How I lost trust in scientists

Summary

The 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researching, the speaker concludes that climate change is real and human-caused, dismissing common denier arguments as outdated.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

00:00

🤔 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.

05:04

🌍 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.

10:06

🚀 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.

Keywords

💡Science Denier

A 'science denier' is someone who rejects or doubts the validity of scientific findings, often due to a lack of trust in the scientific process or its practitioners. In the video, the speaker self-identifies as a 'science denier' in relation to the benefits of coffee but also uses the term to express skepticism towards certain areas of scientific research, particularly in the foundations of physics.

💡Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience refers to beliefs or practices that claim to be scientific but lack the empirical evidence and rigorous methodology characteristic of true science. The speaker argues that much of the research in the foundations of physics is 'pseudoscience,' as it involves theoretical constructs that are not grounded in observable phenomena, such as 'Multiverses' and 'invisible particles.'

💡Falsifiability

Falsifiability is a criterion of demarcation in science, introduced by philosopher Karl Popper, which states that a theory must be able to be proven false to be considered scientific. The speaker criticizes the common misconception in physics that if a theory is mathematically expressible and falsifiable, it is scientific, emphasizing the correct order should be that if it is scientific, it must be falsifiable.

💡Climate Change

Climate change is a long-term alteration in average weather patterns, particularly a rise in global temperatures, largely attributed to human activities. The speaker discusses the skepticism surrounding climate change and the potential for it to be perceived as a hoax due to the perceived pseudoscientific nature of some areas of physics. However, the speaker also emphasizes that climate change is real and likely worse than presented by climate scientists.

💡Statistical Methods

Statistical methods are mathematical techniques used to analyze and interpret data. The speaker mentions the development of better statistical methods, such as double-blind trials, as a result of recognizing pseudoscience in areas like ESP studies. These methods are crucial for ensuring the validity of scientific findings and are implied to be lacking in some areas of physics research.

💡Self-Interest

Self-interest refers to the motivation of individuals to pursue their own personal gain or advantage. The speaker suggests that the pursuit of self-interest, particularly financial stability, drives some scientists to inflate the relevance of their research, which can lead to a distortion of scientific findings and public trust.

💡Social Reinforcement

Social reinforcement is a psychological phenomenon where individuals conform to the prevailing beliefs or behaviors within their social group. The speaker describes how social reinforcement within the scientific community can lead scientists to overstate the importance of their research, contributing to a culture of exaggeration and bias.

💡Climate Models

Climate models are mathematical representations of the Earth's climate system used to predict future climate scenarios based on various factors and assumptions. The speaker acknowledges that while climate models have some problems, they tend to underestimate the pace of warming and the level of uncertainty, suggesting a potential bias towards underplaying the severity of climate change.

💡Alarmist

An 'alarmist' is someone who exaggerates a threat or danger, often to provoke action or reaction. The speaker discusses how climate scientists may be biased against being perceived as 'alarmist,' leading them to potentially downplay the severity of climate change in their research and public communication.

💡Trust

Trust in this context refers to the confidence in the reliability, truth, or ability of scientists and their findings. The speaker advises the audience to 'trust no one' and instead rely on data, mathematics, and logic, suggesting that trust in individuals or groups can be misplaced, whereas empirical evidence and sound reasoning are more dependable.

💡Data

Data refers to factual information collected through observation and experimentation. The speaker emphasizes the importance of trusting data in the scientific process, noting that in the physical sciences, including climate science, data is rarely wrong and is subject to scrutiny and correction.

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.