Podcasts about Thomas Kuhn

Coming soon! For our 10th anniversary episode, we selected a modern classic that greatly informs science and research across many disciplines, including organization studies. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a book often assigned to rising graduate students as a primer for entering the sciences.

For our 10th anniversary episode, we selected a modern classic that greatly informs science and research across many disciplines, including organization studies. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a book often assigned to rising graduate students as a primer for entering the sciences. A culmination of Kuhn's earlier works on the philosophy and history of science, Scientific Revolutions challenges the notion that science progresses along a predictable or linear path and instead progresses through significant episodes of disruptive change. Filled with useful and accessible historical examples, Kuhn is a great resource for understanding how science and scientific communities function.

I used to have a Zen proverb a day calendar, the ones where each day you tear off a new sheet that has another saying that was meant to make you contemplate, get in touch, consider, explore, think. My years always started off well, but by about June I was just ripping pages off trying to catch up to the day I was supposed to be on. I honestly think I got more mileage out of my Dad Joke a Day calendar that ended up replacing the Zen one in an ensuing year. But then again maybe there is something Zen about Dad Jokes.One Zen proverb that stuck with me was, “Our eyes were originally right but went wrong because of teachers.” I have to admit that one stung a bit. Speaking on behalf of all educators, we all want to think that we are positively contributing to how our students see the world. But do we? There is the danger of formal education introducing “fixed thinking” or singular ways of conceptualizing the world around us. Students are taught what we been taught and know. Problem is, what we know might only be one dimension of how to view things.To bring in another saying, “If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.” Thinking of “hammer” instructs  how the object is to be used. But if you have no idea what a hammer was, then you could envision many different uses for it. Sometimes not knowing is the key to progress.Now it is true from a design perspective that the way a hammer is built can instruct on how it should be used. There is something that looks like a handle. The heavy end has a flat surface which can infer pounding. But creative and unconstrained thinking can see so many ways to use this object.To throw in another saying, Ignorance is bliss, and from that we might also say paradigms can obscure. Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” examines how established paradigms can stymie progress and advancing knowledge because they limit our ability to what is in front of us. Thus, part of the advancement of science and our understanding is shedding off what teachers have taught us to be true. Rather than just teaching paradigms and how things are, teachers need to do more teaching on how to retain a beginner's mind and connect that with envision what is possible, and not just what is believed to be known. Alan Gregerman is here on Experience by Design to talk about his new book coming out on October 14th  “The Wisdom of Ignorance,” in which he examines what we can gain by letting go of what we think we know.  Alan is trained as an Urban Geographer, as he was long interested in exploring cities of the world. While a student at Northwestern, he worked under the tutelage of John McKnight, one of the founders of the Assets-Based Community Development Institute, and I will add a person I also knew and took a workshop from on the ABCD approach. McKnight's work continues to influence Alan, as well as me. We talk about his work in helping companies be creative through exploring urban environments in undirected ways. He describes how new employees are a very valuable resource because of how they bring new eyes to organizations. He notes that half of all the companies on the Fortune 500 list 25 years ago don't exist today, and how that is in part linked to their belief in old paradigms. Alan emphasizes the importance of having teams of diverse perspectives and experiences in order to help see things differently. Also in keeping with assets-based community development, everyone has a gift that they can contribute. Alan Gregerman LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-gregerman-a33b236/Alan Gregerman: https://alangregerman.comThe Wisdom of Ignorance: https://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Ignorance-Knowing-Innovation-Uncertain/dp/B0FJJSXVGV

Here is an expanded, multi-act play dramatizing the philosophical conflict and personal effort to foster a paradigm shift in AIDS research. The Paradigm Shift: A Play in Three Acts Here are the three Characters Rebecca Culshaw – Mathematician and critic of AIDS orthodoxy Karl Popper – Philosopher of science, logic-driven Thomas Kuhn – Philosopher of science, historically minded The Colleague – A skeptical scientist (optional for Act II-III) Act I – The Summoning Setting: Culshaw's cluttered study at midnight. A window is open, letting in a cold breeze. Culshaw is hunched over papers. Suddenly, mysterious figures materialize. Popper (stepping closer): Rebecca, do you know why we have come? Culshaw (startled but curious): I sense you bear advice. Kuhn (smiling softly): Your struggle echoes in the halls of scientific history. Few have challenged entrenched paradigms and lived to see the world change. Culshaw: The AIDS narrative is unyielding. Criticism draws scorn, not reasoned dialogue. How do I crack this shell? Popper: Treat the theory as a scientific hypothesis. Identify its core claims. What would it take to disprove them? Ask the establishment this at every turn. Kuhn: Yet do not forget, paradigm shifts require more than refutation. You must nurture a community—make them feel the cracks and offer a new framework. Popper: Truth is not a popularity contest, Kuhn. Kuhn: But consensus rules until new puzzles make the old vision unbearable. Culshaw: You mean I need both: a demonstration of failure and a replacement vision? Popper & Kuhn (together): Precisely. Fade out. Act II – Testing the Fortress Setting: A scientific conference. Culshaw stands before a skeptical audience, including The Colleague. Culshaw: Suppose key HIV tests predict nothing about immune decline. Suppose AIDS definitions are shifting sands. What, then, does our theory become? Colleague: You twist anomalies into attacks. What of the millions of lives believed saved? Popper: (now imagined at her shoulder) Demand evidence. Show that lives were saved by measurable intervention, not just by post hoc rationalization. Kuhn: Frame your findings as questions that the current theory cannot answer. Let the audience witness the struggle. Culshaw: Here are cases where test and disease do not align, where drugs harm, where predictions fail. This is not a collection of quirks—it is a crisis. Colleague: Science will patch these gaps. Popper: Only if the patches themselves are testable—not ad hoc excuses. Kuhn: And as the failures accumulate and the story loses coherence, your role shifts. Offer new lenses through which researchers can view their puzzles anew. Culshaw: I will. Here is a framework where immune collapse arises from multifactor exposures, not a virus. Here predictions become clear, testable, vulnerable to refutation. Colleague (uncertain): It is bold, but is it enough? Popper: Make it falsifiable. Kuhn: Make it irresistible. Fade to black. Act III – Turning the Tide The Setting: Culshaw's study, months later. She pores over data. Papers about her new model are being discussed worldwide. Popper: Are your ideas withstanding scrutiny? Culshaw: Some have tried to refute them. Some admit their theories don't predict as well. Kuhn: Is a community embracing the new framework? Culshaw: Slowly. Some see the anomaly pattern. Some consider new research. The old guard resists—naturally. Popper: The measure is not in popularity, but precision. Do not shy from critique. Kuhn: And always tend to the new paradigm's coherence. Invite others to build upon it. A real shift is communal. Culshaw: Thank you, Karl. Thank you, Thomas. Let science decide—through rigor, vision, and openness—not through the chill of consensus alone. Popper and Kuhn fade, their voices echoing: Popper: Progress thrives on falsification. Kuhn: And transformation blooms with imagination. Culshaw, alone, presses onward, her desk now a beacon among the cluttered battleground of ideas. End.  

Great leaders know there's no one-size-fits-all formula. In this episode, Bill Scherkenbach and Andrew Stotz discuss practical lessons on how to connect with people on physical, logical, and emotional levels to truly get things done.  Discover why balancing “me” and “we” is the secret to lasting results—and why empathy might be your most powerful leadership tool. Tune in now and start rewriting your own leadership playbook. (You can view the slides from the podcast here.) TRANSCRIPT 0:00:02.1 Andrew Stotz: My name is Andrew Stotz, and I'll be your host as we dive deeper into the teachings of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Today, I'm continuing my discussion with Bill Scherkenbach, a dedicated protégé of Dr. Deming since 1972. Bill met with Dr. Deming more than a thousand times and later led statistical methods and process improvements at Ford and GM at Deming's recommendation. He authored The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity at Deming's behest, and at 79, still champions his mentor's message, "learn, have fun, and make a difference." And the episode today is Getting Things Done. Bill, take it away.   0:00:41.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay, Andrew. We will get 'er done today. The reason I put that on there is that in many of his seminars, Deming said that, "I am not a businessman and not trying to be one." But you need to think about these things. And his approach really was to improving organizations was to put people who he thought were masters of his teachings into organizations, and they would be there full time to facilitate the transformation when he wasn't there, such as Ford and GM and a few other companies. There were a few of us who he trusted to be able to be there to get things done. And I'm reminded of the philosopher, the Asian, Chinese philosopher, Mencius, and I'll read it there. It says, "Don't suspect that the king lacks wisdom. Even in the cases of things that grow most easily in the world, they would never grow up if they were exposed to sunshine for one day and then to cold for 10 days. And it's seldom that I have an audience with the king. And when I leave others who exposed him to cold arrive, even if what I say to him is taking root, what good does it do?"   0:02:35.7 Bill Scherkenbach: And quite honestly, that's the lament of every consultant trying to get stuff done in today's world, in Western style management. And so one of the things in this slide, the framework for getting things done, for having fun learning and making a difference, is one of the two, I think, major contributions I do say that I've made to the profession of quality. And that is using this Venn diagram to be able to show that even though other people have used other terms for physical, logical, and emotional, that there usually have been holy wars being fought by people who say, "Well, emotional is better. That's how you get stuff done." And other people saying logic and other people saying physical. And in fact, I think in the last time we spoke, the three major gurus of quality were those ships sailing in the night. Dr. Deming was the epitome of logical thinking, whereas Phil Crosby was looking for the wine and cheese parties and the emotional sell part of it. And Joe Duran was looking at physical, how are you going to organize to get stuff done? Now, they all had their followers who were pretty much on those frequencies, and they reached people in other frequencies. I came up with this idea for the Venn diagram to show no hierarchy, I guess back in 1987, something like that.   0:04:49.3 Andrew Stotz: And for the listeners out there, we're looking at a diagram that shows one circle that says physical, that's interlocked with another one that says logical, and then there's a third, a Venn diagram, that third is emotional. And so those are the three pillars that Bill's talking about. All right, keep going, because you got stuff in the middle too, which is interesting.   0:05:16.1 Bill Scherkenbach: And the thing is that I based it primarily at the time in the mid-60s, there was a theory of brain structure called the triune brain. Now, and it was the limbic system, the neocortex, and the R-complex. And pretty much followed the logical, emotional, physical words that I'm using. Now, our understanding of the brain in the decades up through now, it's a little bit more complicated than that. But physical, logical, and emotional is in all of us. In our body, I mean, the latest looks at neural connections extend to your gut. And nerves are just about everywhere and connected, and that the way the brain works is still not even fully, not begun to be fully understood. Having said that, in order to get stuff done, this Venn diagram shows very, very simply that the intersection of physical and logical, I put as science. It's the logical explanation of physical phenomenon. And the intersection of logical and emotional is psychology, logic of the soul. And the intersection of emotional and physical is art. All art is is the emotional interpretation of sensory input, whether it's a great meal, whether it's a Mona Lisa picture.   0:07:27.9 Bill Scherkenbach: But what will make one person absolutely swoon will make another person barf. So it's all personal, but it's physical, logical, and emotional is in all of us. And in the center, we're looking at what Eastern philosophies call harmony, where all of these are working together. And Western philosophies would call them peak experiences. And it's where the whole can be a lot greater than the sum of its parts, but with some slight changes can be a whole lot less than the sum of its parts.   0:08:14.3 Andrew Stotz: Great. I like the harmony in the middle. That's the challenge, really. Now, just out of curiosity, is harmony the goal? Is that what you're thinking with that being at the center? Or what is the meaning of harmony being in the middle?   0:08:28.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. When I apply this to the individual, harmony would be the goal. When I'm applying it to an organization, the larger an organization grows, the more you really need to use this overarching approach. And the reason I say that is, and it doesn't happen all the time, but most of the time when we're starting up a company, you want to surround yourself with fine people just like yourself. And so if you have a particular way of getting stuff done, you're going to hire people or surround yourself with people that are just like that, and everything is fine. But the more you grow the company, the more you're going to get people that are absolutely vital to your organization that aren't on those frequencies. And certainly, if you're in international business, you're trying to sell things to the world that in the larger the group of people, the more you have to be broadcasting on the physical, logical, and emotional frequencies. I mean, one of the first things that I did at GM when I joined was looked at the policy letters that Alfred Sloan wrote. And Sloan, it was very interesting because in any policy, Sloan had a paragraph that said, "make no mistake about it, this is what we're going to do."   0:10:31.8 Bill Scherkenbach: That's a physical frequency. In the Navy, it's shut up and fly wing. And so make no mistake about it, this is our policy. The second paragraph had, well, this is a little bit why we're doing it. And to be able to get the, and I don't know whether he was thinking that, but to my mind, it was brilliant. He was explained things. And the third paragraph or so in the policy letter was something that would instill the GM spirit, that there's something to do with the values. Hugely, hugely prescient in my viewpoint, but he's Sloan, I'm me, so he knew what he was doing.   0:11:29.9 Andrew Stotz: For people that don't know Alfred Sloan, he took over and was running General Motors at the time when Ford had, I don't know, 50% of the market share by producing one vehicle. And part of the brilliance of Sloan was the idea of building a lineup of different brands that went from the low all the way up to the high of Cadillac. And within a short period of time, he managed to flip things and grab the majority of the market share from Ford at the time, as I recall. Now, I don't recall it from being there, but I recall from reading about it.   0:12:12.3 Bill Scherkenbach: There you go. There you go. Yeah, having saying that, he offered those by buying the various little auto companies, littler auto companies to put that conglomerate together. But as people who have read my works, specifically my second book, The Deming's Road to Continual Improvement, this change philosophy is in there. And as I said, that's one of, I think, my major contributions to the field of quality. The other one being in a process model back in '86, we also were learning about Taguchi, Genichi Taguchi's approach to customers and the loss function, and he used the title or the terminology voice of the customer. And it occurred to me in our process definition, there was something called the voice of the process to go along. And so the voice, I introduced the voice of the process, and the job of anyone is to reduce the gap between the voice of the customer and the voice of the process. And I mentioned that because this matrix that we're showing now has physical, logical, and emotional, and the various process states that you could be in, there's a dependent state where you're completely dependent upon your customers or suppliers.   0:14:00.9 Bill Scherkenbach: There's an independent state where it's just you and an interdependent state. And I have that cross-reference with physical, logical, and emotional. In dependent state, it's essentially feed me, teach me, love me, do it for me, teach me, and love me. Now, in the independent, it's, I do it, I understand what I do, and I take great joy in doing what I do. And in the interdependent is, we do it. I understand how what I do helps optimize our process, and I take great joy in belonging to this team. And joy is the ultimate goal of what Dr. Deming had said for years, the ability to take joy in one's work. Now, I mean, every one of us starts out in life as dependent. It's feed me, teach me, love me, newborns, parents have to do everything. When you're a new employee, you might have some skills and understanding and emotion or pride, but this is how we do it in this company. And so you're dependent upon how you are introduced to that organization. But everyone tries to get out of that. Now, having said that, a pathology is there are givers and takers in this world, and some of the takers would just be very happy for other people to feed me, teach me, love me.   0:16:18.8 Bill Scherkenbach: My point or my philosophy is you've got to get out of the dependency and you have to balance that sense of independence and interdependence that is in each of us. Whether you're doing it or whether you're doing it in your family, as part of a family or a company or a motorcycle gang, whatever your group is, you're looking to blend being a part of that. Every human being looks to balance that sense of me and we. And in the thing we're finding in Western cultures, obviously, especially in North America or the US, we celebrate the me. It's the individual. And the team, we talk a good game about team, but mostly we're celebrating the me. In Eastern philosophies, they're celebrating the we. It's the team. It's not necessarily the, well, not the individual. The point is that in the Western philosophies, if you can't feel a part of a family or express that part, what we see in the US, there's a whole wave of people volunteering to belonging to organizations, whether it's sports teams, whether it's volunteer teams, whether the family balance. If you can't be a part of a family at work, you're going to go offline and do it.   0:18:24.9 Bill Scherkenbach: And the problem is your life suffers because you can't fulfill yourself as a person. In the Asian cultures, if you can't feel important as an individual, you go offline. Golf is huge in Japan and elsewhere, and it ain't a team sport. Calligraphy isn't a team sport. Karaoke isn't a choir event. There are ways to be able to express yourself offline if you can't feel important as an individual in your group. And so my philosophy is every human being needs to find that balance for each individual to be able to lead a fulfilled life.   0:19:28.7 Andrew Stotz: I'm reminded of a book by Dr. William Glasser called Reality Therapy, brought out in late '60s, I believe. And his philosophy was that part of the root cause of mental illness was that people didn't have one person they could trust. And that all of a sudden sets up all kinds of defense mechanisms that if prolonged end up leading to mental illness. That was a very interesting book, but the thing I took from it is that people want to connect. They want to belong. They want to be a part of it. They may act like they don't sometimes and all that, but we want to be in this interdependent position. And I'm looking at the bottom right corner of the matrix where it says, "I take joy in belonging to a team or this team." And that to me is, you know, that book helped me understand that it's not just the idea of, "Hey, we should all get along and work together." There is true value for a human being to be able to feel good about being part of a family or part of a business or part of a team. Something that just reminded me of.   0:20:53.7 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Where I'm coming from is that everyone needs to balance that pride that you take as an individual and as you take as a member of a team or a family. That the independence is not, the interdependence is not the preferred state. Everyone, even people who are celebrating team need some time out to be alone, to do whatever they need to do to hone their skills, improve their knowledge, get excited about things that they also do as individuals. So it's a balance that I'm pushing for.   0:21:51.4 Andrew Stotz: Okay, got it.   0:21:53.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. So with that as a framework, I think there are a couple of mistakes, well, there are many mistakes that leaders make, but the two big ones are, is don't think that what works for you must work for everyone. Okay. And don't even think that the sequence that works for you has got to work for everyone. Change is not a predictable hierarchy. And I'll explain that further. Let's see here. Yeah, I can do it on this next one here. I've got the matrix again, and of physical, logical, emotional, and physical, logical and emotional. And if a physical person is talking to another physical person, they're communicating on a similar frequency. And so a physical person is going to say, "Okay, this is the policy." The mother will say, "Because I said so." However, that physical person is communicating, the physical person receiving that communication is going to say, "Aye, aye, roger that, consider it done."   0:23:43.6 Andrew Stotz: Loud and clear.    0:23:45.3 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. If a physical person is telling a logical person, using those same things, these are the policy, you could be a dean at a college and you're telling your professors, "This is what we're going to do," a logical person would say, "They're ignorant suit."    0:24:11.3 Andrew Stotz: Suit, what do you mean when you say suit? You mean an ignorant executive? What does it mean suit?    0:24:16.4 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, executive. Over here, they're called suits.   0:24:19.5 Andrew Stotz: Okay.   0:24:22.3 Bill Scherkenbach: So, no, but I'd be interested, you're logical, what would a logical person respond to a physical person who said, "Do this"?   0:24:34.5 Andrew Stotz: Yeah, I think without any logical backing, it's rejection maybe is what I would say is that ignorant, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he thinks just do it.   0:24:51.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. Yep, yep, yep. Okay. So, and again, if that same physical leader is saying, "Well, get this done," to an emotional person, that person might say, "You Neanderthal, you don't, you don't feel what the value system is." Okay. So, I'm trying to come up with sayings or whatever that these particular people would be saying. So if the logical person tells the physical person, "We've got to do this," it could be, well, the physical person is going to say, "That's too academic, spray some paint on it so I can see it." So, and that's the diss. Logical person talking to another logical person, "Yep, I got it, I understand it, it'll be done." A logical person talking to the emotional person, "You're heartless," or, "Quit mansplaining," as they say over here. So, and again, an emotional person trying to talk to a physical person to get stuff done, the physical person's going to say, "There's no crying in baseball." And so, and the logical person will say, "That's too touchy feely," and the emotional person reacting to the emotional signal, "Oh, they really like me." So, I'm trying to use movie quotes there to express the feelings and the understanding and the, what to really get done.   0:27:04.4 Andrew Stotz: So, people really come from different places, and if we don't take that into consideration, we may, it's one of the things I teach, Bill, when I teach a course on presenting, and I say, "Are you more of a logical person or are you more of an emotional?" And half the audience will say logical, half the audience will say emotional, let's say. And I said, "If I look at your presentations that you create, they're going to be based around what you are, logical or emotional. The problem with that is that you're only going to connect with half the audience. So, you need to build the logical and emotional aspect into your presentation to capture the whole audience."   0:27:50.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Well, I would argue that you're missing a third of it because you didn't check for the physical folks. I mean, in the story I tell about what we were doing at Ford, our vice president of supply purchasing was listening to Dr. Deming and said, "Well, we need longer term contracts." And so he had his people talk to the buyers down through the ranks and we need longer term contracts. And at Ford, a longer term contract was a contract that was more than one year. And so, yep, there were classes. It's important to get it done. Everyone's enthused. We look at it six months later, no change. A year later, no change. And so we looked at, because some people react to physical stimuli. And so we looked at the policy. And in order to get a long term contract, then you had to go through three levels of supervisory approval. No person in their right mind is going to go through that hassle. So we changed one word in the policy and it changed overnight. So now if you need a contract that's less than a year, you need to go through three levels of supervisory approval.   0:29:48.5 Bill Scherkenbach: And the long term contracts were magically appearing. So there are physical people. That is not a pejorative. I know that the educators are saying, "Well, the logical and emotional, but physical is a very viable way of getting stuff done." That should not be a pejorative.   0:30:14.1 Andrew Stotz: So I think now when I'm looking at my teaching in presentation, when I think about physical and presentation, there's people that really like props. They like having physical things to bring up on the stage. They like people, "Hey, stand up and raise your hands," or "Turn and talk to the person next to you," or something like that. So maybe that's what I need to do is bring that physical into my thinking and teaching.   0:30:44.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, I would recommend that. Find a way. There are many dimensions of physical. But you've got my second book. There are a bunch of ideas.    0:30:58.9 Andrew Stotz: Right here.    0:30:59.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Okay. Yep, yep, yep. Let's see here. Now we're going to go that transformation is not hierarchical. And this is hugely, hugely important. Again, if it works for you, don't make the mistake that it's going to work for everyone. And one of the sequences is everyone knows form follows function, form follows function. Physical form follows logical function. And in the automobile industry, if an automobile is to be fuel efficient, that's the function. It's got to have a jelly bean form. It's got to be aerodynamic. If the function of the vehicle is to carry passengers in comfort, the form has got to be a shoebox. Okay. And so that certainly form follows function. A screwdriver, whether it's the tool or the drink, the form follows function. If the function is to, no matter what the screw head is, you need to be able to screw it in or unscrew it, the form of it, you're going to give that head some leverage to be able to turn it.   0:32:36.9 Bill Scherkenbach: And if the function is to relax, you need to have a good vodka in the screwdriver, in the drink anyway. So if we look at how animals have evolved, a bird's beak is a prime example of over the years of whatever you want and whatever you want to say happened, the beaks went from blunt to very peaked so that they could get into a particular flower and be able to feed themselves. Dr. Deming used the example of what business are you in and the carburetor people went out of business because they only thought in terms of form. But if the function of the carburetor was, as Dr. Deming said, provide a stoichiometric mixture of air and fuel to the combustion chamber, then you might expand the number of forms that could be useful. So a number of examples of form following function, but function also follows form. The logical follows physical. And we're looking at it in the US government today. If your headcount is cut in half, you can't keep doing the same functions you were doing.   0:34:43.4 Bill Scherkenbach: You've got to figure out what your function is. So your function is going to follow form. Logical is going to follow the physical because you don't have the resources. In other times, when I was in Taiwan, I used the example of, if the price of petrol gets to 50 new Taiwanese dollars, the function of the automobile is to sit in the parking space because gas is too expensive to go anywhere. And again, the function of, I mean, if the function is security on the internet, one of the forms is the CAPTCHA. You have to identify, click the picture of all of the cars in this picture to prove you're a human. Next week, I'm going back up to Michigan to be with some of the grandchildren, but my daughter has toddlers, twins, that are 19 months old now. And whenever she is lying on the ground or on the floor, the twins sit on her. And I keep thinking of these large language models who are, that are in the AI approach to, she could be classified as a chair because her function is something for babies to sit on.   0:36:43.3 Bill Scherkenbach: And so it even applies in the AI generation. Okay, so now we come to seeing is believing. Physical leads the emotional. In Christianity, the doubting Thomas must see for himself. Some people don't really appreciate, it's not necessarily believing, but the emotional impact of going to our Grand Canyon or seeing something that is so indescribably beautiful and vast is, you have to see it to believe it or appreciate it, actually. The use of before and after pictures, if unless I see the before picture, I don't believe you did lose 150 pounds or whatever the before and after is, seeing is believing. Other, who is it? Thomas Kuhn in The Essential Tension wrote of Foucault. There's something called Foucault's Pendulum. It's a weight on maybe a 20 meter wire that back in the 1850s, he really was able to unequivocally get people behind the Copernican view that the earth really is rotating because that was the only explanation that this big, huge pendulum and the figure it was tracing in the sand, he had a spike at the end of it. Absolutely, okay, I believe the earth is spinning before the space shuttle.   0:39:07.4 Bill Scherkenbach: So, and yet, okay, seeing is believing, believing is seeing. Emotional leads the physical. Many times our beliefs cause us to use or see or miss seeing something I've said or quoted a number of things. The greatest barrier to the advancement of knowledge has not been ignorance, but we think we already know it. And so we're not going to even consider another perspective. Our friendships, our like of someone or dislike of someone can blind us to other qualities. The placebo effect, conspiracy theories, they're all believing is seeing. You believe in UFOs or unidentified aerial phenomena now, you're going to see a whole bunch of them based on your belief. And then there's feeling should drive reason. Emotional drives logical. You use your gut or intuition to make decisions. I mean, impulse sales, what's on the cap in any grocery store. You're going to buy the sizzle, not the steak. At least that's what they're selling, the sizzle. Political battles often play on the heart. So rescuing someone, emotional drives logical. If you see on YouTube, but even before that in the newspapers. I don't know if anyone remembers newspapers, but yeah, they would show pictures of someone running into a burning building and try and rescue someone or a crashed car getting them out before it explodes.   0:41:30.3 Bill Scherkenbach: If you had to think about it, you wouldn't do it perhaps, but the spur of the moment, the feelings driving over reason. Choosing a career for fulfillment and not the money. A lot of people do that and that perfectly fine. None of these as I go through them are a pejorative. They're perfectly, everyone uses, well, all of these at various points in time in your life. And last but not least, reason should prevail over passion. That logical rules the emotional, make a decision on the facts. Don't cloud your decision with emotions. Some of the ending a toxic relationship or diet and exercise. You're using reason. I've got to stick to this even though I'm hungry and sore. I've got to do this. And hopefully investing. You're not going to go for the latest fad. And there hopefully is some reason to investment strategies.   0:43:04.7 Andrew Stotz: And when...   0:43:06.8 Bill Scherkenbach: Go ahead.   0:43:09.1 Andrew Stotz: Let's just take one just to make sure that we understand what you want us to take from this. So seeing is believing and believing is seeing. And I think in all of our lives, we have some cases where we don't believe something and then we see it and then we think, "Okay, I believe now." And there's other times where we have a vision of something and we believe that it can occur and we can make it happen. And eventually we get it, we get there. So seeing is believing happens sometimes and believing is seeing happens sometimes in our life. And then some people may be more prone to one or the other. So what is the message you want us to get is to recognize that in ourselves, we're going to see it. It's going to be one way sometimes and another way and other times. Or is it to say that we want to make sure that you're aware that other people may be coming from a different perspective, the exact opposite perspective?    0:44:04.5 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, it's the latter. This whole thing is really what management, how is management going about communicating. And if they think if what works for them is form follows function or feelings should drive reason, then they have to be aware that other people need to, might look at it the other way around and approach their communication. Again, and this goes to the voice of the customer and the voice of the process. Every one of us has an individual voice of the customer. And people, psychologists would say, "Well, that's internal motivation or motivation's internal." Many of them do. Having said that, it's management's job who manages the process to be able to, if someone is motivated by money, that's important to them, then management needs to talk on that frequency. If they want retirement points or time with their family or recognition in other ways, what will, and Deming mentioned it, what will, he gave a tip to someone who just wanted to help him with his luggage getting to the hotel room and gave him a tip and completely demoralized him. And so management's job is to know their people, they're the most important customers that management has if you're going to satisfy whatever customer base your organization is trying to meet. And so how to get stuff done, getting things done, this applies to all of it.   0:46:15.5 Andrew Stotz: Fantastic. All right, I'm going to stop sharing the screen if that's okay?   0:46:19.9 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah.   0:46:20.6 Andrew Stotz: Okay, hold on. So an excellent run through of your thinking, and I know for listeners and readers out there, you've got both of your books, but one of them I've got in my hand, Deming's Road to Continual Improvement, and also the other one, which we have right here, which is The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity, both of these books you can find on Amazon, and you go into more detail in it, in particular in The Deming's Road to Continual Improvement. Is there anything you want to say either about where people can go to find more and learn more about it, and anything you want to say to wrap up this episode?   0:47:04.1 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah, the first book, my second edition, is in e-book form on Kindle. You can get it through Amazon or Apple Books. And in Apple Books, that second edition has videos of Dr. Deming as well as audio. And a whole bunch of stuff that I put in my second book. And that's in e-book format, immediately available from Apple or Kindle.   0:47:37.0 Andrew Stotz: So let's wrap up this episode on getting things done. Maybe you can just now pull it all together. What do you want us to take away from this excellent discussion?   0:47:49.6 Bill Scherkenbach: As we began, if what works for you doesn't necessarily work for everyone else. And the larger your span of control, the larger your organization, you have to understand to be broadcasting on physical, logical, and emotional levels, as well as trying to help people balance their sense of individual and their sense of team and family.   0:48:22.5 Andrew Stotz: Great, great wrap up. And the one word I think about is empathy, and really taking the time to understand that different people think differently, they understand differently. And so if you really want to make a big change and get things done, you've got to make sure that you're appealing to those different aspects. So fantastic. Well, Bill, on behalf of everyone at the Deming Institute, I want to thank you again for this discussion. And for listeners, remember to go to deming.org to continue your journey. And also, you can find Bill's books on Amazon. And as he mentioned, on Apple, where there are videos in that latest book. You can get them on Kindle, on printed books. I have the printed books because I love taking notes. And so this is your host, Andrew...    0:49:12.0 Bill Scherkenbach: Yeah. But old people like that.   0:49:15.4 Andrew Stotz: Yes. We like that. So this is your host, Andrew Stotz, and I'm gonna leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Dr. Deming. And that is, that "people are entitled to joy in work."

