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
- š¤ The speaker expresses distrust in science and scientists, acknowledging the potential for being labeled a 'science denier'.
- š The speaker has previously criticized research in the foundations of physics, considering much of it to be pseudoscience.
- š§ The speaker argues that the scientific method needs to evolve to better distinguish between genuine science and pseudoscience.
- š The speaker suggests that the pursuit of self-interest, particularly financial, can lead scientists to exaggerate the importance of their research.
- š The speaker initially worried that climate change might be a hoax due to observed issues in the field of physics.
- š”ļø After researching, the speaker concludes that climate change is real and human-caused, dismissing common denier arguments as outdated.
- š The speaker acknowledges that climate models have limitations but suggests they may underestimate the severity of warming.
- šØ Climate scientists are portrayed as being cautious in their public statements due to fear of backlash and misrepresentation.
- š¤Ø The speaker advises not to trust scientists blindly but to trust in data, mathematics, and logical arguments.
- š The speaker implies that social reinforcement within the scientific community can lead to an overemphasis on the importance of research.
- š” 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
š¤ 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.
š 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.
š 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
š”Science Denier
š”Pseudoscience
š”Falsifiability
š”Climate Change
š”Statistical Methods
š”Self-Interest
š”Social Reinforcement
š”Climate Models
š”Alarmist
š”Trust
š”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 donāt trust science and I donāt trustĀ scientists. There, I said it. Yes,Ā Ā
itās taken me some courage. Because after youāveĀ watched this video some of you will call me aĀ Ā
science denier. And maybe youāre right,Ā you know, maybe thatās what Iāve become.Ā Ā
I certainly deny any evidence against theĀ benefits of coffee. Yes, make that triple.
But seriously. I have good reasons to mistrustĀ science, and scientists and so do you. I meanĀ Ā
look at this stock image of a scientist.Ā Would you trust that guy? I wouldnāt.
Yes, that means you shouldnāt trust me, either.Ā And you shouldnāt trust climate scientists. No, IĀ Ā
donāt. And thatās what I want to talk about today. Some of you have been following me sinceĀ Ā
approximately the Mesozoic Era, and youāllĀ remember that Iāve been highly critical ofĀ Ā
research in the foundations of physics. IāveĀ literally written an entire book about this,Ā Ā
back then when people stillĀ read books, in the Mesocoic Era.Ā
Today we do 10 minutes YouTubeĀ videos, so to make a long book short,Ā Ā
most of what physicists do in the foundationsĀ is pseudoscience. Itās paper production with noĀ Ā
scientific merit that teaches us nothing aboutĀ nature. Itās mathematical fiction, Multiverses,Ā Ā
tales about the origin of the universe, andĀ invisible particles that no one ever finds.Ā
But that in and of itself is not theĀ problem. Wait, Iām serious, dammit!Ā
It happens every once in a while thatĀ some research area drifts off intoĀ Ā
pseudoscience. For example, the early studiesĀ on extra sensory perception, ESP for short,Ā Ā
thatās telepathy, telekinesis and so on. ThatĀ was once proper science. It was a phenomenonĀ Ā
worth investigating. I mean who hasnāt wishedĀ they could use one or the other magical forceĀ Ā
of course scientists were on the case. But as time went on, it became clearĀ Ā
that there was nothing to find, andĀ the people who were still working onĀ Ā
it were just pretending to doĀ science with sloppy statistics.Ā
So, pseudoscience. PretendsĀ to be science, but isnāt.
This happens because scientists not onlyĀ make mistakes, they sometimes make newĀ Ā
mistakes. If that happens, the scientificĀ method itself needs to develop to demarkĀ Ā
the new mistake as pseudoscience.Ā ESP studies for example led to theĀ Ā
development of better statisticalĀ methods such as double-blind trials.
The new mistake in physics was that physicistsĀ came to believe that if you can write it inĀ Ā
maths and itās falsifiable then itās scientific.Ā Unfortunately, itās the other way round, if itāsĀ Ā
scientific then itās falsifiable. Now if you makeĀ that mistake then suddenly all kinds of nonsenseĀ Ā
ideas become āscientificā. And that in a nutshellĀ is whatās happened in the foundations of physics.
But the problem isnāt that parts of physicsĀ drifted off into pseudoscience per se,Ā Ā
because this happens every once in a while,Ā in the natural evolution of the sciences. TheĀ Ā
problem is that it hasnāt had any consequences. Weāve recognized the problem with ESP studies,Ā Ā
chucked them out of universities, andĀ updated statistical methods to preventĀ Ā
that from happening again. But physicistsĀ have been inventing unobservable things thatĀ Ā
no one ever finds for half a century and areĀ still happily doing it, believing itās properĀ Ā
science. And if it can happen in physics,Ā it can happen in other disciplines, too.
Thatās why, after I finished writing my book inĀ 2016, I began to worry that climate change wasĀ Ā
indeed a hoax. I canāt blame people for lookingĀ at the foundations of physics, concluding thatĀ Ā
much of it is obviously bullshit, and thenĀ saying well see you canāt trust scientists,Ā Ā
theyāre just making up climate change.Ā Because I worried about the exact same thing.
I havenāt talked about this because Iām afraidĀ that this will just give some people anotherĀ Ā
justification to question science. But IāveĀ come to think that not talking about it justĀ Ā
makes it worse. It makes it lookĀ like weāve got something to hide.Ā
If you mistrust scientists youāre notĀ alone. A recent study by members of theĀ Ā
Strategic Council of the US-AmericanĀ National Academies of Sciences foundĀ Ā
that about 80 percent of those polled sayĀ scientists are competent and trustworthy.Ā Ā
But the remaining 20 percent doubtĀ scientistsā motives. They doubt thatĀ Ā
scientists will stick with science when itĀ goes against the scientistsā self-interest,Ā Ā
like access to grants or other financial support.Ā I think they have good reason for this doubt.
