The NEW Scientific Method: Can "Experts" Be Trusted in 2024? | Michael Garfield
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 кві 2024
- Full episode: • Ancient Extinction Eve...
Danny Jones Podcast channel: / @koncrete
Paleontologist-futurist Michael Garfield helps "Rewild the Singularity" - restoring soul to futurism, midwifing new myths for transition, & exploring the pre and post-history of human-technology co-evolution. - Розваги
Full episode: ua-cam.com/video/H0kzIsmZpqs/v-deo.html
Danny Jones Podcast channel: www.youtube.com/@Koncrete
Paleontologist-futurist Michael Garfield helps "Rewild the Singularity" - restoring soul to futurism, midwifing new myths for transition, & exploring the pre and post-history of human-technology co-evolution.
I quit gradschool as a PhD student. Realizing that the world of Academia was pure BULLSH.T was a real kick in the balls.
I have quit or been fired from every Zionist company I've ever worked for because of my Christian principles and upbringing. Most people are cucks and cowards and simps in the workplace today just doing what they're told like bots. And that's why/how they got power to begin with. Just say "No". Go help your neighbors not the Walton's or Disney.
Just to make this clear to anyone in the comments who thinks I'm saying not to trust scientists: No. What I DID say is that there are fundamental problems with information scaling and knowledge production and the ability of experts in one domain to determine who is a trustworthy expert in any other domain where they lack expertise. It takes an expert to know an expert and as knowledge grows and becomes more and more hyper-specialized each of us understands a smaller piece of it relative to the whole. Meanwhile our problems are huge, interconnected, and occurring at scales that are difficult or impossible for us to understand as individuals or even as groups.
When people report on complex topics they invariably distort the nuance that scientists bring to their research; that there has been a breach of trust between the public and between academic researchers because of this, because sensationalist journalists keep putting words in the mouths of experts...and most importantly, that all of us are required to take most of the knowledge we depend on in our daily lives as more or less a matter of faith. People don't have enough time or money to develop every single form of expertise required NOT to trust experts. Even those of us who care deeply about science as a process whereby people can independently reproduce someone else's findings have to accept that none of us have the bandwidth to actually do so.
It's not that science can't be trusted; it's THE PRECISE OPPOSITE of that: most of us are placing enormous trust in other people we recognize as experts ALL THE TIME because we have no choice but to do so, but we don't actually know how to assign expertise except through proxies like someone's reputation.
TL;DR We need to come up with better ways to figure out who to trust and better ways to communicate uncertainty and nuance at scale because we are facing problems of planetary scale.
Thanks again for having me on the show, Danny!
You come across as a bit vague and inconclusive.
If you’re not going to trust a report then there’s a whole back story to consider.
The source data, environment or artefact being examined, the input data, test methods, applied standards, test conditions, historical data, experience, testing organisation or company, results format, results validation, peer review, repeatable tests, reporting methods and format, supporting data with reporting, reporting language, channels…
The discussion didn’t really cover detail pathway of R&D. Is it trust with the reporting channel, or one of the other above mentioned methods or disciplines ?
There must be something specific that took you down the path of this ideology.
I always wondered if Danny was thinking to himself "I really want to ask him if he did too many drugs growing up but then we already know, don't we?"
"Who the...." *insert Conner McGregor gif
Science has become a new religion.
How many scientists does he think there are?
For what it's worth I NEVER said and WOULD NEVER say science cannot be trusted. "Trust science" and "do not trust science" are both nonsense statements. What I HAVE said is that there are well-described philosophical expert identification problems between ANY two domains of expertise.
yammer yammer, yabber yabber. Science cannot be trusted, yabber yammer.
For what it's worth I NEVER said and WOULD NEVER say science cannot be trusted. "Trust science" and "do not trust science" are both nonsense statements.
Scientists, not science!
For what it's worth I NEVER said and WOULD NEVER say science cannot be trusted. "Trust science" and "do not trust science" are both nonsense statements. What I HAVE said is that there are well-described philosophical expert identification problems between ANY two domains of expertise.