This week, Thomas Spiteri speaks with Professor Philip Kitcher, John Dewey Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Columbia University and one of the most influential philosophers of science of the past half-century.Kitcher traces his intellectual journey from his early years at Cambridge and Princeton, where he studied with Thomas Kuhn, Carl Hempel, and Paul Benacerraf, to his later interventions in public debates over creationism, sociobiology, and the Human Genome Project. These experiences, he explains, shifted his understanding of philosophy's role—from narrow technical problems to broader ethical and political questions.He also reflects on his evolving views of scientific explanation, his collaborations with historians and sociologists of science, and the recognition of ethical and political dimensions long neglected in philosophy of science. Kitcher concludes with his vision of a pragmatist philosophy that reconnects ethics with politics and ensures science serves democratic ideals and human flourishing in the face of global crises.In this episode, Kitcher:Recounts his path from mathematics to philosophy of science at Cambridge and PrincetonReflects on the influence of Thomas Kuhn, Carl Hempel, Paul Benacerraf, and Richard RortyExplains how public debates on creationism, sociobiology, and genomics redirected his work toward questions of science and societyDiscusses his shift from unificationist to pluralist accounts of scientific explanationHighlights the importance of history and sociology of science for philosophy's self-understandingArgues for philosophy's responsibility to address ethical and political dimensions of scienceOutlines his pragmatist vision for democracy, ethics, and science in the service of human flourishingRelevant LinksPhilip Kitcher – Columbia University profile (emeritus)Science, Truth, and Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2001)The Rich and the Poor (Columbia University Press, 2021)Transcript coming soonThanks for listening to The HPS Podcast. You can find more about us on our website, Bluesky, Instagram and Facebook feeds. This podcast would not be possible without the support of School of Historical and Philosophical Studies at the University of Melbourne and the Hansen Little Public Humanities Grant scheme. Music by ComaStudio. Website HPS Podcast | hpsunimelb.org

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is reliable knowledge? Listen to philosopher Michael Strevens, author of The Knowledge Machine: How Irrationality Created Modern Science, to understand how science discovers the truth. At the current moment, when expertise is under attack and the idea of truth is contested from all sides, Strevens explains the remarkable success of science's “irrational” method to settle debates, regardless of philosophical, religious, or aesthetic preferences. Drawing on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions—our host Uli Baer's all-time favorite non-fiction book—, Karl Popper, and others, Strevens shows how science became the most effective tool for uncovering the secrets of nature. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Hello everyone, Jim here. We're taking a brief two-week break from new episodes to spotlight a couple of golden oldies from the Infinite Loops archive. Years later, these remain some of my favorite conversations. We'll be back soon with fresh episodes, but in the meantime, enjoy this trip back to February 2024, when we welcomed the one and only Rupert Sheldrake. _________________ Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of 9 books and over 100 scientific papers. A critic of what he sees as the scientific establishment's dogmatic dedication to materialism, he is perhaps best known for his theory of “morphic resonance,” via which information and activity can be transferred across space and time. Rupert joins the show to discuss being branded a heretic, how to test for telepathy, his advice for young scientists, and MUCH more! Important Links: Rupert's Website Rupert's Banned TED Talk The Science Delusion; by Rupert Sheldrake A New Science of Life; by Rupert Sheldrake Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals; by Rupert Sheldrake Is The Sun Conscious?; by Rupert Sheldrake (Journal of Consciousness Studies) Show Notes: The Apostate of Scientism The Origins of Scientism How to Achieve a Phase Change in the Sciences Testing for Telepathy & Incentivizing Intuition Structural Resistance to Panpsychism When Science Gets Personal Loosening the Grip of Determinism Advice for Young Scientists Rupert as Emperor of the World MORE! Books & Articles Mentioned: The Science Delusion; by Rupert Sheldrake New Science of Life; by Rupert Sheldrake Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals; by Rupert Sheldrake Is The Sun Conscious?; by Rupert Sheldrake The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science; by Robert Anton Wilson Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters; by Steven Pinker The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature; by Steven Pinker Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds and Shape Our Futures; by Merlin Sheldrake The End of Faith; by Sam Harris The Fifth Science; by Exurb1a What the Tortoise Said to Achilles; by Lewis Carroll Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance; by Robert M. Pirsig The (Mis)Behaviour of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin and Reward; by Benoit B. Mandelbrot & Richard L. Hudson The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; by Thomas Kuhn

