselves totally
differently than in the foundations of physics. In the foundations of physics, scientists
basically seem to have concluded that they don’t need to care about what the public thinks,
they’ll get paid anyway, so now they just ignore all criticism.
Climate scientists in contrast, are afraid of the public. They’re afraid of being hunted by
activists on either the left or right side, and of having their privacy being violated and of
being quoted out of context. They’re afraid of being called alarmist. They’re afraid of
being harassed by climate deniers. They’re afraid of being dragged into decades-long
lawsuits. Because these things have happened and continue to happen.
And honestly, I think that they’re afraid isn’t entirely a bad thing.
Because it makes their arguments much more careful and watertight.
But it does create a problem: it introduces a bias in their arguments. They’re afraid of being called
“alarmist” and they’re afraid of giving anyone reason to dismiss their conclusion, and that
creates incentives to make the situation look less scary and to underestimate uncertainties.
Basically it’s right that you shouldn’t trust climate scientists. But the conclusion from
that isn’t what climate change deniers want it to be. It’s not that climate change is a
hoax. It’s that it’s almost certainly worse than the impression they raise.
So whom can you trust? Trust no one. What you can trust for the most
part is: data, maths, and logic. At least in the physical sciences,
and I count climate science as physics, it’s incredibly rare for data to be wrong
or fraudulent, and for that to remain undiscovered. It happens, but it’s rare.
It’s likewise rare that maths or statistical analysis is just wrong, and for that not to be
criticised or corrected. Indeed, the problem in the foundations of physis is not that the data
or maths is wrong, it’s that they have no data, and the maths isn’t about anything in particular.
And finally, there’s logic. Logic is your friend. Trust arguments, not people.
This video doesn't have a sponsor because I was afraid it might upset some people. But since
you're here already let me give you an update on my personal product launch, that's the simplest
knowledge sharing platform ever. I've called it quiz with it and it lets you create quizzes
and courses and link them to any other content: news articles, blog posts, videos, what have you.
You can embed them into your own website or newsletter or as a card on a video
if you want to. You can monetize your content and users can collect points from
taking quizzes. The quiz creation is free and will remain free, though we do have some
premium features because my software developers don't work for nothing if you see the problem.
We now also have a comment feature and a small but growing community. I’m excited to be starting
something entirely new and I hope you'll join us. Thanks for watching, see you tomorrow.
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)