hundreth

Right, so if you have the "right" philosophy then you can have the "right" science? That doesn't sound like science, it sounds like confirmation bias. Why not just follow wherever the truth leads? But yeah, I guess that is a philosophy of science in itself which I believe most scientists aspire to in principal, to be an unbiased observer. In practice, it probably isn't so simple. In that sense self awareness becomes paramount.

Why? The opposite seems like it could also be true. If you're subscribed to some ideology or specific philosophy you run the risk of searching for confirmations. This is what happened with Einstein and determinism. He was so ideologically captured by the philosophy of determinism, he spent half his life at odds with quantum physics.

Good question. The New Age movement has different dimensions, aliens, spirits, anything and everything in between. I think the difference is that in this model, everything is real. In your model, everything is a dream. I mean it isn't your model per se. I would hope the difference is that your teachings are more grounded, but part of me feels like you'd like to say that the new age movement is *too* grounded.

Here's a great example of how the community breaks down new theories from your favorite person, Dave. You can fast forward to 50:00 where he brings on Tim Nguyen, who peer reviewed his work to explain the theory and poke some holes. The entire video is great though. These are typically the frauds who claim they have a new theory of everything. The Weinsteins and the Terrence Howards of the world.

Understood. Yeah, I could totally see that danger. For sure, there has to be room for alternative medicine and intuition outside of current scientific paradigms.

Fair enough, though it seems like your viewership is lacking the prerequisites to distinguish between RFK's beliefs and truth. That's a concerning demographic to add new science skepticism towards.

I'm calm man, it's just hard to remain serious when it seems like these criticisms are coming from an uninformed place. Let's try again. Do you know who came up with the replication crisis? Scientists. Scientists who were reflecting on issues within their fields to try understand why this is happening. They came up with many explanations, which have now become mainstream terms such as p hacking and "publish or perish." So definitely, there are issues no doubt. But if anything, the industry pushes scientists too far towards making breakthroughs. This publish or perish mentality is predicated on scientists needing to stay relevant to receive more funding. We would have better science if they were allowed to *not* have breakthroughs and do their jobs. This has more to do with business and politics than it does with scientific methodology. When these researchers are forced into a corner where they need to produce a result or else, you're going to have more junk science bundled in there. Fortunately, when something isn't replicable it becomes obsolete very quickly in favor of new understandings. It seems like you're pointing to scientists being close minded to new theories around physics. Like I said earlier, there have been a few popular ones which are brought up like Weinstein's geometric unity. He never actually published his work for peer review because he knows it's BS. Despite that, physicists have reviewed it anyways and have explained why its BS. This happens time and time again. If there is a viable alternative, where is it? Do you have an example of an alternate theory which isn't being represented?

So in other words, you have some vague sense that something is wrong with science because there aren't enough breakthroughs for you. (Despite the fact that there are plenty.) The vibe is just off huh? And you can't really articulate exactly what you'd like them to do, except "re-examine their methods" which means basically nothing. The way you speak about this stuff tells me you likely should be listening to more prof Dave honestly.

Watch the video I posted from Layne Norton. At the end of the day what matters are health outcomes. You can come up with mechanisms for literally any ingredient on the planet and create a narrative to make that ingredient appear unhealthy. Our body has thousands of mechanisms working at once. When you replace other oils with seed oils, many studies show either inflammation levels remain the same, or go down. When you look at overall health outcomes, seed oils appear beneficial because they lower cardiac risks which account for a large percentage of health issues. Does that mean everyone needs to consume seed oils? No. It just means they aren't the devil. You cannot be reductionist and blame one class of foods for our health issues. Our overall diets are the issue. Quite frankly, we consume too many calories and calorie dense foods. Often, they are coupled with seed oils for convenience. We consume over 1000 more calories per day on average from a century ago. What do you expect?

Feels like these teachings about deconstructing science are about a century ahead of its time. Right now most people need more faith in science, not less.

There is no contradiction. His entire blog post literally explains that RFK is problematic because of the fringe garbage he fills his mind with despite being a good person.

Let's contrast that with how an actual expert speaks about it. This isn't just another out of shape egg head. He applied his expertise directly with his power lifting career.

I was wondering why given today's age you would be upset with someone like Prof Dave, and then I remembered he made a scathing video about you. I did think it was unfair for him to label you a cult leader and lump you in with Deepak Chopra and the like. In my opinion, he also caught you at your worst moments. You've since pulled back on your enthusiastic endorsement of everyone taking psychedelics and are now more careful. Maybe the criticism helped, maybe you got there on your own. I don't know. Today, there is rampant science denialism in Blue, Orange, and Green stages. Blue for religious reasons, Orange for capitalist reasons (climate change, etc.), and Green for new age holistic snake oil reasons. Experts and intellectuals are hammered from all sides. Now it's perfectly fine to point out that there are huge issues with academia, dogma within scientific communities, a materialist paradigm, etc etc. The issue is that these criticisms are fine when you understand science enough to see it within a spiritual context, but the vast majority of people are not there. If the goal is to help as many as possible, we should be propping up science and experts as they are today. Science and experts are dismissed in favor of charlatans and snake oil salesmen. If you're frustrated about Trump getting elected, look no further than his blatant anti intellectual agendas. This brainwashing works. I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what it is you're pointing to. Are you saying there are new theories being dismissed? Perhaps. But every time one of these comes up, physicists look into it and it is exposed as rubbish. Weinstein's geometric unity was complete vaporware predicated on a mathematical operator which he conveniently "forgot." Terrence Howard... I mean do I need to even say more? What exactly is it that you believe scientists should be doing? What most people have a hard time understanding is that as knowledge in a field grows over time, it becomes more and more difficult to make breakthroughs in that field. This should be obvious, but it isn't.

You're missing the point. She's portraying the current scientific methods as mostly "guessing math." That's not what's actually happening. Guessing math isn't the current method. When Dave says "physicists work within models" that means the math flows from the model, they aren't guessing. They didn't just randomly guess there would be a higgs boson and get lucky. The science denialism is that she misrepresents how scientists actually do physics to appeal to science denialists who would love to simply flush all experts down the toilet in favor of their "vibes" science.

What debate? They aren't having a debate. He is pointing out why her recent videos are problematic. He directly addresses why he believes X isn't true, and then speculates on why she may be so strongly leaning into this kind of content. This is a commentary video, not a debate. The "guessing math" contention you brought up is a great example. You're misrepresenting what he said. He isn't arguing that guessing math is a great strategy or that scientific methodology can't be debated. He's saying that this isn't what is actually happening in practice. That she's misrepresenting how scientists are going about theorizing new particles and searching for them. No need to strawman, it was fairly self explanatory.