In this episode of Welcome to Cloudlandia, I reconnect with Dan Sullivan for another wide-ranging conversation that blends current events, history, technology, and human behavior. We start by reflecting on the safety and comfort of life in Canada while discussing the news of missile strikes in Israel. From there, we explore the idea that innovation often advances when entrenched leaders move on—whether in science, business, or geopolitics. Dan brings up Thomas Kuhn's idea that progress happens after the old guard exits, creating room for new ways of thinking. Our conversation shifts into the role of AI as a horizontal layer over everything—similar to electricity. We compare this shift to earlier transitions like the printing press and the rise of coffee culture. Dan shares his belief that while AI will transform systems, the core of human life will still revolve around handled needs and personal desires. We wrap by talking about convenience as the ultimate driver of progress. From automated cooking to frictionless hospitality, we recognize that people mostly want things to be “handled.” Despite how fast technology evolves, it's clear that unless something is of deep personal interest, most people will let it pass by. As always, the conversation leaves room for reflection and humor, grounded in the reality that technological change doesn't always mean personal change. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS Dan and I explore the complexities of living in a "world-class" city like Toronto, discussing its cultural vibrancy against the backdrop of global geopolitical tensions. Dan delves into Toronto's significant role as a financial and technological hub, emphasizing its strategic importance in trade with the United States, where a substantial portion of Canadian exports cross the border. We discuss the transformative potential of AI in today's digital revolution, drawing parallels with historical innovations like Gutenberg's printing press, and how these advancements continuously redefine our society. We examine the evolution of Starbucks, from a unique third space with artisanal baristas to a more automated environment, and ponder the implications of this shift on quality and customer experience. The conversation shifts to the rise of independent coffee shops, highlighting how they meet the demands of discerning customers by offering premium experiences. Dean reflects on our relentless pursuit of convenience in modern urban life, where technological advancements shape our daily routines and enhance our quality of life. We conclude with a discussion on habit formation and the role of technology in reinforcing existing habits, while considering the balance between maintaining old routines and embracing new ones. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dean: Mr Sullivan, Dan: Mr Jackson, I hope the rest of your day yesterday went well. Dean: Oh, delightful, I learned stuff yesterday. That was a very nice day, beautiful, beautiful weather today. You know what, dan, if you could, as an option at the Hazleton, upgrade to include your perfect weather for $1,000, this is what you'd order, it's this kind of day. Yeah, mid-70s perfect white fluffy clouds. Yes, it's why. Dan: Living in a safe, globally unimportant country. That's exactly right. Holy cow, I don't know if you've seen, yeah, what's uh? I woke up like literally just a few minutes ago seeing all the, uh, the raining missiles on israel right now from Iran. Have you seen that this morning? Dean: Oh yeah, there's a lot of them. Most of them don't hit anything and most of them are shot down, but still it puts some excitement in your day. Dan: I mean really, yeah, these ones look like. They're something unique about these ones that they're supersonicersonic and many of them are hitting, yeah, different than what we've normally seen. Like normally, when you see it, it's the, the iron dome or whatever is, you know, intercepting them, which is always interesting, but these ones are like Direct, like you can see them hitting in inrael that's. I mean, could you imagine, dan, like you, just look at how geographically we are. You know we've won the geographic lottery in where we're positioned here, you know, just realizing that's never. Even though you can, all you know you always take precautions with the umbrella above us, over the outside. Dean: But I mean still that today. I've lived in Toronto for 54 years now, just past the anniversary, the 54th anniversary and I think that, first of all, when you have a really large city like Toronto, the center of a lot of things that go on in Canada, A world-class city like Toronto. Well, it's not a world-class city. But yeah, they have to go five years. I'm putting a new rule in for world-class cities. You have to go five years without ever saying the words. Dan: Yeah, we're a world-class city. Dean: We're a world-class city. And that takes you to stage one probation. Dan: Yeah. Dean: No, that takes you to stage two, probation, and then stage three probation is where all the people who've been saying it's a world-class city have either died or moved, and then it's sort of like science. There was a famous he wasn't a scientist, but he was a, I think, a science historian. Thomas Kuhn K-U-H-N if you ever came across that name wrote in the 1960s and he wrote a very influential book which is called the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and he was asked many times when you have a sudden series of scientific breakthroughs and we really haven't had any for quite a long time, it's been mostly almost a century since we've had any real scientific revolutions. So all the progress we've made over the last century were for discoveries in physics and magnetism and electricity and uh, you know nuclear but they had already worked out how that was going to happen in the by the 1920s. and he said what when, all of a sudden, when you get a breakthrough, let's say, for example, they discover a new hydrogen atom and it essentially gives everybody free energy? That would be a scientific breakthrough. Do you think that I mean? Would you think? Dan: that would be. Dean: Yeah, yeah. In other words, energy just didn't cost anything anymore, you know, and the price of energy would go down. Dan: That would free up a lot of that, free up a lot of other things energy would go down that would free up a lot of that'd free up a lot of other things, and, uh, and, and he said, the single biggest cause for scientific breakthroughs is the funerals of old scientists. Oh who everybody defers to that you can't first them. Dean: Yeah, well, defers to, but they control promotion of young scientists. They control where the money goes for a scientist and then they die and their control loosens up and to the degree that control disappears. Now you get new. Dan: Yes. Dean: Yeah, so that's a long way around. But I think that in the world today there are people who are basically in control of geopolitical systems, economic systems, you know, cultural systems, and in the next 10 years, I think, a lot of the controllers are going. They'll either die or people will think they've already died. They don't have to actually die, they just have to be in a room somewhere and no one's heard, and no one's heard anything from them recently, and uh and uh, you know, and everything like that, and then things change and then things really shifted. But my sense about Toronto is that it's going to be the Geneva of the Western Hemisphere. Dan: Okay, that's interesting. Dean: Switzerland from a geopolitical standpoint really. I mean, nobody ever talks about well, what do the Swiss think about this? But lots of stuff happens in Geneva. People meet in Geneva. There's tons of money that goes through Geneva and you know, when you know people who hate each other want to talk to each other and feel safe about it, they do it in Geneva that's interesting. Dan: How did Switzerland become its neutrality known for? Is that just because of its positioning between Austria? Dean: and Germany mountains. Yeah, the uh, the germans had given some thought during the second world war to invade switzerland, and switzerland can put into the field in a very short period of time a very big army. I don't know what the numbers are. But the other thing is, uh, for the longest period I know maybe a century long they've been howling out the mountains. So they've got, you know, they've got secret bases inside the mountains, but there's also they've created lots of dams with big reservoirs and if there was ever an invasion they would just blow up the dams and they would flood the entire lowlands of. You know, people are told to the mountains, the entire lowlands of you know, people are told to the mountains, get to your bunker. You know everybody's got a bunker and they've all got guns and they do it. You know they just want to. They're in the middle of one of the most warfare inclined continents in human history. Europe is very warlike. It's always been warlike. Dan: Europe is very warlike. It's always been warlike, but they haven't wanted to be part of the wars, so they've taken the other approach. Dean: Yeah, and Canada is kind of like that, but the US is very uniquely positioned, because a lot of people don't know this. I mean, you come to Toronto and it's big skyscrapers, yeah, you know, and it's a financial center. It's very clearly a big financial center, it's a big communication center, it's a big tech center. But a lot of people don't know it's a big manufacturing center. There's the airport here. Dan: Oh yeah, All around the airport. Dean: Mile after mile of low-rise manufacturing Industrial yeah, all around the airport Mile after mile of low-rise manufacturing Industrial. Yeah Actually, sasha Kurzmer, who you'll see tomorrow, you'll see Sasha says it's the hottest real estate in Toronto right now is industrial space Really Wow, yeah. Yeah, we have enough condos for the next 10 years. I mean most of the condos we got enough. Dan: It's enough already. Yeah, that's true. That's funny right. Dean: I mean the vast number of them are empty. They're just. You know they just built them. Dan: Money lockers. Dean: Right yeah, money lockers right, yeah and uh, but a semi-truck you know like a big semi-truck loaded with industrial products can reach 100 million americans in 24 hours and that's where the wealth. That's where the wealth of toronto comes from. It comes from that distribution. Dan: Access to American market. Dean: Yeah, that's true. So you have the bridge at Buffalo, the big bridge at Buffalo. That goes across to New York and you have the big bridge at Detroit or at Windsor that goes across to Michigan and 80% of all the exports that Canada makes goes over those two bridges. Dan: Wow. Dean: Rapid-fire factoids for our listening audience. Dan: Yeah, absolutely, I mean that's. Dean: I like things like that. I like things like that. Dan: I do too. I always learn. You know, and that's kind of the you think about those as those are all mainland exports physical goods and the like but you know that doesn't. Where the real impact is is all the Cloudlandia transfers. You know, the transfer of digital stuff that goes across the border. There are no borders in Cloudlandia. That's the real exciting thing. This juxtaposition is like nothing else. I mean, you see, navigating this definite global migration to Cloudlandia. That's why I'm so fascinated by it. You know is just the implications. You know and you see. Now I saw that Jeff Bezos is back, apparently after stepping down. He's gotten so excited about AI that's bringing him back into the fold, you know. Dean: What at Amazon? Dan: Yes. Dean: Oh, I didn't know that. Dan: I saw that just yesterday, but he was talking about AI being, you know, a horizontal layer over everything, like electricity was layer over everything. Like electricity was, like the internet is, like AI is just going to be a horizontal, like over everything layer that will there's not a single thing that AI will not impact. It's going to be in everything. And so when you think about it, like electricity, like that I think I mentioned a few weeks ago that was kind of a curiosity of mine Now is seeing who were and what was the progression of electricity kind of thing, as a you know where it, how long it took for the alternate things to come aside from just lighting and now to where it's just everything we take for granted, right, like like you can't imagine a world without electricity. We just take it for granted, it's there, you plug something in and it and it works. Dean: You know, yeah, no, I, I agree, I agree, yeah, and so I wonder who I mean? Dan: do you? Uh and I think I go all the way back to you know that was where, like gutenberg, you know, like the first, the transition there, like when you could print Bibles okay, then you could print, you know, multiple copies and you know, took a vision, applied to it and made it a newspaper or a magazine. You know all the evolution things of it. Who were the organizers of all of these things? And I wonder about the timelines of them, you know? Dean: And I wonder about the timelines of them. You know Well, I do know, because I think that Gutenberg is a real, you know, it's a real watershed and I do know that in Northern Europe so Gutenberg was in Germany, that in Northern Europe, right across the you know you would take from Poland and then Germany, you would take from Poland and then Germany, and then you would take Scandinavia, then the low countries. Lux date that they give for Gutenberg is 1455. That's when you know a document that he printed. It has the year 1455, that within about a 30-year period there were 30,000 working presses in Northern Europe. How many years. That'd be about 30 years after 1455. So by the end of the—you've already surpassed 30,000 presses. Yes, but the vast majority of it wasn't things like Bibles. Dan: The vast majority of it was't things like Bibles. Dean: The vast majority of it was contracts. It was regulations. Dan: It was trade agreements. Dean: It was mostly commercial. It went commercial and so actually maps, maps became a big deal, yeah, yeah. So that made a difference and also those next 150 years were just tumultuous, I mean politically, economically I mean yeah yeah, enormous amount of warfare, enormous amount of became. Dan: Uh, I imagine that part of that was the ability for a precise idea to spread in the way it was intended to spread, like unified in its presentation, compared to an oral history of somebody saying, well, he said this and this was an actual, you know, duplicate representation of what you wanted, because it was a multiplier, really right. Dean: I mean that's, yeah, I'm. It was a bad time for monasteries yeah, exactly. Dan: They started drinking and one of them said you know what? We should start selling this beer. That's what we should be doing. Dean: We should get one of those new printing presses and print ads labels. Dan: Oh, we got to join in. Oh man, it's so funny, dan, that's so true, right? I mean every transition. It's like you know what did the buggy whip people start transitioning into? We're not strangers to entire industries being wiped out, you know, in the progress of things, yeah. Dean: Well, it wasn't until the end of the Second World War that horses really disappeared, certainly in Europe, certainly in Europe. It's. One of the big problems of the Germans during the Second World War is that most of their shipping was still by horses. Throughout the Second World War, you know they presented themselves as a super modern army military. You know they had the Air Force and everything like that, but their biggest problem is that they had terrible logistical systems, because one of the problems was that the roads weren't everywhere and the railroads were different gauges. They had a real problem, and horses are really expensive. I mean, you can't gas up a horse like you can gas up a truck, and you have to take care of them, you have to feed them. You have to use half of them to. You have to use half the horses to haul the food for the other half for all the horses. Dan: It's a self-perpetuating system. Yeah, exactly, that's so funny. Dean: Yeah, it's really an interesting thing, but then there's also a lot of other surprises that happen along the way. You know, happen with electricity and you know everything, but it's all gases and beds. Dan: Well, that's exactly it, and I think that it's clear. Dean: It'd be interesting with Bezos whether he can come back, because he had all sorts of novel ideas, but those novel ideas are standard now throughout the economy. And can he? I don't know how old he is now. Is he 50s? I guess 50s. Dan: Yeah, he might be 60-something. Dean: Yeah, well, well, there's probably some more ingenious 20 year olds that are. Dan: You know that are coming up with new stuff yeah, that were born when amazon already existed, you know I mean, it's like howard schultz with starbucks. Dean: He had the sweet spot for about 10 years, I think, probably from, I would say probably from around 90 to 2000. Starbucks really really had this sweet spot. They had this third space. You know, they had great baristas. Dan: They had. Dean: You walked in and the smell of coffee was fantastic and everything. And then they went public and it required that they put the emphasis on quantity rather than quality, and the first thing they had to do was replace the baristas with automatic machines. Okay, so you know, a personal touch went out of it. The barista would remember your drink. You know, yeah, a personal touch went out of it. The barista would remember your drink you know yeah. Dan: They were artists and they could create you know they punched the buttons and do the things, but they were not really making. Dean: Yeah, and then the other thing was that they went to sugar. They, you know, they brought in all sorts of sugar drinks and pastries and everything else. And now it wasn't the smell of coffee. When you walked in, it was the smell of sugar drinks and pastries and everything else. And now it wasn't the smell of coffee. When you walked in, it was the smell of sugar and uh and uh. So that I mean, people are used to sugar, but it's an interesting you know, and then he also, he trained his competition, you know, if you look at all the independent coffee places that could have a great barista and have freshly ground coffee. He trained all those people and then they went into competition with him. Dan: I think what really you know, the transition or the shift for Starbucks was that it was imagined in a time when the internet was still a place that you largely went to at home or at work, and the third place was a necessary, like you know, a gathering spot. But as soon as I think the downfall for that was when Wi-Fi became a thing and people started using Starbucks as their branch office. They would go and just sit there, take up all their tables all day. Dean: I'm guilty. Dan: I'm guilty, right exactly and that that kind of economically iconic urban locations, you know where you would be a nice little oasis. Yeah, it was exotically, exotically. European, I mean, he got the idea sitting in the. Dean: Grand Plaza in Venice you know that's where he got the idea for it, and yeah, so it was a period in a period in time. He had an era, period in time to take advantage and of course he did. You know he espresso drinks to. Dan: North. Dean: America. We, you know, maxwell House was coffee before Jeff Bezos, you know, and yeah, I think there's just a time. You, you know, I mean one of the things is that we talk about. We have Jeff Madoff and I are writing a book called Casting, not Hiring where we talk about bringing theater into your business and we study Starbucks and we say it's a cautionary tale and the idea that I came up with is that starbucks would create the world's greatest barista school and then you would apply to be, uh, become a barista in a starbucks and you would get a certification, okay, and then they would cream. They would always take the best baristas for their own stores and and. But then other people could buy a license to have a barista licensed, starbucks licensed barista license yes. And that he wouldn't have gone as quickly but he would have made quality brand. Yeah, but I think not grinding the coffee was the big, the big thing, because the smell of coffee and they're not as good. I mean, the starbucks drinks aren't as good as they. They were when they had the baristas, because it was just always freshly ground. You know, and yeah, that that was in the coffee and everything like that. I I haven't been. I actually haven't been to a starbucks myself in about two years that's interesting, we've got like it's very funny. Dan: But the in winter haven there's a independent you know cafe called haven cafe and they have won three out of five years the, the international competition in in Melbourne. Uh. Dean: Australia. Yeah see, that's good, that's fantastic yeah yeah yeah and Starbucks can't get back to Starbucks. Can't get back to that. You know that they're too big right, yeah, we just in winter. Dan: I haven't been yet because I've been up here, but it just opened a new Dutch Brothers coffee, which you know has been they've been more West Coast oriented, but making quite a stir. Dean: West Coast. That's where the riots are right. The riots are in the United. Dan: States. Dean: Oh man, holy cow, riot copy, riot copy. Dan: Yeah, exactly, I mean that's yeah. I can't imagine, you know, being in Los Angeles right now. That's just yeah unbelievable. Dean: Yeah, I think they're keeping it out of Santa Monica. That's all I really care about. Dan: Nothing at shutters right. Dean: Yeah, I mean Ocean Avenue and that. Have that tightly policed and keep them out of there. Dan: Yeah, exactly, it's amazing To protect the business. Yeah, I'm very interested in this whole, you know seeing, just looking back historically to see where the you know directionally what's going to happen with AI as it progresses here. Dean: Yeah, you know like learning from the platforms it's just constant discovery. I mean, you know like learning from that, it's just constant discovery. Dan: I mean uh, you know yeah yeah, I mean it's um. Dean: I had a podcast with mike kanix on tuesday and 60 days ago I thought it was going in this direction. Dan: He says now it's totally changed it and I said, well, that's probably going to be true 60 days from now yeah, I guess that's true, right, layer after layer, because we won't even know what it's going to, uh, what it's going to do. Yeah, I do just look at these uh things, though, you know, like the enabling everything, I'm really thinking more. I was telling you yesterday I was working on an email about the what if the robots really do take over? And just because everybody kind of says that with either fear or excitement, you know, and I think if you take it from. Dean: Well, what does take over mean? I mean, what does the word take over? Dan: mean, well, that's the thing, that's the word, right. That's what I mean is that people have that fear that they're going to lose control, but I think I look at it from that you get to give up control or to give control to the robot. You don't have to do anything. You know, I was thinking with with breakfast, with Chad Jenkins this morning, and we had, you and I had that delicious steak yesterday, we had one this morning and you know just thinking. You know, imagine that your house has a robot that is trained in all of the culinary, you know the very best culinary minds and you can order up anything you want prepared, exactly how it's prepared, you know, right there at your house, brought right to you by a robot. That's not, I mean, that's definitely in the realm of, of realistic here. You know, in the next, certainly, if we, if we take depending on how far a window out you take, right, like I think that things are moving so fast that that's, I think, 2030, you know, five years we're going to have a, even if just thinking about the trajectory that we've had right now yeah, my belief is that it's going to be um 90 of. Dean: It is going to be backstage and not front stage. That's going to be backstage yes, and that's got. You know I use the. Remember when google brought out their glasses, yeah, and they said this is the great breakthrough. You know all new technology does. And immediately all the bars and restaurants in San Francisco barred Google glasses. Dan: Okay, why? Dean: Well, because you can take pictures with them. Oh, I see, okay, and say you're not coming in here with those glasses and taking pictures of people who are having private meetings and private conversations. So yesterday after lunch I had some time to wander around. I wandered over to the new Hyatt. You know they completely remodeled the Hyatt. Dan: Yeah, how is? Dean: that it's very, very nice. It's 10 times better than the Four Seasons. First of all, they've got this big, massive restaurant the moment you walk into the lobby. I mean it probably has 100 seats in the restaurant. Dan: Like our kind of seats yeah. Dean: Yeah, I mean it's nice. I mean you might not like it, but you know you know, you walk into the Four Seasons and it's the most impersonal possible architecture and interior design. This is really nice. And so I just went over there and I, you know, and I just got on the internet and I was, you know, I was creating a new tool, I was actually creating a new tool and but I was thinking that AI is now part of reality. Dan: Yes. Dean: But reality is not part of AI. Dan: Say more about that. Dean: Well, it's not reality, it's artificial, oh it's artificial. Dan: It's artificial. Oh, exactly it's artificial. Dean: I mean, if you look up the definition of artificial, half of it means fake. Dan: Yes, exactly. Dean: Yeah, so part of our reality now is that there's a thing called AI, but AI is in a thing called reality, but reality is not in a thing called AI. Dan: Right. Dean: In other words, ai is continually taking pieces of reality and automating it and everything like that, and humans at the same time are creating more reality. That is not AI. Dan: AI, yeah, and that's I wonder. You know, this is kind of the thing where it's really the lines between. I'd be very interested to see, dan, in terms of the economy, like and I'll call that like a average you know family budget how much of it is spent on reality versus, you know, digital. You know mainland versus cloudlandia. Physical goods, food you know we talked about the different, you know the pillars of spending, mm-hmm and much of it you know on housing, transportation, food, health, kids. You know money and me, all of those things. Much of it is consumed in a. You know we're all everybody's competing outside of. You know, for everybody puts all this emphasis on Cloudlandia and I wonder you know what, how much of that is really? It's digital enabled. I don't know if you know. I just I don't know that. I told you yesterday. Dean: Yeah, but here, how much of it? The better question is. I mean to get a handle on this. How much of it is electricity enabled? Dan: Oh for sure, All of it. Dean: Most of it Well, not all of it, but most of it. I mean conversation, you know when you're sitting in a room with someone is I mean it's electronically enabled in the sense you like. Have it the temperature good and the lighting good and everything like that, but that's not the important thing. You would do it. Great conversations were happening before there was electricity, so yes, you know and any anything, but I think that most humans don't want to think about it. My, my sense is, you know, I don't want to have conversations about technology, except it's with someone like yourself or anything like that, but I don't spend most of my day talking about technology or electricity. The conversation we had last year about AI the conversation we're having about AI isn't much different than the conversation we're going to have about AI 10 years from now Did you? see this Next year. You're going to say did you see this new thing? And I said we were having a conversation like this 10 years ago. Yeah, yeah, that's absolutely true, I don't think it's going to change humanity at all. Dan: Yeah, I'm just going through like I'm looking at something you just said. We don't want to think about these things. Girding of that is our desire for convenience, progressively, you know, conserving energy, right. So it's that we've evolved to a point where we don't have to think about those things, like if we just take the, if we take the house or housing, shelter is is the core thing. That that has done. And our desire, you know, thousands of years ago, for shelter, even hundreds of years ago, was that it was, you know, safe and that it was gave did the job of shelter. But then, you know, when, electricity and plumbing and Wi-Fi and entertainment streaming and comfortable furniture and all these things, this progression, this ratcheting of elevations, were never. I think that's really interesting. We're never really satisfied. We're constantly have an appetite for progressing. Very few things do we ever reach a point where we say, oh, that's good enough, this is great. Like outhouses, you know, we're not as good as indoor plumbing and having, you know, having electricity is much nicer than having to chop wood and carry water. Dean: Yeah, well, I think the big thing is that efficiency and convenience and comfort, once you have them, no longer have any meaning. Dan: Right. But the ratchet is, once we've reached one level, we're ratcheted in at that level of acceptance. Dean: I mean possibly I don't know. I mean I don't know how you would measure this in relationship to everybody's after this. First of all, I don't know how you measure everybody and the big thing. I mean there are certain people who are keenly interested in this. It's more of an intellectual pleasure than it is actually. See that technology is of intellectual interest. You me, you know, you myself and everything else will be interested in talking about this, but I'm going home for a family reunion next weekend in Ohio. I bet in the four or five hours we're together none of us talks about this because it's of no intellectual interest to anyone else. Ok, so you know but it is for us. It's a, you know, and so I was reading. I'm reading a is the observation of the interest and behavior of a very small portion of the population who have freedom and money and that. And the era is defined by the interest of this very, very small portion, the rest of the people probably they're not doing things that would characterize the era. They're doing things that may have lasted for hundreds but it doesn't. It's not interesting to study, it's not interesting to write about, and you know, I mean we look at movies and we say, well, that's like America. No, that's like actors and producers and directors saying this is how we're going to describe America, but that's not how America actually lives. Dan: Yeah, that's interesting, right, movies are kind of holding up a mirror to the zeitgeist, in a way, right. Dean: Like Strategic Coast, is not a description of how the entrepreneurial world operates no, you know the yeah. Dan: The interesting thing thinking about your thinking is is transferable across all. You know it's a durable context. That's kind of the way. That's what I look about. That's what I love about the eight prophet activators. The breakthrough DNA model is very it's a durable context. It's timeless. Dean: Yes, I mean if the Romans had the eight prophet activators, and they did, but they just didn't know they did. Dan: Right. Dean: Yeah, and you go forward to the Star Wars cafe and probably the ones who are buying drinks for the whole house are the ones who know the eight prophet activators. Dan: Secretly, secretly, secretly. Who's that? Dean: weird. Who's that weird looking guy? I don't know if it's a guy. Who is it who you know? Well, I don't know, but buy him a drink oh my goodness, yeah, I'm. Dan: I think this thing that is convenience. We certainly want things to get easier. I mean, when you look at, I'm just looking down no, we want some things to get easier. What things do we not want to get easier? Dean: The things that are handled. We don't want to get easier. Dan: Oh right exactly. Dean: Yeah, for example, if there was a home robot, we would never buy one, because we've got things handled. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Yeah, I have no interest in having a home robot. I have no interest in having a home shop for a cook. I have no interest in everything because it's already handled and it's not worth the thinking it would take to introduce that into my, into our life I mean yeah, and it right like that. So it's. Dan: There are certain things that we'd like to get easier okay, and we're and we're focused on that yeah, yeah, I think about that, like that's I was thinking, you know, in terms of you know the access we have through Cloudlandia is I can get anything that is from any restaurant you know delivered to my house in 22 minutes. You know, that's from the moment I have the thought, I just push the button and so, yeah, I don't have. There's no, no thinking about that. We were talking about being here in the. You know the seamlessness of you know being here at the Hazleton and of you know I love this, uh, environment, I love being right here in this footprint and the fact that you know the hotel allows you to just like, come, I can walk right in step, you know, get all the function of the shelter and the food and being in this environment without any of the concern of it, right? No yeah, no maintenance. No, I never think about it when I leave. Yeah, it's handled. Think about that compared to when I had a house here, you know you have so much. Yeah, that's the thing, that's a good word handled. We just want things handled. You know Our desires. We want our desires handled and our desires are not really. I think our basic desires don't really. Maybe they evolve, it's just the novelty of the things, but the actual verbs of what we're doing are not really. I think you look at, if we look at the health category, you know where you are a you know you are at the apex level of consumer of health and longevity. Consumer of health and longevity. You know all the offerings that are available in terms of you know, from the physio that you're doing to the stem cells, to the work with David Hasse, all of those things. You are certainly at the leading edge and it shows you're nationally ranked, internationally ranked, as aging backwards. Dean: I'm on the chart. You're on the chart exactly, but I got on the chart without knowing it. It's just a function of one of the tests that I take. Somebody created sort of a ranking out of this and I was on it. It's just part of something that I do every quarter that shows up on some sort of chart. They ask you whether you want to be listed or not, and I thought it was good for um, because your doctor is listed on it too, and I. I did it mostly because david hoss he gets credit for it, you know he does it for yeah you know, it's good. It's good for his advertising and you know his marketing and I mean it's just good for. It's just good for his advertising and you know his marketing, I mean it's just good for his satisfaction and everything like that. But you know that's a really good thing because you know I created that. It was like two years I created a workshop called well, it's a lifetime extender, and then I changed it to age reversal future, because not a really interesting term, because it's in the future somewhere. Right but age reversal you can actually see right now it's a more meaningful comparison number and I had hundreds of people. I had hundreds of people on that and to my knowledge nobody's done anything that we talked about which kind of proves to you, unless it's a keen interest you can have the information and you can have the knowledge. But if it isn't actually something of central motivational interest to you, the knowledge and the information just passes by. The knowledge and the information just passes. Dan: Yeah, and I think it goes. If you have to disrupt your established habits, what do you always say? We don't want any habits except for the ones that we have already established. Right, except for the ones that are existing. Dean: Reinforce them, yeah, reinforce them and anyway, today I'm going to have to cut off early because I have, and so in about two minutes I'm going to have to jump, but I'm seeing you tomorrow and I'm seeing you the next day. It's a banner week. It's four days in a row. We'll be in contact, so, anyway, you know what we're doing in context, so anyway you know what we're doing. We're really developing, you know, psychological, philosophical, conceptual structures here. How do you think about this stuff? That's what I think about it a lot. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. It's always pleasurable. Dan: Always, Dan, I will. I'll see you tomorrow At the party. That's right. Have an amazing day and I'll see you tomorrow night okay, thanks, bye.

