Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Why I Worry Every Time Someone Says to “Follow the Science” w/ Georgia Howe

Episode Date: September 19, 2024

I’m a scientist.  But every time someone says to “follow the science,” I worry.  Why? Find out in my conversation with Georgia Howe from The Daily Wire. The Daily Wire is a news website and media company founded in 2015 by political commentator Ben Shapiro and film director Jeremy Boreing.  Enjoy! Key Takeaways: 00:00 Intro 01:08 Knowledge vs. wisdom  02:42 Follow the science 08:42 Politics and science  11:23 Integrity in science  14:07 Outro Additional resources: ➡️ Check out PragerU: 🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@PragerU ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter: https://x.com/DrBrianKeating 🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 📝 Join my mailing list: https://briankeating.com/list ✍️ Check out my blog: https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/ 🎙️ Follow my podcast: https://briankeating.com/podcast ✨ Member's only playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=UUMOmXH_moPhfkqCk6S3b9RWuw Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you look to somebody purely based on their knowledge, there'll never be a person who knows more than the internet than the most powerful supercomputer. But what's really lacking is wisdom. And there's really no substitute for kind of the building on life experience that sadly so many of my fellow scientists miss out on because they focus so much on their knowledge acquisition rather than wisdom acquisition and the meaning of what they do rather than the value of what they do. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Brian, thank you so much for joining me. It's a pleasure to be with you, George. I'm a long-time subscriber and fan. So I actually looked up your podcast before doing this interview, and it turns out you address basically all of my favorite topics, loop quantum gravity, hypotheses for God.

And it looked like you were kind of a hoot, so I was excited to start this interview. Thank you. Yeah, I pride myself on. diversity in the most important ways possible. Something you discussed in your video that I'd like to start with is you talked about how science can create knowledge, but it can't create wisdom. And it reminds me of the phrase science describes, but it doesn't prescribe. So can you, for the audience, do a little example to kind of show what you mean by science creates knowledge, but it doesn't create wisdom?

Yeah, I think, you know, it's really nowhere better illustrated than if you look at the lives of the greatest scientist of the past hundred years. These are typically men, although thankfully it is getting more common to see women rising to the ranks of Nobel laureates. However, some of the most famous Nobel laureates in history had some of the most odious opinions about policy towards racial minorities, towards women. And in many respects, it's really kind of shameful that we venerate these people for their knowledge so much that it really crosses the boundary into perceiving that they might have some special wisdom. And I always say it's quite, it's quite dangerous to do that because if you look to somebody purely based on their knowledge,

they'll never be a person who knows more than the internet than the most powerful supercomputer. But what's really lacking is wisdom. And there's really no substitute for kind of the building on life experience that sadly so many of my fellow scientists miss out on because they focus so much on their knowledge acquisition rather than wisdom acquisition and the meaning of what they do, rather than the value of what they do. Well, that makes me think a lot about COVID because obviously this past year, we've all heard the phrase, follow the science. But as your video discussed, science can give you data, but it can't necessarily give you a prescription

for what to do with that data. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Yeah, I was certainly running through the back of my mind as a theme that we often hear, you know, follow the science or we listen to science or we're the party of science and you know science has no political affiliation uh no one ever looks up at a constellation and says oh that's the uh republican constellation over there there's a democratic asteroid coming uh in that direction it doesn't exist so science should be apolitical and we don't elect scientists to make decisions for us as sort of this intellectual locuracy uh and as even noble laureates have told me on my podcast you know if you think

we're really bright and we have some special wisdom. You've never seen us trying to make a selection for breakfast in the morning that we got our Nobel Prizes. So I think, yes, it is very dangerous to say that science belongs to an individual, or even that there is group think. You know, this notion that we should trust the science, sometimes, again, gets distorted into a message of the real message being, you should obey scientists. And again, we never elected these people, no matter how brilliant they are, no matter how many Nobel prizes they might have. We don't elect them. We elect politicians.

And it's bad for politicians that we elect the president, vice president, et cetera, to derelict their duty and say, we're just going to follow the science, as if there is uniformity of thought within science. If there was, it would be a bad day for science. In your video, you also talk about what good science is. And actually, I want to play a clip of that. And then I'm going to ask you a question about it. So how do we do good science?

