We need a scientific revolution | Eric Weinstein full interview
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 12. 2023
- 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/the-trouble-with...
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/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
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?CZcams&+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!
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.
"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
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.
Thank you for not putting some of this conversation behind a paywall. I would understand IAI doing so if it was over 20 minutes.
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
@9:20 and @10:00 Thank you for this!
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.
... CZcams 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 CZcams does block that title if unscrambled.
"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.
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" ? 🤔
I relate to the idea of learning in different ways
What an incredible conversation. So much was said in such a short period of time. I can’t say how happy I am for that last bit on faith, I truly believe that’s why we don’t see great science anymore. Too many good scientists have spent an incredible amount of energy mocking great scientists.
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.
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".
.
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.
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
Happy Xmas Eve to IAI and Eric
Super science sensemaking indeed.
Truly grateful for all you do.
💜
Merry Christmas.
An excellent interview, not just about science. As someone who has taught students with dyslexia and sponsored training programs for teachers, I have experienced first hand how the sheer numbers in schools make teachers defensive and shift the burden on students. Professor Weinstein is wrong though to dismiss learning disability as a problem. Schools can only deal with the ‘normal’ and find ways to exclude others, forcing the creation of separate institutions for certain groups of students. Doubt there’s a simple solution. His distinction between good and great science is in a sense present in Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions but remains valid more so today
I was very moved by.
I relate to it deeply.
Science of rationality as reached its peak and debate no longer happens.
Mendel may have fudged his peapod data but peas prevailed... all we are saying, is give peas a chance ❤
its very nice to see someone speak on these topics consistently
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.
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.
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.
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 🏆 🥇
What a brilliant clear minded man !
Thanks for that episode!
"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!
“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.
Eric Weinstein, brilliant as always.
Can't like this interview enough!
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.
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😂
I think Eric is talking more about philosophy than what we call science. Science is VERY basically epistemology. But still, it’s basic understanding through repeatability of observation. How do we know what we know? Great Science is not being afraid. We are here, we are alive, and it’s all us. We should push smartly. I’d talk to that guy and tell him what I know.
Perhaps next time greater care will be placed on the audio level of the guest, rather than the host.
Agree. In the area of AI, there are a lot of criticisms of current approaches as "hitting the wall" and calls for a new paradigm. I propose a new paradigm, which basically solves intelligence and what? I am ignored. Because I am not a "scientist".
How can the speculative integration of quantum mechanics with neuroscience, specifically through concepts like quantum neurology and the idea of a universal, interconnected consciousness, be empirically investigated to validate or refute the theory that individual consciousness is a manifestation of a universal consciousness governed by quantum principles?
Religion prostitutes science.
I'm surprised but glad that EW didn't get wrapped around Thomas Kuhn's axel.
So short an interview but full of gems.
Context!... When was this recorded? Considering how this discussion has changed over recent years, it's important to know
It's suspicious how they don't show the interviewer and how the IAI logo seems to be digitally inserted onto the coffee table. I suspect this is just a repost of some older interview done by someone else.
Too many clip accounts reposting out there to not be suspicious
Thank you, Eric and iai !
Eric Weinstein is a great voice for Science. He delivers frank and honest criticism with extraordinary wit. I wish scientists and particularly science communicators (NDT) would have his attiude. Science has been stuck in the mid 20th century and has become a field where test and verification has been replaced by math and ideas cant really be shot down because they are untestable. What can we possibly get out of this??
We are not farming ourselves to our fullest potential.
2:18 feynman was a fine man, charming, funny and warm…. Like Mr. Rodgers if he had a couple of cocktails 😂
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.
This interview needs to last AT LEAST another 2-3h...
Thanks, though 😊
Eric has his own podcast named the portal!
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
Revolution? Like looking into ESP and other psychological phenomena? That’s the one I’m interested in.
Eric is brutally honest and thats why we love him!!
Fascinating mind . Bravo 👏
I was under the impression that Eric was a believer, but it seems he is more complicated. However, this video shows a side of Eric that surprised me, he is a true revolutionary fighting Talmudic excesses. Previously I didn't like Eric, but now I have started to like his ideas. Besides a scientific revolution he should endorse a Chinese style 'cultural revolution'.
mhmm! The east is embarrassing the west right now... from papers on electrochemical transmutation in china - indian engineers and mathematicians proving calculus is false math....
john napier made most mathematicians redundant so they turned solutions into problems to give themselves a long lasting career in physics.
What does this comment mean? I'm curious, but I don't get it. I'm particularly intrigued by the reference to "Talmudic excesses" but I don't understand what that means or how it bears relevance in this context. The reference to a Chinese style cultural revolution is also lost on me.
