We need a scientific revolution | Eric Weinstein full interview
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Eric Weinstein discusses what makes science great.
Do we need to rethink how we approach science?
Watch Eric debate string theory with Brian Green at iai.tv/video/t...
Join Eric Weinstein for an in-depth interview where he explains the need to go beyond good science to pursue great science. He also discusses the influence of religious thinking on physics, the destiny of the scientific enterprise and the pursuit of truth.
#ericweinstein #scientificmethod #philosophyofscience
Eric Weinstein is a mathematical physicist and the host of the podcast The Portal. He is the former Managing Director of Thiel Capital in San Francisco and was formerly a Co-Founder and Principal of the Natron Group in Manhattan as well as a Visiting Research Fellow at Oxford University for the Mathematical Institute.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscri...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-aca...
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1j0Xh9XM34M/mqdefault.jpg)
![Gravity and the universe | Sabine Hossenfelder, Erik Verlinde, Priyamvada Natarajan [FULL DEBATE]](/img/tr.png)
Do you agree with Eric that we need more great science rather than just good science? Let us know in the comments!
Watch Eric debate string theory with Brian Green at iai.tv/video/the-trouble-with-string-theory?RUclips&+comment&
Yes. Great Science doesn't play safe.
I think what Eric says in this regard doesn't have any more significance than what a random toddler says. He never contributed to any scientific field. So my guess is that his goals is that the bar for scientific research and rigour will be lowered significantly, so other people like him to be able claim they're relevant scientists. He guises that ofcourse so he says we're limiting ideas and talent and all that.
Not to say there's a lot that should be improved in the world of research and academia, but it coming from him has no meaning at all.
No, Eric might need a scientific revolution, but he can't speak for all of us. All I need is a proper cup of coffee in the morning, and im good !
@@inajosmood "coming from him has no meaning at all" so I can safely disregard your comment as an ad hominem fallacy.
@@shanesweeney3583 ah so stating an obvious independently verifiable fact, import to the topic at hand is an ad hominem. So now we call it ad hominem we can stop thinking about it. Good night!
Eric's points are brilliant. In the 1980's, I spent 12 years trying to find the first planet orbiting another star. The senior astrophysicists told me this quest was thoughtless folly, as planets are dark and have tiny masses compared to stars. They told me I was ruining my career, by embarrassing myself. Then, in 1995, we found the first "exoplanets" along with the Swiss team. People didn't believe us for 5 years, publishing papers saying we were wrong and fools. But, we proceeded to find hundreds of exoplanets, and motivated the NASA Kepler telescope that we helped to find Earth-size planets.
Bravo
@@geoffmarcy677 More of this!
What an extraordinary mind. I love the way he pulls on disparate ideas in making his arguments.
My proposal is we should focus on saving humanity; if that's still an option; before throwing the best minds at fixing science. Specifically, game theory. How do we detect and remove psychopaths from the prisoner's dilemma? They are breaking the game and very close destroying all of human civilization.
I found this to be unexpectedly and unfeasibly good. Eric is right about great science. The problem of course is that if great science often emerges (in part) from “fringe” practices and attitudes, and from a pool of much failed science, then how do you incentivise people and institutions to invest time and money into it? And the reality is that the future Feynmans and Einsteins are going to have to do much of their work outside the system and without much support, at least not much support for their wacky habits and ideas.
When Eric Weinstein said, to paraphrase, that there are "teaching disabilities," rather than learning disabilities, that was BRILLIANT. I'll never forget that.
intellectual masturbation at best
A clever turn of phrase. Also: wrong.
@@kreek22most experts are terrible teachers. Same with athletes being terrible coaches.
@@kreek22 He didn't say that learning disabilities don't exist.
It's empirically wrong. If one looks at the PISA results it's a clear pattern that the kids with low giftedness who are lowering the average. There's so much information today that it's the human ability to discern and process that's the bottleneck.
Mendel may have fudged his peapod data but peas prevailed... all we are saying, is give peas a chance ❤
"We've diminished scientists so far below administrators, that we have to seek their permission." Great phrase. My hope is as the cost of conducting interesting science decreases, we can rely less on external funding and the bureaucrats that coordinate that money.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of society is too stupid to care about how science conducts itself. Our education is failing and has failed generations. That being said, science resides in the hands of the old guard gate keepers as well as the younger scientists who are part of that failed education system. It's only going to get worse for science from here. Let's not even talk about how the older generations have taught the younger generations a bastardized woke version of science which is actually non science. The future is bleak.