Indeed the pursuit of self-interests,Ā mostly financial stability, is whatāsĀ Ā
driving the problem in physics. Itās baked intoĀ the current organization of the research system.
The vast majority of scientistsĀ I know are not doing researchĀ Ā
to get rich. If youāre interested inĀ money you do something else, like,Ā Ā
getting born rich. But still they need someĀ income to pay rent and feed the kids, right?Ā
And this is why they have a strong incentiveĀ to inflate the relevance of their research. ToĀ Ā
most of them this comes naturally, becauseĀ theyāre excited about what theyāre doing.Ā
But the scientific community hasĀ still no requirements whatsoeverĀ Ā
that scientists address their own biases. ThereāsĀ no education no training no guidelines, nothing.Ā
That you expect scientists to generallyĀ exaggerate the relevance of their researchĀ Ā
isnāt just a problem for the public perception,Ā it feeds back into the community. You now haveĀ Ā
all these people telling each other constantlyĀ that what they do is super important and theyĀ Ā
come to believe it. Itās a classic exampleĀ of whatās called social reinforcement.
Yes, same spirit that keeps flat eartherāsĀ going. And is the same thing going on in climateĀ Ā
science? Of course. Does that mean that climateĀ change is a hoax. No, itās worse than that.
Iām not a climate scientist and IĀ swear I have no aspirations to becomeĀ Ā
one. But Iāve spent a lot of time trying toĀ understand the basics, read lots of papers,Ā Ā
and textbooks and attended seminars andĀ talked to climate scientists etc. IāmĀ Ā
not asking you to trust me or anyone really.Ā But I have found no major reason for concernĀ Ā
about climate science. Is the climateĀ changing yes. Are we causing it yes.
Every other option for what could be causingĀ climate change, all the denier arguments thatĀ Ā
you have heard, have long been ruled out. ItāsĀ the sun, weāre coming out of the little ice age,Ā Ā
cosmic rays, and so on. Itās not like climateĀ scientists ignored these possibilities,Ā Ā
the deniers are just repeating stuffĀ that was laid to rest decades ago.
Yes, climate models have some problems which IāveĀ talked about a few times before, but their biggestĀ Ā
problem seems to be that they underestimateĀ the pace of warming and the uncertainty.
And this returns me to the social problem.Ā Iāve found that climate scientists clearlyĀ Ā
*do have social problems in their community.Ā But these problems present themselves totallyĀ Ā
differently than in the foundations of physics. In the foundations of physics, scientistsĀ Ā
basically seem to have concluded that theyĀ donāt need to care about what the public thinks,Ā Ā
theyāll get paid anyway, so nowĀ they just ignore all criticism.
Climate scientists in contrast, are afraid ofĀ the public. Theyāre afraid of being hunted byĀ Ā
activists on either the left or right side, andĀ of having their privacy being violated and ofĀ Ā
being quoted out of context. Theyāre afraidĀ of being called alarmist. Theyāre afraid ofĀ Ā
being harassed by climate deniers. TheyāreĀ afraid of being dragged into decades-longĀ Ā
lawsuits. Because these things haveĀ happened and continue to happen.
And honestly, I think that theyāreĀ afraid isnāt entirely a bad thing.Ā Ā
Because it makes their argumentsĀ much more careful and watertight.Ā
But it does create a problem: it introduces a biasĀ in their arguments. Theyāre afraid of being calledĀ Ā
āalarmistā and theyāre afraid of giving anyoneĀ reason to dismiss their conclusion, and thatĀ Ā
creates incentives to make the situation lookĀ less scary and to underestimate uncertainties.
Basically itās right that you shouldnāt trustĀ climate scientists. But the conclusion fromĀ Ā
that isnāt what climate change deniers wantĀ it to be. Itās not that climate change is aĀ Ā
hoax. Itās that itās almost certainlyĀ worse than the impression they raise.Ā
So whom can you trust? Trust no one. What you can trust for the mostĀ Ā
part is: data, maths, and logic. At least in the physical sciences,Ā Ā
and I count climate science as physics,Ā itās incredibly rare for data to be wrongĀ Ā
or fraudulent, and for that to remainĀ undiscovered. It happens, but itās rare.Ā
Itās likewise rare that maths or statisticalĀ analysis is just wrong, and for that not to beĀ Ā
criticised or corrected. Indeed, the problem inĀ the foundations of physis is not that the dataĀ Ā
or maths is wrong, itās that they have no data,Ā and the maths isnāt about anything in particular.Ā
And finally, thereās logic. Logic isĀ your friend. Trust arguments, not people.Ā
This video doesn't have a sponsor because I wasĀ afraid it might upset some people. But sinceĀ Ā
you're here already let me give you an update onĀ my personal product launch, that's the simplestĀ Ā
knowledge sharing platform ever. I've calledĀ it quiz with it and it lets you create quizzesĀ Ā
and courses and link them to any other content:Ā news articles, blog posts, videos, what have you.Ā
You can embed them into your own websiteĀ or newsletter or as a card on a videoĀ Ā
if you want to. You can monetize yourĀ content and users can collect points fromĀ Ā
taking quizzes. The quiz creation is freeĀ and will remain free, though we do have someĀ Ā
premium features because my software developersĀ don't work for nothing if you see the problem.Ā
We now also have a comment feature and a smallĀ but growing community. Iām excited to be startingĀ Ā
something entirely new and I hope you'll joinĀ us. Thanks for watching, see you tomorrow.
Browse More Related Video
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)