In a world increasingly shaped by science and technology, how do we determine what constitutes truth? What role does society play in shaping scientific knowledge consensus? And what are the implications for the future of research and innovation?  In this episode, I sit down with Steve Fuller, a renowned sociologist of science from the University of Warwick in the UK, for a thought-provoking conversation. Steve and I explore the deep connections between science and sociology, discussing how science can learn from sociology and vice versa. Steve challenges conventional wisdom and invites us to critically examine the complex interplay between science, society, and the pursuit of knowledge.  With a passion for exploring the philosophical underpinnings of science, he shares his insights on social epistemology, the philosophy of science, and the evolving role science should play in society, especially in an increasingly polarized world. —

In this episode, Megan and Frank investigate the Enneagram. Is the Enneagram a legitimate science of personality? What even is personality? And how much of our lives does personality determine? Join them as they examine the classic book, "Discovering Your Personality Type: The Essential Introduction to the Enneagram" by Don Richard Riso & Russ Hudson. Other thinkers discussed include: Aristotle, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and John Doris.-----------------------Hosts' Websites:Megan J Fritts (google.com)Frank J. Cabrera (google.com)Email: philosophyonthefringes@gmail.com-----------------------Bibliography:Don Richard Riso & Russ Hudson - Discovering Your Personality TypeEmpirical Approaches to Moral Character (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Pseudoscience and the Demarcation Problem | Internet Encyclopedia of PhilosophyBeyond Good and Evil by Friedrich NietzscheSituationism, Moral Improvement, and Moral Responsibility | The Oxford Handbook of Moral PsychologyVirtue Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy-----------------------Cover Artwork by Logan Fritts-------------------------Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/neon-signsLicense code: O6ZNDALO7DL2LNHE

On this episode of Crazy Wisdom, host Stewart Alsop speaks with Andrew Altschuler, a researcher, educator, and navigator at Tana, Inc., who also founded Tana Stack. Their conversation explores knowledge systems, complexity, and AI, touching on topics like network effects in social media, information warfare, mimetic armor, psychedelics, and the evolution of knowledge management. They also discuss the intersection of cognition, ontologies, and AI's role in redefining how we structure and retrieve information. For more on Andrew's work, check out his course and resources at altshuler.io and his YouTube channel.Check out this GPT we trained on the conversation!Timestamps00:00 Introduction and Guest Background00:33 The Demise of AirChat00:50 Network Effects and Social Media Challenges03:05 The Rise of Digital Warlords03:50 Quora's Golden Age and Information Warfare08:01 Building Limbic Armor16:49 Knowledge Management and Cognitive Armor18:43 Defining Knowledge: Secular vs. Ultimate25:46 The Illusion of Insight31:16 The Illusion of Insight32:06 Philosophers of Science: Popper and Kuhn32:35 Scientific Assumptions and Celestial Bodies34:30 Debate on Non-Scientific Knowledge36:47 Psychedelics and Cultural Context44:45 Knowledge Management: First Brain vs. Second Brain46:05 The Evolution of Knowledge Management54:22 AI and the Future of Knowledge Management58:29 Tana: The Next Step in Knowledge Management59:20 Conclusion and Course InformationKey InsightsNetwork Effects Shape Online Communities – The conversation highlighted how platforms like Twitter, AirChat, and Quora demonstrate the power of network effects, where a critical mass of users is necessary for a platform to thrive. Without enough engaged participants, even well-designed social networks struggle to sustain themselves, and individuals migrate to spaces where meaningful conversations persist. This explains why Twitter remains dominant despite competition and why smaller, curated communities can be more rewarding but difficult to scale.Information Warfare and the Need for Cognitive Armor – In today's digital landscape, engagement-driven algorithms create an arena of information warfare, where narratives are designed to hijack emotions and shape public perception. The only real defense is developing cognitive armor—critical thinking skills, pattern recognition, and the ability to deconstruct media. By analyzing how information is presented, from video editing techniques to linguistic framing, individuals can resist manipulation and maintain autonomy over their perspectives.The Role of Ontologies in AI and Knowledge Management – Traditional knowledge management has long been overlooked as dull and bureaucratic, but AI is transforming the field into something dynamic and powerful. Systems like Tana and Palantir use ontologies—structured representations of concepts and their relationships—to enhance information retrieval and reasoning. AI models perform better when given structured data, making ontologies a crucial component of next-generation AI-assisted thinking.The Danger of Illusions of Insight – Drawing from ideas by Balaji Srinivasan, the episode distinguished between genuine insight and the illusion of insight. While psychedelics, spiritual experiences, and intense emotional states can feel revelatory, they do not always produce knowledge that can be tested, shared, or used constructively. The ability to distinguish between profound realizations and self-deceptive experiences is critical for anyone navigating personal and intellectual growth.AI as an Extension of Human Cognition, Not a Second Brain – While popular frameworks like "second brain" suggest that digital tools can serve as externalized minds, the episode argued that AI and note-taking systems function more as extended cognition rather than true thinking machines. AI can assist with organizing and retrieving knowledge, but it does not replace human reasoning or creativity. Properly integrating AI into workflows requires understanding its strengths and limitations.The Relationship Between Personal and Collective Knowledge Management – Effective knowledge management is not just an individual challenge but also a collective one. While personal knowledge systems (like note-taking and research practices) help individuals retain and process information, organizations struggle with preserving and sharing institutional knowledge at scale. Companies like Tesla exemplify how knowledge isn't just stored in documents but embodied in skilled individuals who can rebuild complex systems from scratch.The Increasing Value of First Principles Thinking – Whether in AI development, philosophy, or practical decision-making, the discussion emphasized the importance of grounding ideas in first principles. Great thinkers and innovators, from AI researchers like Demis Hassabis to physicists like David Deutsch, excel because they focus on fundamental truths rather than assumptions. As AI and digital tools reshape how we interact with knowledge, the ability to think critically and question foundational concepts will become even more essential.

The first part of my discussion of the differing visions of science and how scientific knowledge "grows" (or not) according to Thomas Kuhn vs Karl Popper as outlined in this chapter of "The Beginning of Infinity". Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" explains the concept of a "paradigm" and "paradigm shifts" comparing "revolutionary" and "normal" periods of science. Kuhn's work remains the most cited in the social sciences and so far more people - especially in academia - are familiar with his work that Popper's. What explains this? What does Kuhn have to say? And what does a "critical rationalist" perspective on the growth of knowledge have to say in response to Kuhn?

It had to happen eventually: this week The Studies Show is all about philosophy. As we look at science in general, how do we decide what those studies are actually showing? Tom and Stuart take a look at the Big Two of philosophy of science: Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, with their respective theories of falsificationism and paradigm shifts. Both are theories that almost everyone interested in science has heard of—but both make far more extreme claims than you might think.The Studies Show is sponsored by Works in Progress magazine, the best place to go online for fact-rich, data-dense articles on science and technology, and how they've made the world a better place—or how they might do so in the future. To find all their essays, all for free, go to worksinprogress.co.Show notes* Tom's new book, Everything is Predictable: How Bayes' Remarkable Theorem Explains the World* Wagenmakers's 2020 study asking scientists how they think about scientific claims* David Hume's 1748 Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the problem of induction * Bertrand Russell's 1946 book History of Western Philosophy* Popper's 1959 book The Logic of Scientific Discovery* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Popper* Kuhn's 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Kuhn* 2019 Scott Alexander review of the book* Michael Strevens's 2020 book The Knowledge Machine* Daniel Lakens's Coursera course on “improving your statistical inferences”CreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Peter Godfrey-Smith, a Professor of the Philosophy of Science at the University of Sydney, explores with us the differences between creativity in science and philosophy. While philosophers speculate unconstrainedly, scientists must balance creative thinking with the need for empirical testing and within our fields' paradigms – if you mention the “Lamarck” word at a bar full of geneticists, don't be surprised if the piano suddenly stops and everybody looks at you in disbelief. We also talk about Thomas Kuhn's tension between normal and revolutionary science, the risks and rewards of disruptive ideas, and the importance of "middle-class science"—independent labs driving innovation. Peter ends by drawing a parallel between the night science / day science transition and Händel's aria "As Steals the Morn," which describes the transition from dream state to wakefulness.This episode was supported by Research Theory (researchtheory.org). For more information about Night Science, visit https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/night-science .

In this episode, Megan and Frank examine astrology. What is astrology, and why do people practice it? What are the strongest objections to astrology? Should astrology count as a science? If not, why not? What can the case of astrology teach us about the role of science in a democratic society? And why does the ancient practice of reading the stars prompt us to ponder the deepest aspects of human experience? Thinkers discussed include: Aristotle, Cicero, Ptolemy, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Carl Sagan, Ian James Kidd, and Massimo Pigliucci.-----------------------Hosts' Websites:Megan J Fritts (google.com)Frank J. Cabrera (google.com)Email: philosophyonthefringes@gmail.com-----------------------Bibliography:Philosophy of Science and the Occult | State University of New York Press (first section is an invaluable resource, containing the 1975 manifesto, Feyerabend's critique, and articles summarizing statistical studies disconfirming astrology)Cabrera - Evidence and explanation in Cicero's On DivinationLacusCurtius • Ptolemy — TetrabiblosLacusCurtius • Cicero — De Divinatione: Book IA double-blind test of astrology | NatureReadings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism (See for short selections from Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos)Ian James Kidd - Why did Feyerabend Defend Astrology? Integrity, Virtue, and the Authority of Science (An excellent paper that very much informed our discussion of the science & society question)M. Pigliucci - Was Feyerabend Right in Defending Astrology? A Commentary on Kidd-----------------------Cover Artwork by Logan Fritts-------------------------Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/neon-signsLicense code: YYRPW29K1IDMU76F

The Living Process Episode 26 with host Greg Madison  Guest Rob Parker Paradigm Leaping Welcome back to The Living Process. In this episode, Rob talks about his interests in philosophy, especially existentialism, from an early age and it was this interest, combined with his desire to help other young kids like himself, that led him to Gendlin. Rob's first experience of the Focusing world was a 3-day Thinking at the Edge workshop with Gendlin at Stony Point. Unusually his interest in philosophy was his way into Focusing. We talk about Rob's interest in ‘meaning', his journey from the ideas of Gregory Bateson to Maurice Marleau-Ponty and Thomas Kuhn, and how these thinkers brought him to Gendlin and a unique opportunity to drop everything and learn from this new philosopher. In our conversation, we touched on how learning Focusing affected Rob's therapy practice. He also talks about learning from Mary Hendricks Gendlin how to slow down and work with the felt sense in sessions and we touched upon the political and social implications of The Process Model. Rob mentioned his modification of the EXP scale and his use of Zen and Focusing to work with The Inner Critic.   Rob Parker is well-known in the Focusing world and beyond as a clear thinker representing Gendlin's A Process Model and Gendlin's other philosophies to a lay audience. He has a longterm interest in Zen, spirituality, and science. For years Rob was a practicing psychologist, originally in the existential tradition, specialising in psychological trauma. In 2000 Rob found the philosophy of Eugene Gendlin, which he dedicated himself to understanding by meeting Gendlin every week until Gendlin died in 2017.   For information on Rob, his workshops, and his writing on Gendlin's philosophy, see: www.lifeforward.org Episode 26, The Living Process with guest Rob Parker: https://youtu.be/oAZh5uCe_Yo The Living Process - all episodes and podcast links: https://www.londonfocusing.com/the-living-process/ Greg's YouTube video channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC0TgN6iVu3n9d9q2l43z1xBMYY3p9FQL The Living Process on the FOT Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx3FqA70kQWuHCHmEiZnkn1VcrRIPbcvk #somaticexperience  #trauma  #Focusing  #Gendlin  #Bodytherapy  #Zen  #Experientialpractice  #bodymind   #thelivingprocess #existentialism #psychotherapy

Where is nature's memory of its evolution encoded? Is there evidence for extended mind occurring beyond individual brains? How possible is it that the sun is conscious? In this episode we're going to get up to date on Rupert Sheldrake's extraordinary theory of Morphic resonance: so Morphic fields, the unfolding of nature's ‘habits' and the ‘memory of nature'. We'll examine the possibility of levels of consciousness larger than our own brains - scaling up in a hierarchy from cellular consciousness right up to planetary and perhaps even stellar consciousness! We're also going to get into examples of consciousness beyond the brain like ‘the sensation of being stared at' (clearly a useful skill to evolve) and other phenomena Rupert has reported in his experiments.  Rupert Sheldrake is a Cambridge PHD developmental Biologist whose published over 100 papers on topics as wide as Cellular Biology, telepathy, Pets who know when their owners are coming home, and after-death communications. He is also the author of many books like “A new science of life”, “Science set free”, and “Ways of going Beyond”, among many others. What were discuss: 00:00 Intro. 06:10 Morphic resonance explained. 08:15 Polar Auxin - death in the midst of life. 09:15 Genes make proteins, morphogenetic fields determine form. 11:30 Nature's “memory” spread across time. 13:25 Something that has happened before is more likely to happen again. 14:15 Collective memory, like Jung's collective unconscious. 17:15 His scientific education engrained materialism and atheism in him.. 18:15 Asian philosophy, psychedelics, Neo-platonism and Christianity. 20:30 Questioning of scientific dogma came before his faith. 22:00 Thomas Kuhn's paradigm change, an analogy for him breaking with science. 23:50 Rupert's work denounced as ‘Heresy' by the editor of Nature in 1981.  26:30 Measuring Morphic fields in experiments. 28:30 IQ tests have got easier for people over time, The Flynn Effect 30:00 Video games have to make new versions harder each time.  32:10 Is subtle energy field research beyond science? 37:00 Bioelectric morphogenetic fields & Michael Levin.  41:20 Bioelectric fields are the interface not the explanation. 42:30 Where are morphic fields recorded in nature? 44:50 Platonism doesn't explain evolution and change over time. 47:00 Different levels of collective consciousness, up to planetary, stellar and even cosmic consciousness. 56:40 The feeling of being stared at: examples of extended mind. 01:02:55 Mystical experience - being part of a greater consciousness. 01:09:40 Are spiritual & scientific insight compatible? References: Rupert Sheldrake, “A New Science of life”. Michael Levin - Bio-electric morphogenetic fields CC interview The Sheldrake.org Staring App. Polar Auxin  QUOTE: “Morphic resonance leaps across time and space, It's not stored anywhere it's a direct connection with the past.”

The philosophy behind HR and our way of working predates most of the tools we use. While companies focus on sales and productivity, most neglect to measure one of the largest sources of value within the organization – the employee experience. Jessica Zwaan has made it her mission to teach executives and their companies how to transform the employee experience using product management principles, maximizing value for all stakeholders involved.Jessica Zwaan is the author of Built for People, the current Chief Operating Officer of Whereby, and a former COO advisor for clients like Soundcloud, Talentful, and Bolt, among others.In this episode, Dart and Jessica discuss:- The 3 things every company sells- Distinctions between people operations and human operations- Viewing work as a product and determining its value- Tracking the cost versus value of employees- The 3 aspects employees want out of their work- Value vs. volume when it comes to employees-  2 maxims of product management applicable to HR- And other topics…Jessica Zwaan is an author, speaker, and early-stage start-up executive. She is the current Chief Operating Officer of Whereby and a former COO advisor for clients like Soundcloud, Talentful, and Bolt, among others. Her latest book, Built for People, helps teach organizations and leadership how to transform the employee experience using product management principles.With a background in operations, people, and talent, Jessica's work has spanned across three continents. Jessica holds a First-Class Honours law degree from the University of Law in London. She is an international panelist and speaker and also hosts the podcast “There's This Thing at Work.”Resources mentioned:Built for People, by Jessica Zwaan: https://www.amazon.com/Built-People-Experience-Management-Principles/dp/1398608025The Book of the Courtier, by Baldesar Castiglione: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Courtier-Baldesar-Castiglione/dp/1519086954The Experience Economy, by Joseph Pine: https://www.amazon.com/Experience-Economy-New-Preface-Authors/dp/1633697975The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn: https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121The Good Enough Job, by Simone Stolzoff: https://www.amazon.com/Good-Enough-Job-Reclaiming-Life/dp/059353896XConnect with Jessica:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessicamayzwaan/www.jessicamayzwaan.com Work with Dart:Dart is the CEO and co-founder of the work design firm 11fold. Build work that makes employees feel alive, connected to their work, and focused on what's most important to the business. Book a call at 11fold.com.

September 29, 2024 Speaker: Thomas Kuhn

En este episodio exploramos cómo los cambios de paradigma transforman la ciencia, desde la teoría germinal de Koch hasta la tectónica de placas. Además, analizamos la coexistencia de dos paradigmas en la física moderna: la mecánica cuántica y la relatividad general, y cómo influye en la búsqueda de una teoría unificada.

Join me in this episode, where we discuss a "History & Systems" approach to philosophy. The term "paradigm," as we use it here, comes from Thomas Kuhn's celebrated book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Using paradigms to think about philosophies is not difficult, though it is very high level. This episode should help you organize philosophy in your thinking, and it pairs well with the episodes from July 4th, 2024 on "the architectonic structure" of philosophy. . Please post your questions or comments on The Philosophemes YouTube Channel. Accessible through this Linktree link: https://linktr.ee/philosophemes . Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Frank_Scalambrino_PhD . The Existentialism Book: http://shepherd.com/book/what-is-existentialism-vol-i . Amazon Author Page: https://amzn.to/4cM6nzf . Online Courses (Gumroad) Coming Soon! . Podcast Page: https://evergreenpodcasts.com/the-philosophemes-podcast #philosophemes, #philosophy, #existentialism, #FrankScalambrino, #phenomenology, #psychology, #psychotherapy, #Nietzsche, #educationalpodcast . Some links may be “affiliate links,” which means I may I receive a small commission from your purchase through these links. This helps to support the channel. Thank you. Editorial, educational, and fair use of images. © 2024, Frank Scalambrino, Ph.D. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We begin a personal history of the revolution in my thinking from evolution to special creation spurred by the evidence of microbiology. Vital to this history is a text by geologist Allan G. Krill, FIXISTS VS. MOBILISTS IN THE GEOLOGY CONTEST OF THE CENTURY, 1844-1969. In this delightful book, Dr. Krill recounts the history of Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift, that was first ridiculed, then attacked, and finally accepted some 50 years after it was proposed. As plate tectonics, it now represents one of the foundational building blocks on which scientific geology is built. The book is available here: https://folk.ntnu.no/krill/fixists.pdf We also make reference to Dr. Eugene Koonin's book, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, which we covered extensively in our last episode. It is available here: http://www.evolocus.com/Textbooks/Koonin2011.pdf If you have never read Thomas Kuhn's THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, you should. It is available here: https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf As an atheist, I embraced evolutionary theory - its cosmogony and cosmology - hook, line and sinker. As a re-converted Christian, I began the Christian Atheist podcast as a theistic evolutionist. This year, after long and serious study, I abandon my faith in evolutionary biology with all the Hegelian ideological tendrils that have infected the rational scientific worldview over the past two centuries. Let the evidence speak, and let the people of God listen to what He says, and obey. We are now in the midst of a SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION. Jenny and I suspect that God is in the process of removing all excuse for not-believing from everyone on earth. CHOOSE YOU THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE! With our Transcendent GOD – Being, Truth and Value – there can be NO COMPROMISE Listen to the complete book of Malachi read without commentary here ... https://youtu.be/aasq_o1JNyE If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron

Matthew Wood, who by his own admission is a ‘herbalist who did homeopathy because he couldn't understand herbalism' is one of the most influential herbalists in the English speaking world. He has brought vitalism and herbal specificity to a whole generation of herbalists, perhaps because of his unique experience of learning herbalism from Native Americans before pursuing any further herbal study. Here, Stephanie Hazel gets to fan-girl at one of her herbal heroes! They discuss Matthew's new book, “A Shamanic Herbal”, spirit animals, the subtleties of intuition, empathy and imagination, Native American Herbalism, and so much more. It's our longest interview yet, and we hope you enjoy every minute of it! Matthew Wood's new book is available here:  https://www.thenile.com.au/books/matthew-wood/a-shamanic-herbal/9798888500200 The Earthwise Herbal (New World and Old World volumes) are some of the best herbal books around, so if you haven't discovered Matthew Wood's work yet, do yourself a favour and pick up a copy! We highly recommend signing up to the Matthew Wood Institute of Herbalism mailing list, where you will hear about plenty of high quality free classes, as well as their paid offerings.  Sign up here. https://matthewwoodinstituteofherbalism.com/course/tongue-evaluation SHOWNOTES: Link to free tongue diagnosis class: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wN4gMYYHmM We also mentioned:  ‘Tongue Diagnosis in Chinese Medicine' by Giovanni Maciocia.  ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', by Thomas Kuhn in 1970 (download a free pdf here): http://www.columbia.edu/cu/tract/projects/complexity-theory/kuhn-the-structure-of-scien.pdf See less

Associate Provost and W. Harold Row Professor of Global Politics Jamie Frueh, of Bridgewater College, joins the Hayseed Scholar podcast. Jamie and Brent have been friends for over 15 years, meeting at the ISA-Northeast conference in 2009. Jamie is also the only (other) person on this podcast besides Brent who is from Iowa, and Jamie also hosts his own podcast, The Teaching Curve.Jamie talks about growing up in Des Moines, with parents who both encouraged his curiosities and educational journey. Jamie was on his high school's debate team, which enabled him to travel throughout Midwest a bit. He talks about the decision to go to Georgetown University to pursue a degree and then career in the Foreign Service.   While that didn't quite pan out, his protesting of apartheid in college did lead him to South Africa, where he taught at Catholic mission schools in more rural, predominantly Black areas of the country. It was a transformative trip for a bunch of reasons, including that being the setting where he discovered his love of teaching. We go through how Jamie figured out how to apply for graduate study, and what role Thomas Kuhn played in that. We cover how he ended up and then stayed at American University, his experiences on the market, his enriching experiences at Bridgewater, his development of the ISA-Northeast Pedagogies workshop, how he unwinds, how he approaches podcasting, and more! Listen to Jamie's podcast The Teaching Curve:https://www.buzzsprout.com/1976329And on YouTube:https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLG5L5ARIehIiSZkjVA816OefQqY8kTZru&si=A1xJsKjFN58uOJ5W

Analytic Philosophy is a branch of philosophy that emphasizes clarity and logical analysis. Key figures include Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who contributed to the development of symbolic logic and the philosophy of language. Logical Positivism, emerging from the Vienna Circle, focused on empirical verification and logical necessity. The philosophy of language explores theories of meaning, such as the referential theory, use theory, and speech act theory. Semantic externalism, proposed by Hilary Putnam and Saul Kripke, argues that meaning is influenced by external factors. Ordinary language philosophy, associated with J.L. Austin and later Wittgenstein, analyzes everyday language to resolve philosophical problems. The philosophy of science, with contributions from Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, examines the nature of scientific knowledge and methods. W.V.O. Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction emphasizes the holistic nature of knowledge. Metaphysics in analytic philosophy addresses questions about reality, including the realism vs. anti-realism debate and the nature of properties and universals. Key concepts include propositional logic, predicate logic, and the theory of descriptions.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/library-of-philosophy--5939304/support.

After a couple weeks break while I moved into my apartment in Saint Paul, the Saturday Book Club reconvened to begin discussing Adrian Johns' 2023 book, The Science of Reading: Information, Media & Mind in Modern America. Although I had originally been a bit skeptical, I'm enjoying this book. We discussed languages and reading, the particularity of the reading experience, a bit of book history, the fact that this was a COVID book, Jacques Barzun, Eric Weinstein, Richard Dawkins, Thomas Kuhn, Michio Kaku, and the problem of creating collegiality in a remote and increasingly asynchronous learning environment.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Mech Interp Lacks Good Paradigms, published by Daniel Tan on July 18, 2024 on LessWrong. Note: I wrote this post rather quickly as an exercise in sharing rough / unpolished thoughts. I am also not an expert on some of the things I've written about. If you spot mistakes or would like to point out missed work / perspectives, please feel free! Note 2: I originally sent this link to some people for feedback, but I was having trouble viewing the comments on the draft. The post was also in a reasonably complete state, so I decided to just publish it - and now I can see the comments! If you're one of those people, feedback is still very much welcome! Mechanistic Interpretability (MI) is a popular and rapidly growing field of technical AI safety research. As a field, it's extremely accessible, requiring comparatively few computational resources, and facilitates rapid learning, due to a very short feedback loop. This means that many junior researchers' first foray into AI safety research is in MI (myself included); indeed, this occurs to the extent where some people feel MI is over-subscribed relative to other technical agendas. However, how useful is this MI research? A very common claim on MI's theory of impact (ToI) is that MI helps us advance towards a "grand unifying theory" (GUT) of deep learning. One of my big cruxes for this ToI is whether MI admits "paradigms" which facilitate correct thinking and understanding of the models we aim to interpret. In this post, I'll critically examine several leading candidates for "paradigms" in MI, consider the available evidence for / against, and identify good future research directions (IMO). At the end, I'll conclude with a summary of the main points and an overview of the technical research items I've outlined. Towards a Grand Unifying Theory (GUT) with MI Proponents of this argument believe that, by improving our basic understanding of neural nets, MI yields valuable insights that can be used to improve our agents, e.g. by improving architectures or by improving their training processes. This allows us to make sure future models are safe and aligned. Some people who have espoused this opinion: Richard Ngo has argued here that MI enables "big breakthroughs" towards a "principled understanding" of deep learning. Rohin Shah has argued here that MI builds "new affordances" for alignment methods. Evan Hubinger has argued for MI here because it helps us identify "unknown unknowns". Leo Gao argues here that MI aids in "conceptual research" and "gets many bits" per experiment. As a concrete example of work that I think would not have been possible without fundamental insights from MI: steering vectors, a.k.a. representation engineering, and circuit breakers, which were obviously inspired by the wealth of work in MI demonstrating the linear representation hypothesis. It's also important to remember that the value of fundamental science often seems much lower in hindsight, because humans quickly adjust their perspectives. Even if MI insights seem like common sense to us nowadays, their value in instrumenting significant advances can't be overstated. (Aside) A corollary of this argument is that MI could likely have significant capabilities externalities. Becoming better at building powerful and instruction-aligned agents may inadvertently accelerate us towards AGI. This point has been made in depth elsewhere, so I won't elaborate further here. A GUT Needs Paradigms Paradigm - an overarching framework for thinking about a field In his seminal book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Thomas Kuhn catalogues scientific progress in many different fields (spanning physics, chemistry, biology), and distills general trends about how these fields progress. Central to his analysis is the notion of a "paradigm" - an overarching framework for th...

How do we conduct science when there isn't a single isolated variable? What does that mean for carbon removal not taking place in a controlled environment? How does science even work?! Today's show originated from a question of how open-system carbon removal research can be conducted given that in a less-controlled environment, isolating for a single variable with replicability is less obviously possible. Does the scientific method really demand that, or is that some sort of pop culture understanding of science that needs to be challegned? To answer that question, host and co-founder of the Nori carbon removal marketplace, Ross Kenyon, asked Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Anu Khan of Carbon180, to read two books and come on Reversing Climate Change to discuss them. The two texts are some of the foundational works of modern philosophy of science: Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and Paul Feyerabend's Against Method. Kuhn argued that paradigms are the collection of foundational beliefs we have about how science and knowledge production is conducted, and that they are quite hard to see outside of since most people work so deeply within them. It can often be a generational effort, as older scientists die and new ones take their places. Feyerabend goes further, arguing that we shouldn't just look for where one paradigm supersedes another, but be protective of competing systems of knowledge and the valuable ways of seeing that they unlock. The show applies their learnings to the state of the CDR industry, and attempts to ferret out carbon removal's existing paradigm, whether the world is ready for credits that are not tonne-denominated, and how much time we can afford in retooling and letting "normal science" work within an imperfect paradigm vs. trying to create an entirely new paradigm ex nihilo. Resources Anu Khan Holly Jean Buck Carbon180 Against Method on Wikipedia The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on Wikipedia The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman Historiography Connect with Nori ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Purchase Nori Carbon Removals⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori's website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori on Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out our other podcast, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Carbon Removal Newsroom⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Carbon Removal Memes on Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Carbon Removal Memes on Instagram --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/support

本集提及的資料： 提出證偽原則的波普爾(Karl Popper) 提出典範轉移(paradigm shift)的孔恩(Thomas Kuhn)，及其代表作《科學革命的結構》 (00:00:45) 碧螺春哪來的 (00:15:00) HY教練與科學的關係 (00:20:00) 從科學哲學看看科學是什麼 (00:35:00) 西方對科學的反思 (00:42:00) 教練產業、運動科學 (00:52:00) 科學的局限、人的有限性 留言告訴我你對這一集的想法 https://open.firstory.me/user/ckq13nna83ymm08728t6ae1ie/comments 請HY教練喝杯咖啡吧！ https://reurl.cc/n5aeZ1 訂閱HY教練的電子報 https://reurl.cc/Rbkz0g 任何想詢問的大小疑難雜症或意見回饋歡迎來信 sccoachhy@gmail.com ——— FB: https://www.facebook.com/coach.hy IG: https://www.instagram.com/coach.hy Web: https://coachhy.com ——— For Mimi by Twin Musicom Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 Free Download / Stream Powered by Firstory Hosting

