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.

Watch the video. He doesn't spend 50% speculating, he goes through her points one by one and makes counter arguments. Motivations are always relevant, to pretend they're not is silly. They're only relevant in politics, but not social media? Her entire premise is that motivations are relevant in scientific research, and that it isn't purely science. So how can you say it's not relevant with regards to social media? Some general themes from the video: - She takes her personal experience and extrapolates generalizations across all of academia - She labels incremental non revolutionary science as "bullshit" - She takes her experience from physics and applies them to all scientific fields without deep knowledge of them Regarding her motives, one can only speculate but when you see an insane multiplier of her view count from her first meta science critique video, and then a trend where more and more of her videos scratch the science denialism itch, you can infer it has something to do with it. This is the same thing that happens to other intelligent figures with controversial takes. Jordan Peterson for example used to have lots of content that was about psychology, his books, etc. As he saw that right wing content was good for business, he is now exclusively a right wing propagandist. Was he always that? No. Now he is. So it is worth noting. The same thing happened to Russel Brand. He went from someone who makes generally interesting content, to being purely a conspiracist channel because that's what gets the clicks.

Ok, and? We do this all the time for other fraudulent figures like Trump. This is true for all political discourse. Are all of the political channels harmful as well? I'm not familiar with it, shoot it over and I'll take a look. Literally his entire first video on her is just that. Arguments for how and why she is doing that.

For the same reason Marques Brownlee and Linus tech tips don't do videos on God Realization. What kind of a question is that? They have different areas of interest. He also did not "debunk" Sabine. He spoke about her more generally, espoused her as a good science communicator, showed examples of where she made great videos, and then explained what was problematic about her recent videos. As long as you are being fair and making coherent arguments, there is nothing wrong with being critical of someone else's work and challenging narratives. In fact, that's literally what Sabine is doing - she's being critical of the entire scientific establishment. The difference is, she has been essentially grifting and misleading around her anti establishment narratives to generate clicks, views, and revenue for her channel. Dave on the other hand is making an unpopular point, and jumping through hoops to thread the needle.

Professor Dave is right, both about her and Chris Langan. He does a good job of calling out the BS and rightfully pointing out that Sabine is milking sensationalist headlines and anti authoritarian talking points to appeal to a Russel Brand-esque audience. She gets views and money by doing this, but it's harmful and dishonest. Chris Langan is an even greater level of stupid. We need MORE people like Professor Dave, not less. His content isn't about spirituality or religion, though he's obviously atheist. I don't really think it matters. In the context of our physical world, he's much closer to understanding what's happening. Just because you accept that there's more than the material universe doesn't mean you aren't susceptible to massive loads of bullshit. On the net, content like Dave's is helpful. We need more critical thinking, and less sensationalism.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? You're literally exemplifying my point.

Yeah, there's many reasons to distrust the establishment - valid ones. The main problem is that we've jumped from the frying pan and into the fire. I think this is a natural response. When you're struggling and looking for answers, the instinct is to latch on to what you want to hear. I've experienced this in my personal life dealing with health issues. Doctors didn't help, and then found false prophets online to give me false hope with snake oil. You learn over time that while establishment figures are deeply flawed, there are even greater dangers lurking in the dark depths of the sea. Threading that needle is exceptionally hard. Knowing how to parse information and dig through wads of bullshit is a skill only a very tiny fraction of people have. But that should be the lesson here. This is a chance for masses to experience this and learn critical thinking skills. Instead, we use this opportunity to express our frustrations by justifying the clown show that is the Trump experience.

I despise Trump and would not vote for him, but what do you believe will happen which will directly impact your life to such a degree that you won't be able to be happy? Here's how I think it will directly influence us: - Rampant inflation: Trump will pressure fed to keep interest rates close to zero, as well as cutting taxes for the rich. You can profit from this by investing in assets during these bubbles. This is what I plan to do, no need to be miserable, take care of yourself. - Societal stupidity: This is the greatest impact in my life, when over half the population is duped by this propaganda it makes it very difficult to have a normal conversation. I will suffer from this, but I've accepted that there have been many eras throughout history like this, and it will pass eventually. - Supreme court judges appointed and democracy of our nation challenged. This one is tough, because these idiots will enact harmful policies for decades. Most of these policies will erode the education of our nation by empowering states to make dumb decisions. For this, you need to educate yourself and your children. You need to be more involved. The democracy side of things, that could be rough if we end up with more and more authoritarian leadership. I don't really see anything else. Unless we end up in WW3, it's unlikely you will personally be affected to such an extent that you must live in misery. What am I missing?

Ok, and what about the peace talks from the 90s and early 2000s? They had to drag Arafat to the negotiating table. They worked through all the parameters, and Arafat rejected the deal. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207243717/23-years-ago-israelis-and-palestinians-were-talking-about-a-two-state-solution I think this framing that Israel is all about an all encompassing goal of ethnic cleansing and territorial expansion to be warped. I think for many outsiders, it's hard to understand primary vs. secondary motives of Israel. The primary motive of Israel: To secure a Jewish state that prioritizes the safety of Jews around the world. The secondary motive of Israel: To remove the Palestinians in service of the primary motive. But this motive is the slave of the master, which is securing a state for survival means. Why does this matter? Because those Nazi framings are misleading. From the Israeli perspective, the Palestinians aren't specifically some kind of scourge on the world that needs a final solution. They're just in the way. You can see the writings and musings from the early Zionists who you love to quote who were wrestling with this problem. They were self aware that the Palestinians had a reason to fight back, but they did it anyways. This also means that if the tides turn and circumstances create an environment where Israel can achieve it's primary motive, they would not harm Palestinians out of spite and would in fact accept a deal. This of course depends on good leadership. The current Israeli leadership has led the nation farther and farther away from what could be peace.

Lmao

To be fair, it seemed that was true about Trump in 2016. Someone has to be a first mover, and that's how a critical mass slowly develops.