This is not a new question. Since the 17th century, scientists have employed the so-called scientific method to guide their work. It's not a perfect guide by any means, but it's pretty darn good. The method involves, one, formulating a theory. Two, predicting the evidence that should be found if the theory is true. Three, collecting data. Four. It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast.

To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speeds. That's why I chose Google Fi Wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans started $35 a month. Now that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore Google Fi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees. Google Fi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage.

Analyzing the data. Five, refining the theory and presenting evidence to other experts. So in cases like COVID and I also think of maybe climate, change when we're in a situation where we're very reliant on models because models are all we have. What does good science look like in those situations where we're considering a threat for the future or potential threat? So what's confusing sometimes for lay people who are not scientists is the distinction between a theory and a model. We typically think of things, oh, a theory is just kind of an opinion. That's just your

theory. But actually in science, a theory is a very well-tested set of hypotheses backed by observational evidence, tested by claims, and often backed by consensus. However, a model might just be a prediction made by a single individual based on a preceding theory or hypothesis. And so they carry very different weights. And so, as I say, you know, kind of channeling my inner Yogi Berra, it's very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. In this case, it's hard for a one-time-only situation like our universe or like a global pandemic, which really doesn't happen all that often to make far-reaching implications based on a model of with very limited input data. That's a very big challenge and it's and it is troubling when it is used for political reasons

rather than for purely scientific reasons. And so that's sort of the purpose of this of this Prager University video is to illuminate for the layperson. What do scientists actually do? And for that reason, I'm very proud to really to convey to a lay audience. the meaning of what we as scientists do and the limitations of what we do and when we should have some skepticism, at least in the part of the layperson. I guess a question for me as a layperson would be, how can I tell if I'm sort of, if the

research that I'm reading, say, in a magazineer's or whatever, if it's good science that I'm looking at versus kind of shoddy science. So if there are any red flags that we should look for or what does good science look like, would you say, especially in these situations? Yeah, of course, you know, just as the situation itself is a one-time thing, your reaction to it, let's hope, is a one-time situation that hopefully we won't be dealing with pandemics and so forth, you know, in the near term. And it's very difficult. It's very difficult to know when you hear these titles and you hear this uniformity and unanimity, I would say the distinction

that you should always make is, am I being asked to obey a scientist or listen to a scientist? And as the scientific method progresses, it's based on scientists questioning other scientists. So I am personally very skeptical. And even when I was a layperson, not a professor, for example, I was very skeptical when I would hear things like all these scientists agree in X, Y, or Z. Because as I point out in the video, many different times in human history have scientists been on the wrong side of scientific history. even the majority of those speaking as scientists in their day. So it should be sort of troubling. It doesn't affect your daily life.

I know loop quantum gravity is very important to you, Georgia, but to most people, it doesn't really affect their day. So if scientists kind of debate about loop quantum gravity or the Big Bang or even things like the future of artificial intelligence and so forth, these might, for now, at least, be mostly theoretical or mostly. potential possibilities, might be metaphysically, might be theological, which is very important or philosophical. However, they don't impact your daily life. When something is said to impact your daily life, that's when you should take notice and really dig into it and make sure you understand

what are the motivations for scientists making specific claims and why should I be asked to obey a scientist when I elected the president and vice president, etc. I want to ask you about politics in science. So obviously we have our petty mask wars, but I'm more concerned about political pressure that scientists may feel in terms of what they should be studying and what they can and can't get published. So can you talk a little bit about the pressure that scientists feel behind the scenes, if there are any, and how that affects our ability to get good quality science? Yeah, scientists suffer from a whole panoply of different pressures within academia and even outside an industry, we in academia have pressure to get into the best colleges, the best graduate

schools, the best postdoctoral programs. If we're very lucky, we become professors, then we have to compete for tenure. And at all these different levels, you're competing, so to speak, against the best and brightest that the world has to offer from all different corners of the planet. And so it's extremely challenging. It's very limited. And unlike, say, the boardroom of a Fortune 500 company, there are 500 companies in the Fortune 500. There's a only one Nobel Prize, there's only one National Science Foundation, National Institute of Health. So a lot of times, there is pressure to conform to the standard practices, to the best practices, which sometimes makes people much more conservative, you know, little C, than is good for the actual

generation and perpetuation of knowledge. And I think on the one hand, we spend a pittance on the scientific research compared to how much we spend on lipstick and other things. My favorite statistic is We spend more on lipstick than all of NASA's budget. Now, lipstick's important, as you can tell, you know, from my appearance. But nevertheless, the future of the world, we're always told is at stake with things like STEM and potentially human-induced climate change. I mentioned that in the video. And so what could be more important?