Tom Chatfield is a British author and tech philosopher, interested in improving our experiences and understanding of technology. He is the author of several books on good thinking in today's tech-dominated world, including “Critical Thinking” and “How to Think”. He also teaches these skills to diverse audiences, ranging from schools to corporate boardrooms, and he has recently designed a successful online course on Critical Thinking for the Economist education. His most recent book is Wise Animals, an exploration of the co-evolution of humanity and technology—and the lessons our deep past may hold for the present. He's also an experienced Chair, Non-Executive Director, advisor and speaker across the private and public sectors.  -> Inscreva-se aqui no módulo 3 dos workshops de Pensamento Crítico: «Decidir Melhor». Registe-se aqui para ser avisado(a) de futuras edições dos workshops. _______________ Índice: (3:00) Introduction in English (5:06) How did you end up writing about critical thinking and technology? | Is critical thinking a soft or a hard skill? | Heuristics and biases (work of Daniel Kahnemen and Amos Trvsersky) | The art of knowing when to seek ‘cognitive reinforcements' | Why communicating nuances and uncertainties is so hard today. | Arguments when our basic assumptions differ | Why critical thinking is not about being always right. | The importance of challenging our assumptions. (32:46) Why asking questions is the best way to dispute arguments. | The importance of creating trust to have open discussions. | Useful tricks to improve collective decision-making: pre-mortems; obligation to dissent; Oxford-style debates | How much of corporate work today runs around sending and replying to emails | The Amazon memo | ask religious schools | The importance of thinking before talking: book Robert Poynton - Do Pause: You Are Not A To Do List (47:45) Difference between teaching critical thinking to 12 year olds and corporate audiences? | The ubiquity of business jargon | Richard Feynman and the power of questions | Why did SpaceX give up on “catching” falling fairings? | Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shifts | Richard Feynman On The Folly Of Crafting Precise Definitions (1:09:06) New book: Wise Animals: How Technology Has Made Us What We Are | Impact of mass interactive media on democracy. | impact of social media on social health. Book by Jonathan Haidt: The Anxious Generation _______________ Today we're diving into an enlightening conversation with Tom Chatfield, a British author and tech philosopher. Tom is the author of several books on good thinking in today's tech-dominated world, including “Critical Thinking” and “How to Think”. He also teaches these skills to diverse audiences, ranging from schools to corporate boardrooms, and he has recently designed a successful online course on Critical Thinking for the Economist education. In his most recent book, Wise Animals, Tom explores our relationship with technology, examining the lessons that our ancestral past may hold for our present challenges.  In this thought-provoking conversation with Tom, we discussed his advice for how to think more critically in today's complex world. We talked about strategies to combat the influence of cognitive biases in our mind, as popularized by thinkers like the late Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, and the importance (and difficulty) of challenging our own assumptions. We also discussed the importance of creating trust in order to be able to have open conversations, and some techniques for deep discussions and good decision making in all contexts.  In the final part, we turned our focus to Tom's latest book, which explores our relationship with technology, and I asked his view on two big impacts technology is currently having in society: the destabilizing effect of mass interactive media on traditional democratic structures, exacerbating polarization and eroding public trust in institutions; and the troubling rise of what many experts refer to as an “Epidemic of Mental Illness” among children and teenagers, driven by pervasive social media use.  ______________ Obrigado aos mecenas do podcast: Francisco Hermenegildo, Ricardo Evangelista, Henrique Pais João Baltazar, Salvador Cunha, Abilio Silva, Tiago Leite, Carlos Martins, Galaró family, Corto Lemos, Miguel Marques, Nuno Costa, Nuno e Ana, João Ribeiro, Helder Miranda, Pedro Lima Ferreira, Cesar Carpinteiro, Luis Fernambuco, Fernando Nunes, Manuel Canelas, Tiago Gonçalves, Carlos Pires, João Domingues, Hélio Bragança da Silva, Sandra Ferreira , Paulo Encarnação , BFDC, António Mexia Santos, Luís Guido, Bruno Heleno Tomás Costa, João Saro, Daniel Correia, Rita Mateus, António Padilha, Tiago Queiroz, Carmen Camacho, João Nelas, Francisco Fonseca, Rafael Santos, Andreia Esteves, Ana Teresa Mota, ARUNE BHURALAL, Mário Lourenço, RB, Maria Pimentel, Luis, Geoffrey Marcelino, Alberto Alcalde, António Rocha Pinto, Ruben de Bragança, João Vieira dos Santos, David Teixeira Alves, Armindo Martins , Carlos Nobre, Bernardo Vidal Pimentel, António Oliveira, Paulo Barros, Nuno Brites, Lígia Violas, Tiago Sequeira, Zé da Radio, João Morais, André Gamito, Diogo Costa, Pedro Ribeiro, Bernardo Cortez Vasco Sá Pinto, David , Tiago Pires, Mafalda Pratas, Joana Margarida Alves Martins, Luis Marques, João Raimundo, Francisco Arantes, Mariana Barosa, Nuno Gonçalves, Pedro Rebelo, Miguel Palhas, Ricardo Duarte, Duarte , Tomás Félix, Vasco Lima, Francisco Vasconcelos, Telmo , José Oliveira Pratas, Jose Pedroso, João Diogo Silva, Joao Diogo, José Proença, João Crispim, João Pinho , Afonso Martins, Robertt Valente, João Barbosa, Renato Mendes, Maria Francisca Couto, Antonio Albuquerque, Ana Sousa Amorim, Francisco Santos, Lara Luís, Manuel Martins, Macaco Quitado, Paulo Ferreira, Diogo Rombo, Francisco Manuel Reis, Bruno Lamas, Daniel Almeida, Patrícia Esquível , Diogo Silva, Luis Gomes, Cesar Correia, Cristiano Tavares, Pedro Gaspar, Gil Batista Marinho, Maria Oliveira, João Pereira, Rui Vilao, João Ferreira, Wedge, José Losa, Hélder Moreira, André Abrantes, Henrique Vieira, João Farinha, Manuel Botelho da Silva, João Diamantino, Ana Rita Laureano, Pedro L, Nuno Malvar, Joel, Rui Antunes7, Tomás Saraiva, Cloé Leal de Magalhães, Joao Barbosa, paulo matos, Fábio Monteiro, Tiago Stock, Beatriz Bagulho, Pedro Bravo, Antonio Loureiro, Hugo Ramos, Inês Inocêncio, Telmo Gomes, Sérgio Nunes, Tiago Pedroso, Teresa Pimentel, Rita Noronha, miguel farracho, José Fangueiro, Zé, Margarida Correia-Neves, Bruno Pinto Vitorino, João Lopes, Joana Pereirinha, Gonçalo Baptista, Dario Rodrigues, tati lima, Pedro On The Road, Catarina Fonseca, JC Pacheco, Sofia Ferreira, Inês Ribeiro, Miguel Jacinto, Tiago Agostinho, Margarida Costa Almeida, Helena Pinheiro, Rui Martins, Fábio Videira Santos, Tomás Lucena, João Freitas, Ricardo Sousa, RJ, Francisco Seabra Guimarães, Carlos Branco, David Palhota, Carlos Castro, Alexandre Alves, Cláudia Gomes Batista, Ana Leal, Ricardo Trindade, Luís Machado, Andrzej Stuart-Thompson, Diego Goulart, Filipa Portela, Paulo Rafael, Paloma Nunes, Marta Mendonca, Teresa Painho, Duarte Cameirão, Rodrigo Silva, José Alberto Gomes, Joao Gama, Cristina Loureiro, Tiago Gama, Tiago Rodrigues, Miguel Duarte, Ana Cantanhede, Artur Castro Freire, Rui Passos Rocha, Pedro Costa Antunes, Sofia Almeida, Ricardo Andrade Guimarães, Daniel Pais, Miguel Bastos, Luís Santos _______________ Esta conversa foi editada por: Hugo Oliveira _______________ Bio: Tom Chatfield is a British author and tech philosopher, interested in improving our experiences and understanding of technology. His most recent book is Wise Animals, an exploration of the co-evolution of humanity and technology—and the lessons our deep past may hold for the present. His recent work around future skills and technology includes designing and presenting the Economist‘s new business course Critical Thinking: Problem-solving and decision-making in a complex world. Tom's non-fiction books exploring digital culture, including How To Thrive in the Digital Age (Pan Macmillan) and Live This Book! (Penguin), have appeared in over thirty languages. His bestselling critical thinking textbooks and online courses, developed in partnership with SAGE Publishing, are used in schools and universities across the world. He's also an experienced Chair, Non-Executive Director, advisor and speaker across the private and public sectors. Topics he's written about recently include the ethics of AI, what it means to think well, technology in deep time and the philosophy of fake news.

This episode has been brewing for a long time. It takes us all the way back to the roots of the Christian Atheist ... AND BEYOND. We interrupt our series on Malachi to lay out some of what the Christian Atheist (John and Jenny) have been learning, and the implications for all of what we do. The title of this week, "The structure of a scientific revolution" is a nod, of course, to Thomas Kuhn's landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). It was a formative influence in my early and ongoing philosophical understanding. We are now in the midst of a SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.   With our Transcendent GOD – Being, Truth and Value – there can be NO COMPROMISE Listen to the complete book of Malachi read without commentary here ... https://youtu.be/aasq_o1JNyE If you enjoy our content, consider donating through PayPal via https://ko-fi.com/thechristianatheist   Take a moment to enjoy our weekly Photos of the Day videos here - short slideshows with relaxing music ...https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_9GPi4HTqoZ8xFgTldbBaA   https://www.youtube.com/c/TheChristianAtheist/featured https://www.facebook.com/JnJWiseWords https://wisewordsforyouroccasion.wordpress.com   #thechristianatheist #drjohndwise #drjohnwise #johnwise #christian #atheist #christianity #atheism #jesus #jesuschrist #god #bible #oldtestament #newtestament #nocompromise #rationality #faith #philosophy #philosopher #culture #society #hegelism #hegelianism #hegel #reason #incarnation #history#psychology #theology #literature #humanities #hardquestions #postmodernism #woke #wisdom #ethics #science #poetry #paradox #oxymoron

How Tony Stark, the myth of meritocracy, and our unspoken beliefs about genius explain Elon Musk and the (re)turn of eugenics to the right wing Blog version and information about podcast and mailing list: https://literatemachine.com/2024/04/01/elon-musk-wokeness-and-the-myth-of-meritocracy If you enjoyed this, please tell someone, as word-of-mouth is how projects like this grow. For as little as $1 an episode, you can get exclusive authors notes, excerpts, and early access to episodes by supporting me on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/ericrosenfield Thanks to my current Patrons: Kathryn Carruthers, Gabi Ghita, Hristo Kolev, Kevin Cafferty, Ulysse Pence, Wilma Ezekowitz, IndustrialRobot, Not Invader Zim, Jason Quackenbush, Arthur Rosenfield, and Nancy S. Rosen Bibliography and Further Reading Interview with Stan Lee where he talks about the creation of Iron Man: https://screenrant.com/stan-lee-iron-man-unlikable-hero-creation-marvel/ How Albert Einstein was no "lone genius": https://www.nature.com/articles/527298a The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn, 1962 How many filaments Edison tried in creating the lightbulb: http://uncommoncontent.blogspot.com/2015/05/how-many-times-did-edison-fail-in.html Talented and Gifted programs and their legacy of Eugenics: https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/the-forgotten-history-of-eugenics/ On the creation of the IQ Test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2bKaw2AJxs Alfred Binet thought intellegence couldn't be reduced to a number: https://www.verywellmind.com/history-of-intelligence-testing-2795581 while Lewis Terman disagreed: https://stanfordmag.org/contents/the-vexing-legacy-of-lewis-terman Terman study subjects results more about socioeconomic status than intelligence: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/200909/the-truth-about-the-termites and the high performers and low performers had about the same IQ: https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/07/science/75-years-later-study-still-tracking-geniuses.html The Bell Curve is based on junk, fraudulent "science": https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo?si=UMJKOTiArp9qSnca What Intelligence Tests Miss, Keith E. Stanovich, 2009 On "Gifted Kig Syndrome": https://thehowleronline.org/6490/viewpoint/former-gifted-child-syndrome/ Local education systems are funded by property taxes: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools-have-a-money-problem DeSantis campaign says "woke" is awareness of systemic injustice: https://www.motherjones.com/mojo-wire/2022/12/desantis-ron-woke-florida-officials/ Someone working 40 hours a week at minimum wage is still below the poverty line: https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_7e5bc7fa-1a5a-4c29-958f-53a07ac1b9ab# Why DEI was created: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-reasons-support-affirmative-action-college-admissions/ Study where resumes were sent out with stereotypically black and white names and their results: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/ On the long, toxic history of "Cultural Marxism": https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/13/opinion/cultural-marxism-anti-semitism.html Cultural Marxism and the "vast, Jewish conspiracy": https://www.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-cultural-marxism/ The "Hyperloop" is an idea that can never work: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/elon-musk-hyperloop/ and was just a ploy to disrupt the development of trains in California: https://time.com/6203815/elon-musk-flaws-billionaire-visions/ Wired story from 2018 about Musk mistreating his employees: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-tesla-life-inside-gigafactory/ Some More News on Musk: https://youtu.be/5pNL7MlUpmI?si=GNFvsKQQRpyfw-MH Tesla cars fall apart in motion: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-musk-steering-suspension/ Tesla cars suspected of turning off self-driving moments before a crash: https://futurism.com/tesla-nhtsa-autopilot-report Musk not interested in labor laws or regulations: https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-spacex-twitter-inc-technology-business-8912c2a2f282b395d3630b3589fa25bc More on Musk mistreating employees: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-11-14/elon-musk-toxic-boss-timeline Musk spreading lies on Twitter: https://futurism.com/elon-musk-black-students-low-iqs Musk antisemitic tweets: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/16/elon-musk-antisemitic-tweet-adl Musk racist tweets about asylum-seekers: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elon-musk-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-1234941337/ Musk the eugenicist: https://disconnect.blog/why-silicon-valley-is-bringing-eugenics/

There was so much to talk about—this is the longest Ground Truths podcast yet. Hope you'll find it as thought-provoking as I did!Transcript, with audio and external links, edited by Jessica Nguyen, Producer for Ground TruthsVideo and audio tech support by Sinjun Balabanoff, Scripps ResearchEric Topol (00:00:05):This is Eric Topol from Ground Truths, and I am delighted to have with me Holden Thorp, who is the Editor-in-Chief of the Science journals. We're going to talk about Science, not just the magazine journal, but also science in general. This is especially appropriate today because Holden was just recognized by STAT as one of the leaders for 2024 because of his extraordinary efforts to promote science integrity, so welcome Holden.Holden Thorp (00:00:36):Thanks Eric, and if I remember correctly, you were recognized by STAT in 2022, so it's an honor to join a group that you're in anytime, that's for sure, and great to be on here with you.Eric Topol (00:00:47):Well, that's really kind to you. Let's start off, I think with the journal, because I know that consumes a lot of your efforts and you have five journals within science.Holden Thorp (00:01:02):Oh, we have six.Eric Topol (00:01:03):Oh six, I'm sorry, six. There's Science, the original, and then five others. Can you tell us what it's like to oversee all these journals?Overseeing the Science JournalsHolden Thorp (00:01:16):Yeah, we're a relatively small family compared to our commercial competitors. I know you had Magdalena [Skipper]on and Nature has I think almost ninety journals, so six is pretty small. In addition to Science, which most people are familiar with, we have Science Advances, which also covers all areas of science and is larger and is a gold open access journal and also is overseen by academic editors, not professional editors. All of our other journals are overseen by professional editors. And then the other four are relatively small and specialized areas, and probably people who listen to you and follow you would know about Science Translational Medicine, Science Immunology, Science Signaling and then we also have a journal, Science Robotics which is something I knew nothing about and I learned a lot. I've learned a lot about robotics and the culture of people who work there interacting with them.Holden Thorp (00:02:22):So we have a relatively small family. There's only 160 people who work for me, which is manageable. I mean that sounds like a lot, but in my previous jobs I was a provost and a chancellor, and I had tens of thousands of people, so it's really fun for me to have a group where I at least have met everybody who works for me. We're an outstanding set of journals, so we attract an outstanding group of professionals who do all the things that are involved in all this, and it's really, really fun to work with them. At Science, we don't just do research papers, although that's a big, and probably for your listeners the biggest part of what we do. But we also have a news and commentary section and the news section is 30 full-time and many freelancers around the world really running the biggest general news operation for science that there is. And then in the commentary section, which you're a regular contributor for us in expert voices, we attempt to be the best place in the world for scientists to talk to each other. All three of those missions are just really, really fun for me. It's the best job I've ever had, and it's one I hope to do for many years into the future.Eric Topol (00:03:55):Well, it's extraordinary because in the four and a half years I think it's been since you took the helm, you've changed the face of Science in many ways. Of course, I think the other distinction from the Nature Journals is that it's a nonprofit entity, which shows it isn't like you're trying to proliferate to all sorts of added journals, but in addition, what you've done, at least the science advisor and the science news and all these things that come out on a daily basis is quite extraordinary as we saw throughout the pandemic. I mean, just reporting that was unparalleled from, as you say, all points around the world about really critically relevant topics. Obviously it extends well beyond the concerns of the pandemic. It has a lot of different functions, but what I think you have done two major things, Holden. One is you medicalized it to some extent.Eric Topol (00:04:55):A lot of people saw the journal, particularly Science per se, as a truly basic science journal. Not so much applied in a medical sphere, but these days there's more and more that would be particularly relevant to the practice of medicine, so that's one thing. And the other thing I wanted you to comment on is you're not afraid to speak out and as opposed to many other prior editors who I followed throughout my career at Science, there were pretty much the politically correct type and they weren't going to really express themselves, which you are particularly not afraid of. Maybe you could comment about if you do perceive this medicalization of science to some extent, and also your sense of being able to express yourself freely.Capturing the Breakthroughs in Structural BiologyHolden Thorp (00:05:48):Yeah, well, you're kind to say both of those things are certainly things we have worked at. I mean, I do come from a background, even though I'm trained as a chemist, most of what I did towards the latter end of my career, I mean, I did very basic biochemistry when I was a researcher, but the last part of my research career I worked in on development of a drug called Vivjoa, which is an alternative to the fluconazole family that doesn't have the same toxicity and is currently on the market for chronic yeast infection and hopefully some other things in the future when we can get some more clinical trials done.Holden Thorp (00:06:35):And I've hung around biotech startups and drug development, so it is part of the business that I knew. I think the pandemic really gave us an opening because Valda Vinson, who's now the Executive Editor and runs all of life sciences for us and policies for the journal, she was so well known in structural biology that most of the first important structures in Covid, including the spike protein, all came to us. I mean, I remember crystal clear February of 2020, she came in my office and she said, I got the structure of the spike protein. And I said, great, what's the spike protein? Turned out later became the most famous protein in the world, at least temporarily. Insulin may be back to being the most famous protein now, but spike protein was up there. And then that kind of cascaded into all the main protease and many of the structures that we got.Holden Thorp (00:07:45):And we seized on that for sure, to kind of broaden our focus. We had the Regeneron antibodies, we had the Paxlovid paper, and all of that kind of opened doors for us. And we've also, now we have two clinical editors at Science, Priscilla Kelly and Yevgeniya Nusinovich, and then the Insights section, somebody that you work with closely, Gemma Alderton, she is very fluent in clinical matters. And then of course we've had Science Translational Medicine and we seek continue to strengthen that. Science Immunology was very much boosted by Covid and actually Science Immunology is now, I think probably if you care about impact factors, the second highest specialized immunology journal after Immunity. I've put some emphasis on it for sure, but I think the pandemic also really helped us. As far as me speaking out, a lot of people maybe don't remember, but Don Kennedy, who was the editor in the early 2000s who had been the Stanford president, he was similarly outspoken.Confronting ControversiesHolden Thorp (00:09:15):It's funny, sometimes people who disagree with me say, well, Don Kennedy would never say anything like that. And then I can dig up something that Don Kennedy said that's just as aggressive as what I might've said. But you're right, Bruce Alberts was very focused on education, and each one of us has had our own different way of doing things. When Alan Leshner hired me and Sudip Parikh reinforced this when he came on, I mean, he wanted me to liven up the editorial page. He explicitly told me to do that. I may have done more of it than he was expecting, but Alan and Sudip both still remain very supportive of that. I couldn't do what I do without them and also couldn't do it without Lisa Chong, who makes all my words sound so much better than they are when I start. And yeah, it kind of fed on itself.Holden Thorp (00:10:21):It started with the pandemic. I think there was an inflection when Trump first said that Covid was just the flu, and when he said some really ridiculous things about the vaccine, and that's where it started. I guess my philosophy was I was thinking about people who, they've got a spouse at home whose job might be disrupted. They got children they've got who are out of school, and somehow they managed to get themselves to the lab to work on our vaccine or some other aspect of the pandemic to try to help the world. What would those people want their journal to say when they came home and turned the news on and saw all these politicians saying all this ridiculous stuff? That was really the sort of mantra that I had in my head, and that kind of drove it. And now I think we've sort of established the fact that it's okay to comment on things that are going on in the world. We're editorially independent, Sudip and the AAAS board, treat us as being editorially independent. I don't take that for granted and it's a privilege to, as I sometimes tell people, my apartment's four blocks from the White House, sometimes I'm over there typing things that they don't like. And that tradition is still alive in this country, at least for the time being, and I try to make the most of it.Eric Topol (00:12:11):Well, and especially as you already touched on Holden, when there's a time when the intersection of politics and science really came to a head and still we're dealing with that, and that's why it's been so essential to get your views as the leader of such an important journal that is publishing some of the leading science in the world on a weekly basis. Now, one of the things I do want to get into this other track that you also alluded to. You went from a chemist, and you eventually rose to Dean and chancellor of University of North Carolina (UNC) and also the provost of Washington University, two of our best institutions academically in the country. I would imagine your parents who were both UNC grads would've been especially proud of you being the chancellor.Holden Thorp (00:13:05):It's true. Yeah. Unfortunately, my father wasn't there to see it, but my mother, as I always tell people, my mother very much enjoyed being the queen mother of her alma mater.On Stanford University's President ResignationEric Topol (00:13:16):Yeah, I would think so, oh my goodness. That gives you another perspective that's unique having been in the senior management of two really prestigious institutions, and this past year a lot has been going on in higher education, and you have again come to the fore about that. Let's just first discuss the Stanford debacle, the president there. Could you kind of give us synopsis, you did some really important writing about that, and what are your thoughts looking back on the student who happens to be Peter Baker's and Susan's son, two incredible journalists at the New York Times and New Yorker, who broke the story at the Stanford Daily as a student, and then it led to eventually the President's resignation. So, what were your thoughts about that?Holden Thorp (00:14:16):Yeah, so it's a complicated and sad story in some ways, but it's also fascinating and very instructive. Two of the papers were in Science, two of the three main ones, the other one was in Cell. And we had made an error along the way because Marc had sent a correction in which for some reason never got posted. We searched every email server we had everything we had trying to find exactly what happened, but we think we have a website run by humans and there was something that happened when the corrections were transmitted into our operations group, and they didn't end up on the website. So, one of the things I had to do was to say repeatedly to every reporter who wanted to ask me, including some Pulitzer Prize winners, that we had looked everywhere and couldn't find any reason why somebody would've intentionally stopped those corrections from posting.Holden Thorp (00:15:36):And one thing about it was I didn't want, Marc had enough problems, he didn't need to be blamed for the fact that we botched that. So I think people were maybe impressed that we just came out and admitted we made a mistake, but that's really what this area needs. And those things happened before I became the editor in chief, but I was satisfied that where that error happened was done by people who had no idea who Marc Tessier-Lavigne even was, but because of all that, and because we had to decide what to do with these papers, I talked to him extensively at the beginning of this, maybe as much as anybody, now that I look back on it. And I think that for him, the error that happened is very common one. You have a PI with a big lab.Holden Thorp (00:16:33):There are many, many incentives for his coworkers and yours to want to get high profile publications. And what we see is mostly at the end when you kind of know what's happening, some corners get cut doing all the controls and all of the last things that have to be done to go into the paper. And someone in his lab did that, and he didn't notice when the jails were sent in. The committee that investigated it later found something that I was certain at the beginning was going to be true, which is he didn't have any direct involvement in and making the problematic images or know that they were there. Every time we see one of these, that's almost always the story.Holden Thorp (00:17:32):And if he hadn't been the president of Stanford, he probably would've, I mean, a couple of the papers that were attracted might even could have been just big corrections. That's another topic we can talk about in terms of whether that's the right thing to do but because he was the president of Stanford, it triggered all these things at the university, which made the story much, much more complicated. And it is similar to what we see in a lot of these, that it's the institution that does the most to make these things bigger than they need to be. And in this case, the first thing was that young Theo Baker who I've talked on the phone extensively with, and I just had a long lunch with him in Palo Alto a couple weeks ago, it's the first time we ever met in person. He's finishing up his book, which has been optioned for a movie, and I've told him that I want Mark Hamill to play me in the movie because I don't know if you saw this last thing he did, Fall of the House of Usher but he was a very funny curmudgeonly.Holden Thorp (00:18:46):And so, I think he would be a lot like me dealing with Theo, but Theo did great work. Did everything that Theo write add up precisely. I mean, he was teaching himself a lot of this biochemistry as he went along, so you could always find little holes in it, but the general strokes of what he had were correct. And in my opinion, and Marc would've been better served by talking to Theo and answering his questions or talking to other reporters who are covering this and there are many excellent ones. This is something I learned the hard way when I was at North Carolina. It's always better for the President to just face the music and answer the questions instead of doing what they did, which is stand up this long and complicated investigation. And when the institutions do these long investigations, the outcome is always unsatisfying for everybody because the investigation, it found precisely what I think anybody who understands our world would've expected that Marc didn't know about the fraud directly, but that he could have done more to create a culture in his laboratory where these things were picked up, whether that's making his lab smaller or him having fewer other things to do, or precisely what it is, people could speculate.Managing a Crisis at a UniversityHolden Thorp (00:20:37):But of course, that's what always happens in these. So the report produced exactly what any reporter who's covered this their whole lives would've expected it to produce, but the people who don't know the intimate details of how this works, were not satisfied by that. And he ended up having to step down and we'll never know what would've happened if instead of doing all of that, he just said, wow, I really screwed this up. I'm responsible for the fact that these images are in here and I'm going to do everything I can to straighten it out. I'd be happy to take your questions. That's always what I encourage people to do because I was in a similar situation at North Carolina with a scandal involved in athletics and an academic department, and we did umpteen investigations instead of me just saying, hey, everybody, we cheated for 30 years. It started when I was in middle school, but I'm still going to try to clean it up and I'll be happy to answer your questions. And instead, we get lawyers and PR people and all these carefully worded statements, and it's all prolonged. And we see that in every research integrity matter we deal with and there are a lot of other things in higher education that are being weighed down by all of that right now.Eric Topol (00:22:06):Yeah. One of the things that is typical when a university faces a crisis, and we're going to get into a couple others in a moment, is that they get a PR firm, and the PR firm says, just say you're going to do an investigation because that'll just pull it out of the news, take it out of the news. It doesn't work that way. And what's amazing is that the universities pay a lot of money to these PR companies for crisis management. And being forthright may indeed be the answer, but that doesn't happen as best as we can see. I think you're suggesting a new path that might be not just relevant, but the way to get this on the right course quickly.Holden Thorp (00:22:58):Just on that, there's a person in that PR space who I really like. There are a few of them that are really good, and he's the person who helped me the most. And he used to refer doing the investigation as putting it on the credit card.Eric Topol (00:23:16):Yeah. Yeah, exactly.Holden Thorp (00:23:17):Okay, because you still have to pay the credit card bill after you charge something.Eric Topol (00:23:25):Yeah, better to write a check.Holden Thorp (00:23:27):It's better to write a check. Yes, because that 18% interest can add up pretty quickly.Resignations of the Presidents at Harvard and PennEric Topol (00:23:32):I like that metaphor entirely appropriate. That's a good one. Now, in the midst of all this, there's been two other leading institutions besides Stanford where the president resigned for different reasons, at least in part one was at Harvard and one at Penn. And this is just a crisis in our top universities in the country. I mean three of the very top universities. So, could you comment about the differences at Harvard and Penn related to what we just discussed at Stanford?Holden Thorp (00:24:09):Yeah, so I don't know Claudine Gay, but I've exchanged emails with her, and I do know Liz Magill and I know Sally Kornbluth even better. Our kids went to middle school together because she was at Duke. And I think Sally is in good shape, and she did a little bit better in the hearings because I think she was a little more forthcoming than Liz and Dr. Gay were but I think also Liz was in a pretty weakened state already when she went in there. And I think that what happened that day, and it was a devastating day for higher education. I cleared my calendar, and I watched the whole thing and I couldn't sleep that night. And it was, I thought, oh my goodness, my way of making a living has just taken a death blow. I just felt so much compassion for the three of them, two of whom I knew, one of whom I could imagine having been through similar things myself.Holden Thorp (00:25:20):And I think what my take on the whole thing about free speech and the war and all this stuff is that higher education has got a problem, which is that we have promised to deliver a product that we can't really deliver, and that is to provide individualized experiences for students. So, I'm back on the faculty now at GW. I have 16 people in my class, I know every single one of them. I was teaching during the fall, last fall. I teach on Monday nights, which Yom Kippur was on a Monday night, which was before October 7th. And so, I knew precisely how many Jewish kids I had in my class because they had to make up class for that Monday night.Holden Thorp (00:26:18):I was basically able to talk to each one of them and make sure. And then GW is a very liberal university, so I had a whole bunch that were all the way on the other side also. I was just able to talk to each of them and make sure they had what they needed from the university. But the institutions don't really have luxury. They don't have somebody who's been doing this for 35 years teaching 16 people who can make sure they're getting what they need, but they write letters to all their students saying, you're going to join a diverse student body where we're going to give you a chance to express yourself and explore everything, but there's too many of them to actually deliver that. And none of them want to say that out loud. And so, what happens in a situation like this?Holden Thorp (00:27:19):And everybody says, well, don't send out the statements, don't send out the statements, but how else are you going to communicate with all those people? I mean, because the truth is education is a hands-on individualized deal. And so, the students who are experiencing antisemitism at Harvard or Penn or anywhere else, were feeling distress. And the university wasn't doing what they promised and attending to that, and similarly to the students who wanted to express themselves in the other direction. And so, what really needs to happen is that universities need to put more emphasis on what goes on in the classroom so that these students are getting the attention that they've been promised. But universities are trying to do a lot of research and you're at a place that's got a little simpler mission but some of these big complicated ones are doing urban development and they're trying to win athletics competitions, and they're running hotels and fire departments and police departments, and it's really hard to do all and multi, multi-billion dollar investment vehicles.Holden Thorp (00:28:47):It's really hard to do all that and keep the welfare of a bunch of teenagers up at the top of the list. And so, I think really what we need around this topic in general is a reckoning about this very point. Now as far as how to gotten through the hearing a little better, I mean what they said was technically correct, no question about that. But where they struggled was in saying things that would cause them to admit that they had failed at doing what they promised for the people who are feeling distressed. And again, that's kind of my mantra on all these things, whether it's student affairs or research integrity or anything else, the universities have made massive commitments to do probably more things than they can, and rather than fessing up to that, they just bury the whole thing in legalistic bureaucracy, and it's time for us to cut through a lot of that stuff.Eric Topol (00:30:09):I couldn't agree more on that.Holden Thorp (00:30:10):And in Claudine's case, I think the plagiarism thing, I wrote a piece in the Chronicle that just kind of tried to remind people that the kinds of plagiarism that she was punished for, in my opinion, too much of a punishment is stuff that we routinely pick up now with authenticate and other tools in scholarly publishing, and people just get a report that says, hey, maybe you want to reward this, and that's it. If it doesn't change the academic content of the paper, we hardly ever even pay attention to that. She was being subjected to a modern tool that didn't exist when she wrote the stuff that she wrote. And it's same thing with image analysis, right? When Marc Tessier-Lavigne made his papers, Elisabeth Bik wasn't studying images, and we didn't have proof fig and image twin to pick these things up, so we're taking today's tools and applying them to something that's 20 years old that was produced when those tools didn't exist. You can debate whether that matters or not, but in my opinion it does.Generative A.I. and Publishing ScienceEric Topol (00:31:31):Yeah, that's bringing us to the next topic I wanted to get into you with, which is AI. You've already mentioned about the AI detection of image, which we used to rely on Elisabeth as a human to do that, and now it can be done through AI.Holden Thorp (00:31:51):Well, it doesn't get everything, so I keep telling Elisabeth she doesn't have to worry about being put out of business.Eric Topol (00:31:58):But then there's also, as you said about text detection, and then there's also, as you've written in Science, the overall submission of papers where a GPT may have had significant input to the writing, not just to check the spelling or check minor things. And so, I want to get your views because this is a moving target of course. I mean, it's just the capabilities of AI have just been outpacing, I think a lot of expectations. Where do you see the intersection of AI and Science publishing now? Because as you said, it changes the ground rules for picking up even minor unintended errors or self-plagiarism or whatever, and now it changes the whole landscape considerably.Holden Thorp (00:32:54):Yeah. So, I think you said the most important thing, which is that it's a moving target, and you've been writing about this for medicine for longer than just about anybody, so you've been watching that moving target. We started off with a very restrictive stance, and the reason we did that was because we knew it would keep moving. And so, we wanted to start from the most restrictive possible place and then sort of titrate in the things that we allowed because we didn't want to go through the same thing we went through with Photoshop when it first came along. Like all these altered images that we keep talking about by far the most papers that surface are from the period between when Photoshop became a tool and when we finally had sort of a consensus as a community in terms of what was okay and what wasn't okay to do with your gels when you process the images.Holden Thorp (00:33:55):And we didn't want the same thing with words where we allowed people to use ChatGPT to write, and then a few years later decided, oh, this thing wasn't permissible, and then we have to go back and re-litigate all those papers. We didn't want to do that again. So, we started off with a pretty restrictive stance, which we've loosened once and we'll probably loosen more as we see how things evolve. What we keep looking for is for entities that don't have a financial interest to issue guidelines, so if it's another journal, especially a commercial journal that makes money on the papers, well, you can imagine that these tools are going to give us even more papers. And for a lot of these entities that charge by the paper, they have a financial incentive for people to use ChatGPT to write papers. We look for societies and coalitions of academics who have come together and said these things are okay.Holden Thorp (00:35:04):And the first one of those was when we decided that it was okay, for example, if you are not an English speaker natively to have ChatGPT work on your pros. Now there are lots of people who disagree about that ChatGPT is good at that. That's a separate matter, but we felt we got to a point, I forgot when it was a couple months ago, where we could amend our policies and say that we were going to be more tolerant of text that had been done by ChatGPT. As long as the people who signed the author forms realize that if it makes one of these hallucinating errors that it makes and it gets into the paper that's on them, whether that actually saves you time or not, I don't know.Holden Thorp (00:36:03):I also have my doubts about that, but that's kind of where we're going. We're watching these things as they go. We're still very restrictive on images and there was this debacle in this Frontiers paper a couple of weeks ago with a ridiculous image that got through. So right now, we're still not allowing illustrations that were generated by the visual counterparts of ChatGPT. Will we loosen that in the future? Maybe, as things evolve, so when we did our first amendment, some of the reporters, they're just doing their jobs saying, well, you can't make your mind up about this. And I'm like, no, you don't want us to make up our mind once and for all. And by the way, science is something that changes over time also. So, we're watching this develop and we expect everybody jokes about how we spend too much time talking about this, but I think everybody's gotten to the point now where they're realizing we're going to talk about it for years to come.Eric Topol (00:37:17):Oh my goodness, yes because we're talking about truth versus fake and this is big stuff. I mean, it affects whether it's the elections, whether it's every sector of our lives are affected by this. And obviously publishing in the leading peer review journal, it couldn't be more important as to get this right and to adjust, as you said, as more evidence, performance and other issues are addressed systematically. That does get me to self-correcting science, something else you've written about, which is kind of self-correcting as to how we will understand the use of large language models and generative AI. But this, you get into science in many different ways, whether it's through the celebrity idea, how it has to adapt and correct that there's a miscue from the public about when evolves and it's actually that science. So maybe you could kind of give us your perspective about you are continuing to reassess what is science as we'll get into more about that in a moment. Where are you at right now on that?Holden Thorp (00:38:40):Yeah, so my general sort of shtick about science is to remind people that it's done by human beings. Human beings who have all different kinds of different brains who come from different backgrounds, who have all the human foibles that you see in any other profession. And I think that unfortunately a lot of, and we brought some of this on ourselves, we've kind of taken on an air of infallibility from time to time or as having the final answer when, if you go back just to the simplest Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn early writings in the philosophy of science, it's crystal clear that science is something that evolves. It's something done by sometimes thousands or even hundreds of thousands of millions of people depending on the topic. And it's not the contributions of any individual person hardly ever.Holden Thorp (00:39:54):But yet we continue to give Nobel prizes and hold up various individual scientific figures as being representative. They're usually representative of many, many people. And it's a process that continues to change. And as always point out, if you want to get a paper in science, it's not good to say, hey, here's something everybody thought and we tested it and it's still correct. That's usually not a good way to get a science paper. The right thing to do is to say, hey, the W boson might weigh more than we expected it to, or it turns out that evolution occurs in ways that we didn't expect, or that's how you get a science paper and that's how you get on the cover of Science. Those are the things that we look for, things that change the way people think about science. And so that's what we're all actively looking for, but yet we sometimes portray to the public that we always have everything completely figured out, and the journalists sometimes don't help us because they like to write crisp stories that people can get something out of. And we like to go on TV and say, hey, I got the answer.Holden Thorp (00:41:23):Don't wear a mask. Do wear a mask. This is how much the temperature is going to go up next year. Oh, we refined our, and it turns out it's another 10th of a degree this way or that way. I mean, that's what makes what we do interesting and embedded in that is also human error, right? Because we make errors in interpretation. We might see a set of data that we think mean one thing, but then somebody else will do something that helps us interpret it another way. In my opinion, that's certainly not misconduct. We hardly ever publish corrections or retractions over interpretation. We just publish more papers about that unless it's some very egregious thing. And then we also have greed and ambition and ego and lots of other things that cause people to make intentional errors that get most of the attention. And we have errors that are unintentional, but still may relate to fundamental data in the paper.Holden Thorp (00:42:36):So when you put all this together, the answer isn't to try to catch everything because there's no way in the world we're going to catch everything and we wouldn't want to, even if we could for some of it, because as John Maddox, who ran my competitor journal for many years in a brilliant way at Nature, someone once asked him how many papers in Nature were wrong? And he said, all of them, because all of them are going to be replaced by new information. And so, what we'd be better off trying to convince the public that this is how science works, which is much harder than just going to them with facts. I mean, that takes a lot of work and doing a better job of telling each other that it's okay when we have to change the record because the biggest thing that erodes trust in science is not the fact that we make mistakes, is that when it turns into a drama over whether we are going to correct the record or not, that's what all these, the Stanford case is probably the biggest in people's minds. But if you look at, we've had this behavioral economic stuff at Harvard, I have this superconductivity at Rochester, Dana Farber's having a big event right now. All of these things don't have to be this dramatic if we would do a better job of collaborating with each other on maintaining an accurate scientific record rather than letting ambition and greed and ego get in the way of all of it.Who Is A Scientist?Eric Topol (00:44:21):Well, you got some important threads in there. The one thing I just would also comment on is my favorite thing in Science is challenging dogma because there's so much dogma, and that's obviously part of what you were getting into and many other aspects as well. But that's the story of Science, that nothing stands. If it does, then you're not doing a good job of really interrogating and following up on whatever is accepted at any particular moment in time. But your writings, whether it's in Science and editorials or science forever, your Substack, which are always insightful but I think one of the most recent ones was about, who is a scientist? And I really love that one because I'll let you explain. There are some people who have a very narrow view and others who see it quite differently. And maybe you could summarize it.Holden Thorp (00:45:23):Well, I had the privilege to moderate a panel at the AAAS meeting that included Keith Yamamoto, who was our outgoing president, Willie May, who was our incoming president, Peggy Hamburg, who ran the FDA and many, many other things. Kaye Husbands Fealing who was a social scientist, and Michael Crow, who was the president of Arizona State. These are all extraordinary people. And I just asked him a simple question, so who was the scientist? Because I think one thing that I see in my work, and you probably see in the communication work and writing that you do, that not all of our colleagues who work in the laboratory think that the rest of this stuff is science.Holden Thorp (00:46:17):And the place that breaks my heart the most is when somebody says, one of our professional editors isn't qualified to reject their paper because they don't have their own lab. Alright, well you've interacted with a lot of our editors, they read more papers than either one of us. They know more about what's going on in these papers than anybody. They are absolute scholars in every sense of the word and if someone thinks they're not scientists, I don't know who a scientist is. And so, then you can extend that to science communicators. I mean, those are obviously the problems we've been talking about, the people we need the most great teachers. If someone's a great science teacher and they have a PhD and they worked in lab and they're teaching at a university, are they still a scientist even if they don't have a lab anymore?Holden Thorp (00:47:11):So in my opinion, an expansive definition of this is the best because we want all these people to be contributing. In fact, many of the problems we have aren't because we're not good in the laboratory. We seem to be able to do a good job generating that. It's more about all these other pieces that we're not nearly as good at. And part of what we need to do is value the people who are good at those things, so I pose this to the panel, and I hope people go on and watch the video. It is worth watching. Keith Yamamoto was in the group that said, it's only if you're doing and planning research that you're a scientist. He knew he was going to be outnumbered before we went out there. We talked about that. I said, Keith, you're my boss. If you don't want me to ask that question, I won't. But to his credit, he wanted to talk about this and then Michael Crow was probably the furthest on the other side who said, what makes humans different from other species is that we're all scientists. We all seek to explain things. So somewhere in the middle and the others were kind of scattered around the middle, although I would say closer to Michael than they were to Keith.Holden Thorp (00:48:33):But I think this is important for us to work out because we want everybody who contributes to the scientific enterprise to feel valued. And if they would feel more valued if we called them scientists, that suits me but it doesn't suit all of our academic colleagues apparently.Eric Topol (00:48:54):Well, I mean, I think just to weigh in a bit on that, I'm a big proponent of citizen scientists, and we've seen how it has transformed projects like folded for structural biology and so many things, All of Us program that's ongoing right now to try to get a million participants, at least half of whom are underrepresented to be citizen scientists learning about themselves through their genome and other layers of data. And that I think may help us to fight the misinformation, disinformation, the people that do their own research with a purpose that can be sometimes nefarious. The last type of topic I wanted to get to with you was the University of Florida and the state of Florida and the Surgeon General there. And again, we are kind of circling back to a few things that we've discussed today about higher education institutions as well as politics and I wonder if we get some comments about that scenario.What's Happening in Florida?Holden Thorp (00:49:59):Yeah. Well, I'm coming to you from Orlando, Florida where I have a home that I've had ever since I moved to a cold climate, and I spent the whole pandemic down here. I observed a lot of things going on in the state of Florida firsthand. And I think in a way it's two different worlds because Florida does make a massive investment in higher education more than many other states and that has really not changed that much under Governor DeSantis despite his performative views that seem to be to the contrary. And so, I think it's important to acknowledge that Florida State and Florida and UCF and USF, these are excellent places and many of them have thrived in terms of their budgets even in this weird climate, but the political performance is very much in the other direction. This is where the Stop WOKE Act happened. This is where, again, I live in Orlando. This is a company town that Ron DeSantis decided to take on the Walt Disney Corporation is the second biggest city in Orlando, and it's a company town, and he took on the employer.Holden Thorp (00:51:32):It doesn't make a whole lot of political sense, but I think it was all part of his national political ambitions. And down at the base of this was this all strange anti-vax stuff. Now I got my first vaccines down here. I went to public places that were organized by the Army Corps of Engineers that were at public properties. It was at a community college here in Orlando, was extremely well organized. I had no problem. I was there 10 minutes, got my vaccines. It was extremely well organized but at the same time, the guys on TV saying the vaccine's not any good. And he hires this person, Joseph Ladapo, to be his Surgeon General, who I think we would both say is an anti-vaxxer. I mean he just recently said that you didn't need to get a measles vaccine and then in the last couple of days said, if you're unvaccinated and you have measles, you don't have to quarantine for 21 days. Now really would be disastrous if measles came back. You know a lot more about that than I do but I'm a generation that had a measles vaccine and never worried about measles.Holden Thorp (00:52:59):So the part of it that I worry about the most is that this person, the Surgeon General, also has a faculty appointment at the University of Florida. And you can see how he got it because his academic resume has been circulated as a result of all of Florida's public records laws and he has a very strong, credible resume that would probably cause him to get tenure at a lot of places. The medical faculty at Florida have tried to assert themselves and say, we really need to distance ourselves from him, but the administration at the University of Florida has not really engaged them. Now, I did ask them last week about the measles thing. I was going to write about it again, and I wrote to them and I said, if you guys aren't going to say anything about what he is saying about the measles, then I'm going to have another editorial.Holden Thorp (00:54:05):And they sent me a statement, which I posted that you probably saw that they still didn't condemn him personally, but they did say that measles vaccination was very important, and it was a fairly direct statement. I don't know if that will portend more stronger words from the University of Florida. Maybe now that their president is somebody who's close to the governor, they'll feel a little more comfortable saying things like that. But I think the bigger issue for all of us is when we have academic colleagues who say things that we know are scientifically invalid, and this always gets to the whole free speech thing, but in my opinion, free speech, it is within free speech to say, yes, all these things about vaccines are true, but I still don't think people should be compelled to get vaccinated. That's an opinion. That's fine. But what's not an opinion is to say that vaccines are unsafe if they've been tested over and over again and proven to be effective.Academic FreedomHolden Thorp (00:55:24):That's not an opinion. And I personally don't think that that deserves certainly to be weighted equally with the totality of medical evidence. I think that it's within bounds for academic colleagues and even institutions to call out their colleagues who are not expressing an opinion, but are challenging scientific facts without doing experiments and submitting papers and having lots of people look at it and doing all the stuff that we require in order to change scientific consensus. And this happens in climate change in a very parallel way. I mean, it's an opinion to say the climate is changing, humans are causing it, but I still don't think we should have government regulations about carbon. I think we should wait for the private sector to solve it, or I don't think it's going to have as bad of an effect as people say. Those are policy debates that you can have.Holden Thorp (00:56:28):But alleging that climate scientists are falsifying their projection somehow when they're not is in my opinion, not covered by free speech. And I think the best evidence we had of this is this recent verdict with Michael Mann, where it was the people who were criticizing him were found to be defamatory when they said that he committed research fraud. They could say he's exaggerating the threat. They could say they could dislike his style. He does have a very bombastic style. They can say all kinds of things about their opinions about him personally but if you accuse him of committing research fraud, and the paper that was in question was one of the most highly litigated papers of all time. It's been investigated more times than you can count. That's not something that's protected by free speech because it's defamatory to say that, and the jury found that. I think we have a lot of work to do to get within our own world, our colleagues, to get their arms around these two forms of debate.Eric Topol (00:57:51):Right. Well, I think this is, again, another really important point you're making during the pandemic parallel to the Michael Mann climate change case is that leading universities, as we recently reviewed in a podcast with Jonathan Howard, who wrote a book about this leading universities like Stanford, UCSF, Johns Hopkins and many others, didn't come out about the people that were doing things, saying things that were truly potential public harm. Not like you're saying, expressing an opinion with the truth, but rather negating evidence that was important to keep people protected from Covid. This is a problem which is thematic in our discussion I think Holden, is that universities have to get with it. They have to be able to help not put things on the credit card, be very transparent, direct quick respond, and not hide behind worried about social media or journalists or whatever else. This has been an incredible discussion, Holden, I got into even more than I thought we would.Eric Topol (00:59:15):You're a phenom to defend the whole science landscape that is challenging right now. I think you would agree for many reasons that we've discussed, and it affects education in a very dramatic, serious way. I want to thank you all that you're doing at Science with your team there to lead the charge and stand up for things and not being afraid to stimulate some controversies here and there. It's good for the field. And so, I hope I didn't miss anything and this exhaustive, this is the longest podcast I've done on Ground Truths, I want you to know that.Holden Thorp (00:59:59):Well, I'm flattered by that because you've had some great people on, that's for sure. And thank you for all you're doing, not just in science, but to spread the word about all these things and bring people together. It means a lot to all of us.Eric Topol (01:00:15):Oh, much appreciated. And we'll convene again soon to discuss so many dimensions of what we just have been reviewing and new ones to come. Thanks very much.Holden Thorp (01:00:25):Okay. Always good talking to you.*******************************************************Thanks for listening or reading this episode of GT.Please share if you found this podcast informative.Ground Truths is open-access. All content (newsletters and podcasts) is free.All proceeds from voluntary paid subscriptions support Scripps Research and have provided major funding for our summer internship program. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

March 10, 2024 Speaker: Thomas Kuhn

Chapter 1 What's What Is This Thing Called Science Book by Alan F. Chalmers"What Is This Thing Called Science?" is a book by Alan F. Chalmers that explores the nature and methods of science. The book examines how scientific knowledge is constructed, how it differs from other forms of knowledge, and the role of theories, models, and experimentation in the scientific process. Chalmers also discusses various philosophical issues related to science, such as the nature of scientific progress, the problem of induction, and the relationship between science and society. Overall, the book provides a comprehensive introduction to the philosophy of science and is often used as a textbook in courses on the subject.Chapter 2 Is What Is This Thing Called Science Book A Good BookYes, "What Is This Thing Called Science?" by Alan F. Chalmers is considered a highly influential and informative book on the philosophy of science. It provides a clear and accessible introduction to the key concepts and debates within the field of philosophy of science. Many readers find it to be a valuable resource for understanding the nature of scientific knowledge and the methods used in scientific inquiry. Overall, it is widely regarded as a good book for those interested in the philosophy of science.Chapter 3 What Is This Thing Called Science Book by Alan F. Chalmers Summary"What Is This Thing Called Science?" is a book written by Alan F. Chalmers that explores the nature of scientific knowledge and the methods scientists use to acquire it. Chalmers examines the different approaches to defining and understanding science, including the positivist, realist, and instrumentalist perspectives.The book also delves into the history and philosophy of science, discussing the significance of key figures such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Imre Lakatos. Chalmers explains the concept of scientific revolutions and how they shape our understanding of the world.Throughout the book, Chalmers emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and skepticism in scientific inquiry. He encourages readers to question the assumptions and beliefs underlying scientific theories, while also acknowledging the role of creativity and intuition in the scientific process.Overall, "What Is This Thing Called Science?" provides a comprehensive and accessible overview of the philosophy of science, offering insights into the nature of scientific knowledge and the quest for truth in the natural world. Chapter 4 What Is This Thing Called Science Book AuthorAlan F. Chalmers is an Australian philosopher of science and author of the book "What Is This Thing Called Science?". The book was originally published in 1976 and has since been widely used in academic courses on philosophy of science.In addition to "What Is This Thing Called Science?", Chalmers has also written "The Scientist's Atom and the Philosopher's Stone: How Science Succeeded and Philosophy Failed to Gain Knowledge of Atoms" and "The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History". Among his works, "What Is This Thing Called Science?" is the most renowned and widely acclaimed. It has gone through multiple editions and revisions over the years to incorporate new developments in the field of philosophy of science.Chapter 5 What Is This Thing Called Science Book Meaning & ThemeWhat Is This Thing Called Science Book MeaningThe book "What is This Thing Called Science?" by Alan F. Chalmers is a classic text that explores the nature of science and how it differs from...

Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of 9 books and over 100 scientific papers. A critic of what he sees as the scientific establishment's dogmatic dedication to materialism, he is perhaps best known for his theory of “morphic resonance,” via which information and activity can be transferred across space and time. Rupert joins the show to discuss being branded a heretic, how to test for telepathy, his advice for young scientists, and MUCH more! Important Links: Rupert's Website Rupert's Banned TED Talk The Science Delusion; by Rupert Sheldrake A New Science of Life; by Rupert Sheldrake Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals; by Rupert Sheldrake Is The Sun Conscious?; by Rupert Sheldrake (Journal of Consciousness Studies) Show Notes: The Apostate of Scientism The Origins of Scientism How to Achieve a Phase Change in the Sciences Testing for Telepathy & Incentivizing Intuition Structural Resistance to Panpsychism When Science Gets Personal Loosening the Grip of Determinism Advice for Young Scientists Rupert as Emperor of the World MORE! Books & Articles Mentioned: The Science Delusion; by Rupert Sheldrake New Science of Life; by Rupert Sheldrake Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home: And Other Unexplained Powers of Animals; by Rupert Sheldrake Is The Sun Conscious?; by Rupert Sheldrake The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science; by Robert Anton Wilson Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters; by Steven Pinker The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature; by Steven Pinker Entangled Life: How Fungi Make Our Worlds, Change Our Minds and Shape Our Futures; by Merlin Sheldrake The End of Faith; by Sam Harris The Fifth Science; by Exurb1a What the Tortoise Said to Achilles; by Lewis Carroll Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance; by Robert M. Pirsig The (Mis)Behaviour of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin and Reward; by Benoit B. Mandelbrot & Richard L. Hudson The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; by Thomas Kuhn

In this episode, Dr. Nathaniel J. Wilson discusses group efforts and leadership, societal changes, declining religions, Thomas Kuhn, and paradigm shifts.

On this episode, we begin with a bullet-pointed takedown of Neil Degrasse Tyson. Then we talk scientism as an unstable foundation to build knowledge. Philosophy of science. All sciences are not created equal. The price tag of academic credentials. Bergson's Principle of Proving a Negative. Shutting down interesting ideas. Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The God of Evidence. A band made of biofeedback. Human beings as stewards of reality. The miniaturization of knowledge. Hologram vs. jpeg. The bombardment of facts from a complete idiot. Science that isn't about proving anything. Religion as the outsourcing of validation. Kris invents a completely knew paradigm of education. This might be one of his best ideas of all time. The education of the hands. Realistic responses to AI. South Korea, El Paso, and Taos. Borders always exist, a quantum state that wants the friction of two countries. Constructing sentences out of emojis. Our dependency on language. It's impossible to run over a pigeon. Becoming monster hunters of dream.

The philosophy behind HR and our way of working predates most of the tools we use. While companies focus on sales and productivity, most neglect to measure one of the largest sources of value within the organization – the employee experience. Jessica Zwaan has made it her mission to teach executives and their companies how to transform the employee experience using product management principles, maximizing value for all stakeholders involved.Jessica Zwaan is the author of Built for People, the current Chief Operating Officer of Whereby, and a former COO advisor for clients like Soundcloud, Talentful, and Bolt, among others. In this episode, Dart and Jessica discuss:- The 3 things every company sells- Distinctions between people operations and human operations- Viewing work as a product and determining its value- Tracking the cost versus value of employees- The 3 aspects employees want out of their work- Value vs. volume when it comes to employees-  2 maxims of product management applicable to HR- And other topics…Jessica Zwaan is an author, speaker, and early-stage start-up executive. She is the current Chief Operating Officer of Whereby and a former COO advisor for clients like Soundcloud, Talentful, and Bolt, among others. Her latest book, Built for People, helps teach organizations and leadership how to transform the employee experience using product management principles.With a background in operations, people, and talent, Jessica's work has spanned across three continents. Jessica holds a First-Class Honours law degree from the University of Law in London. She is an international panelist and speaker and also hosts the podcast “There's This Thing at Work.”Resources mentioned:Built for People, by Jessica Zwaan: https://www.amazon.com/Built-People-Experience-Management-Principles/dp/1398608025The Book of the Courtier, by Baldesar Castiglione: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Courtier-Baldesar-Castiglione/dp/1519086954The Experience Economy, by Joseph Pine: https://www.amazon.com/Experience-Economy-New-Preface-Authors/dp/1633697975 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn: https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-50th-Anniversary/dp/0226458121 The Good Enough Job, by Simone Stolzoff: https://www.amazon.com/Good-Enough-Job-Reclaiming-Life/dp/059353896X Connect with Jessica:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessicamayzwaan/ www.jessicamayzwaan.com 

Tim Maudlin is Professor of Philosophy at NYU and Founder and Director of the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics. Tim is renowned as one of the leading philosophers of physics, and he also works in the philosophy of science and metaphysics. This is Tim's fourth appearance on the show. Tim was also a guest on episode 46 (laws of nature, space, and free will), episode 67 with David Albert (the foundations of quantum mechanics), and episode 115 with Craig Callender (the philosophy of time). In this episode, Robinson and Tim dig into some of the crucial developments in the philosophy of science that took place during the 20th century. Then they move on to John Bell and the John Bell Institute for the Foundations of Physics. If you're interested in the foundations of physics—which you absolutely should be—then please check out the JBI, which is devoted to providing a home for research and education in this important area. Any donations are immensely helpful at this early stage in the institute's life. Tim's Website: www.tim-maudlin.site The John Bell Institute: https://www.johnbellinstitute.org OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:41 Introduction 04:56 What's the Point of Philosophy of Science? 10:38 Carnap and Logical Positivism 26:30 Thomas Kuhn and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions 42:52 What is Scientific Realism? 01:02:44 Instrumentalism and Scientific Anti-Realism 01:06:08 Who Was John Bell? 01:20:15 Einstein, Quantum Mechanics, and Bell's Inequality 01:45:34 The John Bell Institute Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

Michael Strevens is Professor of Philosophy at New York University, where he works across the philosophy of science and the philosophical applications of cognitive science. In this episode, Robinson and Michael talk about his recent book, The Knowledge Machine, which explores how irrationality shaped the Scientific Revolution. Along the way, they discuss the great debate over the nature of the scientific method—including appearances from Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn—how explanations function in science, and what roles religion, aesthetics, and other factors distinct from concrete evidence should play in scientific thought. Michael's Website: http://www.strevens.org The Knowledge Machine: https://a.co/d/0hmHDCm OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:51 Introduction 03:42 The Knowledge Machine 14:23 What is the Scientific Method? 21:28 Kuhn and the Scientific Method 30:41 Sociology and the Scientific Method 32:40 Reasoning, Evidence, and Prejudice 47:30 The Iron Rule of Explanation 57:09 The Irrationality of Scientific Thought 01:03:57 Newton, Bacon, and the Scientific Revolution 01:12:13 An Attack on Science? Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

Bas van Fraassen is the McCosh Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University and a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University. In addition to being one of the most recognized philosophers of science working today—he received the Philosophy of Science Association's inaugural Hempel Award—he has also worked in epistemology and logic. In this episode, Bas and Robinson discuss a major shift in the philosophy of science in the second half of the twentieth century from the view of the logical positivists, who had a formal, mathematical approach, to philosophers who adopted the semantic approach, which more closely aligned with how working scientists viewed and experienced the field. Some other issues touched on include scientific realism, Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and interpretations of quantum mechanics. OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:51 Introduction 03:47 An Interest in the Philosophy of Science 06:44 Logical Positivism 19:56 What is Scientific Realism? 30:56 Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 39:13 The Semantic Approach  54:49 The Quantum Mechanics Interpretation Wars 01:08:12 Mathematical Models 01:12:31 Epistemology Robinson's Website: ⁠http://robinsonerhardt.com⁠ Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

This is Lara Varpio's 6th 'Methods Consult' for KeyLIME.  As a PHD trained scientist working in the field, it is of Lara's opinion that her job is to help others gain the skills and expertise needed to engage in Health Professions Education scholarship and research. Additional material about Thomas Kuhn, ontologies and epistemologies: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Internet]. Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information; 2019. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu Kuhn, TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 50th ed. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press; 2012 (Original work published in 1962). Okasha, S. Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press; 2016.

Today's ID The Future coincides with the release of a new online course from biologist Dr. Jonathan Wells on the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. On this blast from the past from 2006, Casey Luskin interviews Wells about evolution, intelligent design, scientific revolutions and historian of science Thomas Kuhn. Source

On today's ID the Future host Andrew McDiarmid brings listeners a couple of fascinating recent articles from Evolution News & Science Today by David Coppedge. The first is “Animals Tune Behavior by  Lunar Cycle; but How?” The second article is “Darwin, We Have a Problem: Horse Teeth Are Not Less Evolved.” In the first, some ingenious molecular engineering crops up in widely divergent creatures, giving them some impressive abilities to read lunar cycles. The evolutionists' go-to explanation is “convergent evolution,” an incantation that fails to explain how something like this could have evolved even once, much less multiple separate times. And in the second, a much-beloved story of ruminant tooth evolution gets a kick in the teeth from a series Read More › Source