We could but physicists actually do the most expensive experimental science
Because there are way to many "scientists."
@@cybyrd9615But at the same time, it has the greatest impact to our life.
@@mikolajr4700 no it doesn’t material science does
Thank you for not putting some of this conversation behind a paywall. I would understand IAI doing so if it was over 20 minutes.
Do we ? And who controls that science? Who controls what is believed and what is disbelieved? So often decent science is dismissed due to jealousy or other scientists protecting their ground. So often crappy science is promoted, especially in the medical drugs field, because it and the scientists are bought and paid for. Is economics considered a science because the vast majority of academic economists were bought and paid for by the market.
"ya, ya, ya, ya, ya, ya....interesting". Has no idea what Brett's talking about. Neither do I
Science depends more heavily on character than on intelligence. That was Einstein’s observation. Intelligent liars can do the most harm. Those with a modest intellect but who can summon an uncompromising strength of character are the most successful inventors, entrepreneurs, and managers of the work force.
Being a liar is not science, so why are you even considering liars as scientists? If you are a liar, you are not a scientist, no need to compare intelligence or character. Define scientists as a truthful person.
@@CrucialFlowResearch I don’t consider liars as true scientists but many people are famous scientists in the eyes of the public and who are not severely truthful as a true scientist should be. It’s not me but the public who are deceived by these fakers.
@@CrucialFlowResearch You still need a word for professional scientist. There are professional scientists who are liars.
Had a friend who was tired of being a dumb jock, champion athlete though he was, so he applied his sports discipline to self education. Met him in my major, where he forged ahead to be a scholar to be reckoned with, often the backbone of intellectual discussions with others. He just finished his thesis 😊
@@CrucialFlowResearch And many scientists are liars. Doesn't matter what is science. That there are morally corrupt scientists is what matters.
“The human need for metaphysics should cloud your reasoning as little as possible and as much as necessary.”
Metaphysics is the basis of science. Science is the study of the causal universe.
Kinda bizarre for the interviewer to say the way Feynman conducted science what “not very popular at the time; not seen as good science.” He was offered professorship to Cornell in his 20s, the people in the academic establishment were very impressed by him, as far as I know, he was one of the most famous physicists of his time, he won the Nobel prize in his 40s lol… the interviewer tried to make it seem like he was some unrecognized recluse in his own time, which was not the case at all.
This is probably a similar misconception that Einstein was bad at math and that he failed highschool or something.
"Discovering competency then shielding those treasured people from the rigors of daily life" : Tell that to the accountants who run institutions.
I gather Mr Weinstein would like to see himself included among those sheltered and treasured few, though I have heard him at his charming humblest admit a possibility that he may not qualify, yet in that case he would still consider himself a supremely qualified discoverer--and judge--of competency. The problem is that such judgement is highly subjective. Will there be a committee? And who will qualify for that? Science proposes, nature disposes.
It might be worth noting that human culture has overrun biological evolution, thanks to hastily applied science--other than for a few troublesome microbes and such that really know how to multiply. Science, done by brilliant scientists, recently handled that evolution problem badly (and still does), not for lack of funding, but because the accountants weren't doing their job. And maybe a bit because the elite of the scientists were out of touch with the rigors of ordinary daily life.
What does the first comment here say?
Science used to be the realm of the wealthy and their patrons...
.
It is worth noting that many talented and brilliant people struggle so vehemently with activities that are perceived as normal or routine. The money wasted on unnecessary investments could be allocated to funding the advancement of science. The argument regarding the aforementioned accountant then becomes “from what less important investments can I redirect funds?”
It’s not like it all comes down to money. Sometimes a hint of madness mixed with genius can offer fresh perspectives. There is often more than one way to achieve various results. Problem solving is key.
This is the best interview I've heard from Eric Weinstein. He needs to repeat this message all over the place. Take this issue and run with it, Eric!!
I'm surprised you don't think he has! This is basically 40 episodes of the portal condensed into 20 minutes haha. He has been banging this drum for a while. Though he does a great job using different analogies to keep it fresh.
@@drewmueller4609 Admittedly, I've only seen a few of his appearances in the last few years. He seemed scarce for a while more recently, but it could be that I just missed his interviews.
I recently watched Mel Acheson's dissertation on charge separation on YT and I was amazed at how detailed and logical the entire lecture was. I hope more people see it and scratch their heads just a little, and yes, science needs to be shaken to its roots.
Thunderbolts seemed to be a bit of a mixed bag, but so much of it is compelling. People hold many of these older models on too high of a pedestal.
Thanks for Sharing!!! I'm getting my mind boosted on intellectual drugs
Has Eric ever published original research in a peer reviewed journal?
No.
Who cares? I recently had a friend discount the nutritional counsel given to me by a doctor citing the doctor wasn't a published nutrition researcher.
@@moshet842if you think physics is like medicine or nutritional science you have no business commenting.
His dissertation was cited in a paper that was peer reviewed. He left Harvard University in disgust after his work was stolen, and has had a career in finance whilst working on _Geometric Unity_ in his spare time. There is a draft paper for that but it is a work in progress, so don't assume that because it is typeset using LaTeX like papers which have been through a process of academic peer review that it is of comparable quality. He is quite honest about it not being finished. It is version 1.0 and he will probably have a new, still unfinished, version out in 2025 as he has said he plans to bring his podcast _The Portal_ back, and my guess is that he would feel better doing so after a constitutional election has calmed tempers as there hasn't been one since 2016 in the United States. Fact is, Joe isn't President. No one is.
You mean having the same quality as with all that covid "research" ?
2:18 feynman was a fine man, charming, funny and warm…. Like Mr. Rodgers if he had a couple of cocktails 😂
You could make the same argument for most of what's considered art these days also, especially music. Even in the outskirts of the art form, musicians have become ultra safe resulting in a whole lot of bland regurgitation of tried and tested methods, whilst not having the balls to take things to the next level like we saw in the first 3/4 of the 20th century, and previous, for fear of being frowned upon.
Amen
What Weinstein is really saying here is "WHY IS NOBODY LISTENING TO ME??????". ;-)
You’re probably right, but he still has a point.
@@Dhruvbala No, he doesn't. In science you have to put up or shut up. He can't put up. ;-)
What we need In Science Is TURNOVER! Listening to the generation that hoarded resources and won’t retire opine about progress is stale and telling. ✌🏼😊
Churn is great. That way no one knows what's trusted or not.
@@JeffCaplan313 not sure if you are expressing something positive or negative…all I would say is you don’t trust or believe in Science; rather you constantly question it with new ideas. New ideas come from new humans. Happy holidays friend. ✌🏼😊
The "generation" thing sounds petty.
.
@@jgcelliott1 so does hoarding resources and knowledge…”generation” was a metaphor for the “elder” state of our situation. It is stagnant! Imo.
Have a great day and thanks for the input✌🏼😊
@@brandonb5075... I don't disagree with you, but I would argue that far, far too much is being made of "generational issues".
.
...says a hedge fund director and podcast host, whose thinking is influential in media but not in science. Ok.
"Science cares about you" is an expression akin to that of a worshiper of deities envisioned in anthropomorphic terms...or at best, a rather poetic lyricist. Strange phrasing indeed...
"I'm an atheist who prays." - Eric Weinstein
I don't know how many people think like Eric, but I, truly, consider him a soulmate/brother from another mother.
One more brother from still another mother here. 🙋🏻♂️
@@aychinger
🤝
I'm an Athesit intoxicated on god!
I can’t get enough of Eric. After 2 hours of him bouncing around all over, my wife asked me, what did he say? Me: 🤷🏻♂️ 🤔 and I grabbed my dog and went for a walk.. 😅
...that is the innate beauty of the elite Weinstein Nonsense phase transition.
Use linguistic tricks to say nothing but claim everything.
Sheer genius salesman magician.
lol yeah it kinda feels like he never really says anything
You need revolution to keep you relevant and your repeated attempts to interweave science and philosophy are hilarious. You want to be given Carte Blanche to make nonsensical predictions and claims in the hope they come true and you are heralded as a genius. This faux figure of authority over science and scientists is cringeworthy. How long before you begin to reveal the things you *really* want to say I wonder?
Eric certainly talks a good fight - sadly, the world is still waiting for him to...actually do anything...apart from talk.
Exactly, blabla, but never contributed a single dime to any relevant field. But he, he talks like he knows all, so we should trust him!
What I've always felt like Eric was saying that there is just far too many amazing minds that are just being led the wrong career paths and ways of thinking. They are put into a box when they should be taking risk on stuff than string theory.
Isn't it important to educate people also and change minds?
which eric will not be contributing to in the slightest manner.
still waiting for that paper on geometric unity.
guess we will be waiting a long time.
he is an attention grifter.
What does that mean?! Atheist that prays?! What? What are you praying to?! Do you set time aside and pray to, what, nothing? Or is it that sometimes you feel like praying and you do even though you’re praying to nothing? I guess I don’t get it. I am new to this though, atheism.
He said schools have teaching disabilities that was pure genius.
His brother is a teacher who taught children to ignore authority and when the students cancelled him, he acted surprised and called it a complete mystery.
@@CoolChannelNameO have a feeling there's more to the story.
for all his merits this guy do not understand the nature of scientific breakthroughs
Try to look at his belly and you will find out he ks really full of himself…
Eric Weinstein is a figure who should be modeled and duplicated.
Dude is not only extremely intelligent and self aware, he has imaginative properties & abilities which continue to astound me.
*_TRUST! !_*
Yet he still cannot tell you geometrical unification is by 7 planes of light, by r > c, r = c, r < c as per H Bar to a note, music he still can not sing.
@@channelwarhorse3367 Lol, so I guess Eric is unfit for duplication & aerosal dispersal?
*_TRUST !!_*
@timsexton Well, the pursuit of geometrical unification, he can only continue to step 🚶♂️ into shoes 👞 to fill.
Heroic BATTLES, to strike the heart of reality. With love, combustion of water, as UFOs 🛸 use 7 planes of light ✨️ will he step INTO WAR, for his manners & memes, Tim, Sexton he can punch 👊 or take HITS. Taking both, seems your a 🕺 beyond Eric Weinstein, honestly a Champion 🏆 🥇
An atheist who prays.
I may not get a lot of what Eric says.
But I get that.
Nice :)
To the factors revealed in this conversation, I would like to add three for your consideration.
1.
Reviewing those who gave us the big jumps, … many seem to have been outsiders, not groomed in the guild's version of Right Thinking.
2.
The progress made by those who, even without the experiential learning required to understand Eastern metaphysics, nonetheless found sufficient inspiration from the old Eastern crib notes to make serious progress. Exposure to alternatives to one's (trained, borrowed, assumed) paradigm can be very fruitful.
3.
The (largely unknown, hence largely untrained) mental capacity for overview. The nearest academia gets to this is multi-disciplinary stuff - just people that are weak in two or three linearities. Even polymaths, having expertise in up to a dozen linear studies, is typically not great at Overview, aka Feminine mind. Note Noether, Curie, and the many other women who made great contributions.
So, sure, it would be nice if academia better accommodated the kinds of minds which can make the big jumps, but to my (admittedly male, but heavily exercised and trained) overview it looks like a few more decades of mostly "good" science can be expected.
And that might be a good thing ;)
Based on what you wrote, may I put here...
Polanyi explained it. You don't calculate or figure to create underived new knowledge. You fall in love with the question. Science must be completely personal. It is not only the scientist that must be fearless, but also the person that recognizes their work must lose their fears and inhibitions to be able to see something 100% unfamiliar and uncomfortable.
Then look for someone doing unacceptable science, so unacceptable that they are not involved in science. They will be completely on their own.
You want a Hail Mary? Find someone who cannot be stopped, cannot be restricted.
Look for the person driven to solve the problem. What problem. What questions need to be answered? Energy? Sure, but what about the basic question of human survival. Hey, a topic science doesn't talk much about. It is interested in it, but does anyone get traction. Look for something like that, maybe a systematic study of how humans can adapt genetically and strategically for long term survival. It might reveal the unexpected and be very useful. The person would have to understand science, history, law, religion, which science won't look at, and even philosophy that science is only realizing it needs to look at.
... RUclips blocks the title, but if you want to see some new science, unscramble and look for EneticsG orF A EnW UmanH cologyE
My apologies, but RUclips does block that title if unscrambled.
Eric Weinstein is so overrated. Science, specifically physics, has been living in a dark age for the past 30 years. What he's saying is nothing new.
Nothing new but important to keep pointing out
"A scientific revolution in which we tell the administrators to get the hell out of our labs."
I would go so far as to say a social revolution in which we tell the government administrators to get the hell out of our lives."
There was a time when Scientists, Historians, Political Scientists, and Soldiers all got together to do just that; and with barely the shirts on their back!
The problem is that almost no modern "science" follows the methodology of real science.
That is a technocrat, through and through
Maybe ...
But what he is saying is that the self and material involvement with the social, rely on our ability to be in language agreement... Which is what the scientific method should be used for. It's the move to individual spiritually derived language that is fracturing society into tribal pieces. The dangerous part that he points out ... But also the modern view of the larger scientific institution as some kind of sterile, humanless, anti religion device, only inhabited by monetarily privileged people, not those of actual intellectual merit, that causes academia to lose sight of it's full potential... Sort of the post modern version of elitism in academia. You can't have society without materialism and technology, causing the necessity to share ideas in the first place. They are not mutually exclusive ideas. In fact they must exist together.
Eric's contradicting himself in almost every other video I've seen from him.
Eric is seemingly more concerned with sounding smart and edgy than being right-geometrical unity case in point. To be clear, he is smart and edgy. But he’s contributed nothing that is substantial in mathematics or physics, that is, apart from lending his loquacious talents to the internet-no small thing by itself.
This guy is the king of yapping
I actually like this way of interviewing somehow, you only see the guy who's being interviewed, you see how the person reacts and how he's conducting himself thinking and answering the question at hand.
I like Eric, he has so many thought provoking things. Thanks for this interview.
An "atheist who prays" ? 🤔
Eric - "Feynman wasn't really great. He didn't know what he had created, someone else did it for him"
Host - "yeah. Yeah. Yeayeayea".
20 years AI will be able to solve all our questions, but it's looking more and more like the answer is 42.
Asking him what is good/great science must be ironic. He talks a lot about the latter without doing either.
Yes, Eric has a unique way of communicating. Yes, he likes to be dramatic. Is his dramatic form of communication warranted?
That's a subjective decision.
Eric has many interesting things to say. Instead of asking yourself whether you like his form of communication, maybe look at his points. Are they accurate or not? Is there a crisis in physics? Is there a crisis in science? How dramatic are they? Those are the important questions, not if you like someones style of communication.
Btw: If there is a big crisis, being dramatic and revolutionary in your thinking and speech might be excatly the right course to take.
Dramatic?
Because he made very parallel analogies to the FACTS of what's happening in the 21st century?
@@MR-backup Did i ever say that he is wrong about what he is saying? No. So your comment is completely pointless. Maybe read my comment until you actually understand it (If thats possible) and then comment on it afterwards...
@@youlig1 Did i ever say that he is wrong about what he is saying? No.
- I never said you did.
So your comment is completely pointless.
- If only you had eyes to see what your reply is.
Maybe read my comment until you actually understand it (If thats possible) and then comment on it afterwards...
- I understood the first time; clearly you should be taking your advice, first.
Science does not care.....
Science is a method .
Not an ethic.
I had to stop the video after he said Science cares about you
Well scientific revolution comes from sober theories like Oppenheim's one, not from theories like Geometric Unity or String theory
Eric Weinstein, brilliant as always.
This interview needs to last AT LEAST another 2-3h...
Thanks, though 😊
Eric has his own podcast named the portal!
We need a little Christmas (or Xmas, or Chanukah . . . your choice) right this very minute. Don't hold me back. I'm working on my holiday fruit cake. Testing the toncisticity of the whiskey. It must be of the highest scientific quality.
Merry Mythmas
We must never forget when they coerced the children for use as shields to temporarily and marginally "protect" adults,
We need an education revolution, taking classes and using semesters as a metric of management, really? 😂😂😂
Having looked at this content creators RUclips channel, I was disheartened that this discussion between multiple people has been cut down to just this 15-minute clip, how sad. The channel does not include a full video, and the other videos in the same time frame appear to be different videos about other subjects.! Science and the discussion of science should not be hidden, this is beyond sad, this is a disgrace.!
One must also content with the destructive human attribute of envy entering scientific rivalry between good science and great science, and between those who are good and those who are potentially great.
Interviewing Weinstein on “science” is like interviewing Ted Bundy for a cooking channel. Idk what dumdum thought this was a good idea.
Perfectly put. This video would a masterpiece if it were satire, alas...
@Yeahiknow Ted Bundy had no proficiency in cooking. He was on his way to a law degree. You could say maybe that he himself was "cooked" in the end, but that's as close an analogy to cooking as I can think of.
Eric Weinstein (who I normally find insufferable) has a degree (a PhD mind you) in mathematical physics. He is a very smart guy whether you like him or not, and has a strong grasp of a science.
Forgive Eric for he knows not what he utters
Eric "Eyeroll" Weinstein.
Imagination, Courage and Fortitude are the pillars of breakthroughs ... too bad academia fails to reward these
Too many people, especially scientists, undervalue imagination.
What about dark energy? Heard that was a boring measurement. Just dotting the 👁️ and crossing the 🫖 . Turned into a huge wtf
they think 1 / 0 = 0
Audio editing couldd help here a lot. Interviewer constantly making confirming sounds, utterances while listening (which probably in person is good for engagement with the interviewee) is very VERY distracting to viewer.
I bet Tim Dillon still lives rent free in his head😂
everyone has a tenant or 2 evading eviction
family of theorists
As he lives in yours rent-free.
@@Paine137I've just moved in your head and gonna be living rent free😂
@@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLLyep, mine is @paine137's mother😂
Eric = UAP !
"Ya. Ya. (next point)" ... "Right. Right. (next point)" ...
The interviewer's habit, even if unintended, comes across as rude. And it is annoyingly distracting.
Our sun gives life and it will eventually take it, this is one of the many reasons why Physicist need to put there petty pride aside and collaborate on new physics that will give us a life raft to a new solar system to save our civilization if not, it's a plain fact that mankind will go extinct. Theoretical physicists need to get to the blackboard, be willing to except failure and not give up because failure is a part of learning and that's how mankind will progress in our understanding of the universe.... We see all these UAP?UfOS around the world. If it is alien life then we need to learn what they know about the laws of the universe. With the way our world is going mankind don't have much time!
What would be awesome is if Eric went on carnivore and got jacked in 2024.
Can't like this interview enough!
Eric Weinstein is what us Aussies describe as a "Cluey-Clot". This does not mean he a clot amoung the clueless but a parady reflecting its opposite. Therefore, Cluey-Clot is the highest complement of being "brainy" us Aussies can bestow upon someone.
I’m Australian too: among; parody; compliment. Sorry, it’s Xmas.
As much as I like to hear Eric's point of view about science, the fact that he is downplaying Feynman in this interview made me feel very uncomfortable...
Then don’t watch the GellMann interviews
I couldnt agree more with Mr. Weinstein on this. He is such a necessary menace, thank you Eric. And your special presentation on geometric unity is EVERYTHING!
I don't understand the last part, did he consider other traditions?
Personally I find Judaism & Islam pales in comparison to Christianity's gothic cathedrals, the rustic qualities of fairytales and mythology. It also has a lot of bad connotations, terrorism, societies falling apart.
Coming from an individual who releases a paper hoping to unify quantum and classical physics, but first places in the preface, “for entertainment purposes,” and then gets angry and irate when other well trained physicists question his paper.
Eric is a conspiratorial grift at best.
About another scientific revolution: hold your horses. Newton published his "Principia" in 1687; Einstein published "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" in 1905. That's 218 years that Newton's paradigm ruled. It's been 119 years from Einstein's relativity to now, and less for quantum mechanics. 218 years from 1905 will be 2123; 99 years from now.
I say it's too soon. Yes, there are contradictions in the present paradigm. There were contradictions in classical mechanics for all of its 218 years. The cognitive dissonance needs time to ripen; and you need experimental results to drive the next paradigm. Give it time.
Revolution for its own sake will only get you knotted-aether-vortex theory or string theory.
Cheers for the British point. The British have a tolerance for eccentricity that is rare. In the 19th century the British discovered, and the Germans perfected. (Except for organic chemistry, philology, and some areas of math where Germans achieved a string of extraordinary breakthroughs. Imagine working out organic chemistry with no concept of shells or QM, just glassware!)
His point about making science "interesting" brings up my disgust with Bill Nye the Science Guy in his hey-day. His show was all "gee-whiz, whiz-bang" with no sense of how much dedication and hard thinking is involved.
1600 scientists have declared NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY! The Epoch Times says.
One thing I think is being missed is that Eric thinks the brightest minds don't know these things he's espousing. He comes off as blind by his own arrogance, quite frankly. Modern String Theory, however crazy it sounds, is being led by physicists and mathematicians that are far more intelligent than he is and they don't disagree with him. They wish they'd have a product shipped by now but unfortunately foundational physics is a clogged pipe with building pressure. It will eventually burst and the discoveries will once again flow. String Theory is indeed extremely promising and beautiful, but it is going to take time, because Eric stated - the last discoveries from the 20th century have catapulted us that far ahead and we're still boggled by it. That doesn't mean the mind-boggling ideas of String Theory are wrong - in fact, all the most brilliant minds are suggesting it may actually become a real theory instead of a framework quite soon with some of the newest breakthroughs in fusion/quantum computing. We're talking about going from steam engines a century ago to peering beyond the event horizon of a black hole, and peering seeming "past" time beyond the moment of the Big Bang. We're moving quickly when you step back and put things into perspective. However, I agree with you, we must remain vigilant and not make any single theory the only theory. All avenues must be explored, and environments created to explore those avenues.
Bingo - Politics, bureaucracy/administration, leftist intervention essentially = the problems of science.
This Weinstein guy (failed academic) judging the great Feynman is like the blue haired PHds judging Professor Petersen 😅
I'm an Atheist who follows the Kama Sutra; the Holey Book that opens in the Middle and begins at the End 😋😍💋🎉🐒🐏🤯
i guess we should all enroll in Prager University. Let’s fund Rogan University. graduate in UFO Studies.
The change we seek is at home… every family should work on passing on values and ignore trends
It’s distasteful watching citizens absorbed by the ads and AI nonsense coming from their silly phones
we need a better education system in all fields . not only science . we need to have better world political scenerio than the present usa plus eu bullying everyone else . we need a total revamp of our money printing practises to hell to halt . we need to be free from religion and be replace with spiritual enlighenment practises . We NeedTo Be Free From Materialistic World .
IF the academia was under the control of cash, then it's done...
it shall be built upon something far more formidable to be breached by human vice !!!
I spent the day getting up to speed with what you and guys like Wolfram do. It seems that you spend a lot of time trying to figure out the mathematical equations to explain the shapes of things that you see when you look at the night sky through a telescope. Seems to me that you'd better serve humanity if you could figure out how to simulate how plants create energy from light and sugar, or how some animals are able to regenerate limbs etc....Seems like a lot of you "intellectually gifted" folks have very fragile egos that need to be showered constantly with acceptance and acknowledgment.
And how should we tell good science from bad science like the plandemic, human caused "climate change"? Not everyone can have the time for real objective research.
I don't know how to tell you that my brain is visualizing what you're saying and I understand it conceptually but do not have the education to speak your language.
😊His confession as an atheist who prays: “ you Can’t Speak no Language, and similarly you can’t escape the human need for metaphysics. But the idea should be that you have that need cloud your reason as little as possible and as much as as necessary.”
The interviewer inserting these 'mmm' s after nearly every sentence Eric utters was truly distracting and made the video nearly unwatchable.
There is no real science without spirituality
Ok.
Is not asking about the distribution of steel down the Twin Towers for Two Decades, Good Science?
So tell me, Dr. Weinstein: what _is_ Geometric Unity? Please explain in layman's terms.
There are no 'rules' for teaching 'great science' because there are no rules for teaching creativity. Either you have a creative mind, or you don't.
It's so easy to be a useless administrator and so hard to be a great scientist that it's no wonder the administration business is booming.
PS It would have been much better for everyone if the administrators went to community college or trade school instead.
This man has my respect
All of erics fans are delusional, this man is a grifter. What had he invented or even written about?
A scientific revolution, . . and maybe a new hairpiece more befitting of you?
I learn alot about science but still it wasn't enough to provide me the answer to the question what I truly want.
What question is that?
@@alexgonzo5508 why you speak? Why not to fallow the law of nature?
How? Why ? What? ? When?
The big question 😄
Now you can learn something else; it's 'a lot' not 'alot.'
@@johnwarring2337 yah by playing words the next numbers.
@@johnwarring2337 oh I forgot I'm just lonely with my thoughts, don't mind me😂
Believing in you’re own self worth..
A Weinsteinian trait through the roof
Be brave Eric and say if trump is the next president then fkn disaster ensues
But he has his audience
It'll never happen. Too much science requires major corporate backing.
No, what we need is science - remember that? Before it was owned by the political classes for political ends.