And I think that then gets driven by political decisions, budgetary decisions. And yes, it is a finite game in terms of how much funding you can get. There are winners for every proposal. there are losers for every proposal, every funding opportunity. But the fundamental dichotomy is that science is an infinite gain. You never win science. You never like, oh, I won science. I got 100% scientific market share.

That will never happen. And so it is a challenge to balance that dichotomy on this knife edge between doing the best high-risk science, which often is high reward, but also kind of doing the mundane things that you need to do to keep your laboratory, your graduate students, et cetera, funded. So yes, there are certain best practices. and unfortunately... You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet.

How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app

and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton. for this day. A lot of times it doesn't allow for the most beautiful of scientific things, which is serendipity. When you discover something completely unexpected, that's becoming less and less common, unfortunately,

and within science. An issue I think we've had over this past year is a breakdown in trust between the public and the so-called experts, the scientific community. I think a lot of people have concerns that politics are getting into science and that's affecting the kind of information that we're able to get. So my question is, as lay people, is there anything we can do to help rebuild that relationship in terms of supporting integrity in science and making it easier for scientists to pursue things boldly and honestly and with integrity?

Yeah, it's a very, very good question. I find it very challenging when I talk to the public because they feel like I am doing something very specialized with specialized equipment. And they wouldn't go into a job site and take away a jackhammer from a construction worker any more than they feel like they have a right to know about my knowledge that I've acquired in my laboratory. However, I always point out, I'm a public servant. I work for the state of California.

But anybody who's been funded by a National Science Foundation grant and NASA grant, we're funded by U.S. taxpayers. So never ever forget that you have a right as a taxpayer to sort of be included in the scientific process, to have things explained. to you in a way that you can understand them. As I quote from fame Nobel laureate, Richard Feynman, he said, you know, the first principle is that you shouldn't fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. And after you have not fooled yourself, then you can work on not fooling other scientists and not fooling the public itself. Because in that sense, you're doing a real disservice to

the pursuit of truth. And we as scientists should be merchants of truth. So yes, I say demand answers that you can understand. Understand that science is provisional, but that's a good thing, and that science is argumentative, provisional, consensus-based, but ask for things to be understood and participate in the scientific process. And tell scientists that you support them and that you should argue to our government. It's one of the few things that all, you know, politicians used to agree on that supporting science was good and it was cutting across political boundaries. So it's a safe space for the layperson to occupy. And it should be to the benefit of scientists.

On the flip side, scientists have an obligation to do some sort of outreach to the public. And it's typically not within our purview. We always say, you know, how do you know a scientist is outgoing? Because he looks at your shoes when he talks to you instead of his own or her own. But the point that I'm trying to make is we have an obligation also to present in digestible form. And I try to do this on my YouTube channel and my podcast to do outreach to the public. because you all pay my salary one way or another, and I am blessed to have a job that don't tell Governor Newsom,

I would probably do it for free. Oh, that gruesome Newsom. All right. So, Brian, where can we find you online? I'm available on Twitter at Dr. Brian Keating. I am also on YouTube. I have a really growing list of Nobel laureates and Daily Wire personalities. I hope to get you on the show someday, Georgia.

I've had Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Dennis Prager is coming up. And I've also had nine other Nobel Prize winners in addition to Michael and Ben and so forth. So I have a wonderful guest. I'm also on a podcast, Into the Impossible Podcast, where we deconstruct the most magnificent minds in the multibers. Excellent. All right. Well, thank you so much for joining me. Thank you, Georgia.

It's a real pleasure. Own it all. Pay off your home. Travel for life. Drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot Machine by Aristocrat Gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history.

Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th. Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion.