DEMYSTICON 2025 ANNUAL MEETING IN PORTUGAL!!! June 12-16: demystifysci.com/demysticon-2025 Listen on the go at all podcast locations: anchor.fm/demystifysci Material solutions to quantum spookiness: www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics Short films @DemystifySciInvestigates: ruclips.net/channel/UCUfzVdgNu2xLThgM2qQZmSQ
24:00 WELL PUT SHILO! BRAVO! "Warping analogies" is a great way to put it! 26:30 Magic = Magnetic - net When we can't explain something, we get inventive with the whats, whys and hows.
I love that right after you’ve talked about the mythology of collapsing empires, Geoff gives the premise for Asimov’s Foundation series without skipping a beat.
This is by far the most exciting conversation I’ve listened to in ages. I think what’s crystallising in Geoff’s work is a genuine solution to fixing science. I’ve noticed in a couple of instances of my own research that going back and looking at the history of how ideas developed shows that the story we’re told is not complete or even accurate. Of course, this is how Kuhn started out and how he (ironically) revolutionised scientific thought about how science moves forward. However, whereas it might be easy to think that the inaccurate histories are the exception, I’m coming to think that they’re the rule. Now I reflect on it, this is what Kuhn suggested happens with science text books. Just as every scientist knows that the idealised experimental report of scientific paper is artificial and doesn’t accurately report what really happened, the history of discoveries seems to do the same. In both cases, there’s a sort of PR exercise going on that reinforces the public perception of an idealised scientific process and I think that the activity of science has got caught up in this lie. I’m pretty confident that Geoff’s project of accurately documenting and analysing key scientific discoveries will be able to unearth the anomalies that were buried and the half-formed ideas that were prematurely rejected. This could help us to identify where paradoxes began with uninspected assumptions or where theories were selected for spurious reasons.
I can't overstate how much I agree that hunting down anomalies and paradoxes must be the most efficient way to do science if Kuhn was right. Why can't we split the scientific endeavour into 'normal science' and paradigm seeking? This would allow the Old Guard to cultivate their reputations and give each other awards while freeing the bright, young minds from pressure to conform so that they can get on with advancing knowledge.
As I was listening to this I thought that what Geoff is describing, a study of the scientific process, ought to be called metascience. I was about to offer up this name as a gift when I discovered that it’s already a thing.
I absolutely agree that deepening specialisation in science is a problem. The most profound aspect is that those leading the different fields are convinced that their area is where the important solutions lie and these leaders are trying to convince governments and other funding sources which, due to lack of specialist knowledge, are incapable of weighing one field against another while also being terrified of missing out. So we end up betting on the biggest and best stories (my old Prof used to talk about “sexing up” the proposals) like ITER and the NIF, LHC, the ISS and the Human Genome Project, none of which has really delivered useful knowledge worth the billions spent, while other seemingly mundane or less tractable issues miss out.
Hit the like button for goodness sake. Great conversation on the survivability of institutions and what organizations can exist over time. What exactly makes it possible for them to live on to perform a function we call science. The longest time Rome existed as a good government was the 200 years when the emperors failed to produce a male and so adopted the best men they could find and marry their daughters of family kin to continue the family line of royalty.
Just a thought, …I wonder if Clarice Aiello’s work might get a boost (and possibly funding connections) from attempting to collaborate with Penrose and Hammerroff?
I think that Geoff is highlighting a hugely important and neglected part of the scientific venture. It is often said that if a scientist can’t explain an idea to a child then they don’t understand it. If that is true then I’d have to conclude that a majority of physicists in particular don’t understand what they are doing and have just learned to recite dogma.
I find it odd that this talk had nothing on Velikovsky and the need for interdisciplinariship. The problem with cosmology is that its use of charge does not agree with basic electrical engineering. Not to mention how one discipline can add new information on subjects that seemingly have nothing to do with each other. The holistic approach to science is fundamental.
a bit science fiction maybe ... but, what if the Moon is the extra mass that is required for expansion, only it was brought here some 300-500 million years ago by ETs to start a Zoo. They triggered the Zoo experiment and the expansion via the Moon. Directed Panspermia haha!
Quantum mechanics may describe phenomenon well-enough, but it’s a miserable failure as an explicatory mechanism. If it can’t be used to predict behaviors, it isn’t a good model.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
DEMYSTICON 2025 ANNUAL MEETING IN PORTUGAL!!! June 12-16:
demystifysci.com/demysticon-2025
Listen on the go at all podcast locations: anchor.fm/demystifysci
Material solutions to quantum spookiness: www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics
Short films @DemystifySciInvestigates: ruclips.net/channel/UCUfzVdgNu2xLThgM2qQZmSQ
24:00
WELL PUT SHILO! BRAVO!
"Warping analogies" is a great way to put it!
26:30
Magic = Magnetic - net
When we can't explain something, we get inventive with the whats, whys and hows.
I love that right after you’ve talked about the mythology of collapsing empires, Geoff gives the premise for Asimov’s Foundation series without skipping a beat.
This is by far the most exciting conversation I’ve listened to in ages. I think what’s crystallising in Geoff’s work is a genuine solution to fixing science. I’ve noticed in a couple of instances of my own research that going back and looking at the history of how ideas developed shows that the story we’re told is not complete or even accurate. Of course, this is how Kuhn started out and how he (ironically) revolutionised scientific thought about how science moves forward.
However, whereas it might be easy to think that the inaccurate histories are the exception, I’m coming to think that they’re the rule. Now I reflect on it, this is what Kuhn suggested happens with science text books. Just as every scientist knows that the idealised experimental report of scientific paper is artificial and doesn’t accurately report what really happened, the history of discoveries seems to do the same. In both cases, there’s a sort of PR exercise going on that reinforces the public perception of an idealised scientific process and I think that the activity of science has got caught up in this lie.
I’m pretty confident that Geoff’s project of accurately documenting and analysing key scientific discoveries will be able to unearth the anomalies that were buried and the half-formed ideas that were prematurely rejected. This could help us to identify where paradoxes began with uninspected assumptions or where theories were selected for spurious reasons.
I can't overstate how much I agree that hunting down anomalies and paradoxes must be the most efficient way to do science if Kuhn was right. Why can't we split the scientific endeavour into 'normal science' and paradigm seeking? This would allow the Old Guard to cultivate their reputations and give each other awards while freeing the bright, young minds from pressure to conform so that they can get on with advancing knowledge.
I'd definitely be interested in seeing that conversation about the psychology of belief structures.
I agree, let's Make Paradigm Shifts Possible Again (MPSPA)!
As I was listening to this I thought that what Geoff is describing, a study of the scientific process, ought to be called metascience. I was about to offer up this name as a gift when I discovered that it’s already a thing.
interesting idea
I absolutely agree that deepening specialisation in science is a problem. The most profound aspect is that those leading the different fields are convinced that their area is where the important solutions lie and these leaders are trying to convince governments and other funding sources which, due to lack of specialist knowledge, are incapable of weighing one field against another while also being terrified of missing out.
So we end up betting on the biggest and best stories (my old Prof used to talk about “sexing up” the proposals) like ITER and the NIF, LHC, the ISS and the Human Genome Project, none of which has really delivered useful knowledge worth the billions spent, while other seemingly mundane or less tractable issues miss out.
Hit the like button for goodness sake. Great conversation on the survivability of institutions and what organizations can exist over time. What exactly makes it possible for them to live on to perform a function we call science. The longest time Rome existed as a good government was the 200 years when the emperors failed to produce a male and so adopted the best men they could find and marry their daughters of family kin to continue the family line of royalty.
Free will is the ability to over-ride or ignore an impulse.
Just a thought, …I wonder if Clarice Aiello’s work might get a boost (and possibly funding connections) from attempting to collaborate with Penrose and Hammerroff?
That was great🎉
I think that Geoff is highlighting a hugely important and neglected part of the scientific venture. It is often said that if a scientist can’t explain an idea to a child then they don’t understand it. If that is true then I’d have to conclude that a majority of physicists in particular don’t understand what they are doing and have just learned to recite dogma.
I find it odd that this talk had nothing on Velikovsky and the need for interdisciplinariship. The problem with cosmology is that its use of charge does not agree with basic electrical engineering. Not to mention how one discipline can add new information on subjects that seemingly have nothing to do with each other. The holistic approach to science is fundamental.
#terrencehoward is the paradigm…IRT
#tlc #howardcomma #strongertogether💯
a bit science fiction maybe ... but, what if the Moon is the extra mass that is required for expansion, only it was brought here some 300-500 million years ago by ETs to start a Zoo. They triggered the Zoo experiment and the expansion via the Moon. Directed Panspermia haha!
#tlc…🫶
Quantum mechanics may describe phenomenon well-enough, but it’s a miserable failure as an explicatory mechanism. If it can’t be used to predict behaviors, it isn’t a good model.