My bad, I'm sorry, I'm only 4:00 but I assumed the whole thing was about science. Judging by the other comments it seems like there's some discussion of faith and religion so perhaps "Talmudic excesses" will make more sense in that context.
This is a short video about abuse of good/great science and I am with you. What i make fuss about is the fact QM isn't a theory, yet few rules make it the most unreasonably effective, but since the time of Einstein it remains 'incomplete' and avoid good/great science and resort to what results in covid and opioid abuse in the name of science. Moreover I think we aren't doing anything to improve the situation. I got the impression you want to rectify the situation. Chinese cultural revolution was devised to ensure that global powers never again humiliate the Chinese, expecting this philosophy of Mao would help you in your fight to establish good science.@@avisternlieb449
You should read up on the Chinese "cultural revolution". You may change your mind about seeing it repeated.
.
Welcome back Eric, a most warm welcome =)
Thank you
The previous iteration of the system is still present likely on the other side of one of the boundary conditions. Probably the black holes at the centre of galaxies.
The gateway to the next, at the level of the fundamental partical.
Since time, space and velocity don't exist at the "big bang" levels, all iterations co-exist in the same "now" instant, and any "choices" affect the level "above" effectively instantaneously.......
Or not 🤔?.......
I was expecting a mention of "Against Method" in the beginning.
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.
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" ?
cool and respectable
Is that box taking interview from Eric?
What an extraordinary mind. I love the way he pulls on disparate ideas in making his arguments.
Having looked at this content creators CZcams 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.!
I love hearing this guy.
Brilliant!!
Primal observer physiologically records the past intracellularally as planeria, to solve mazes, etc., orchestrating Schrodinger equation "time reversal"
How about simple science? Gravity contracts distance and slows down time which together compound the slowing down time light as it enters a galaxy.
This made me think about my disastrous experience with TED pulling my license to produce TEDX West Hollywood over the content of my program, which they labeled pseudo-science, instead of appreciating whatever new ideas came from renowned thought shapers, that included Russell Targ and Larry Dossey. Their slogan, "Ideas Worth Spreading," should be, "Ideas worth spreading except if they don't conform to materialistic science."
What other science is there?
Non materialistic science can't ever be proven, because once proven it becomes materialistic.
So non materialistic science could only be ideas.
@@inajosmood As you state it, you seemingly make sense, but you're behind the times where there is a movement to expand the parameters of science to include what is beyond that narrow band of materialism. Do a search for "non-materialist science" and you'll find a treasure trove.
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.
Need for metaphysics. Specific receptor. 5-HT2A. Religion. It's Chomsky like built in function of the mind. Good lord this man is brilliant. Takes understand that we can barely feel and draws it out into perfect illumination.
Need for metaphysics vary from person to person. I personally accepted that there are questions which we may never have the answer to. But I am cognizant of the fact that many people cannot live with "I don't know", they must have a belief that they have the answer, otherwise they are lost in uncertainty. I think that Eric conflates two things - the literal need for the answers, as I just described, which can be satisfied only by religion, and benefits of rituals (praying, meditation, etc.) which many atheists exercise without summoning supernatural. I think he is doing the latter. I don't do any of this, unless you count closing your eyes and listening to Oscar Peterson as meditation:)
In addition based on your theory of geometric unity its very clear who you follow 👁🔺️
Whoaaaa. That language analogy at the end about religion blew my mind.
Copied Chris Langan CTMU
I'm not a scientist but I have an insane imagination and ability to visualize concepts. How do I get in touch with cool scientists? How do we start the questioning era again?
“Survivors of the School Wars.” Best education line I have heard yet 😂😂😂😂😂😂.
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
The problem is that almost no modern "science" follows the methodology of real science.
Eric, look at Pythagoras as it applies to a simple number matrices. Going fishing
Eric makes his points eloquently and always provides some interesting reference points.
We need more people like Eric.
No. We do not. He speaks outside of his field and it is flat-out embarrassing. He isn't even aware of classic books on the topic such as "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Science is just a _method_ it is "good" or "bad" depending upon adherence to that method.
@@nsbd90now the current paradigm is in need of change and we get to see the shift live... back off square and go back to your complex plane.
@@jaydenwilson9522 Oh please. You're just parroting phrases you don't even understand and bordering on a word salad Jayden.
@@nsbd90now There are plenty of good ideas, the problem is that everyone is too isolated.
@@granddefectus4602 There are also plenty of bad ideas. The problem is people are no longer educated within the classic curriculum of The Liberal Arts & Humanities which provides basic critical thinking skills and a broad foundation of basic knowledge. Instead, they are _trained_ to serve corporate interests... not educated to be good citizens and people. This is by design. Do a search for "The Powell Doctrine" written in 1971 by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. It is a call to business about the danger of a citizenry capable of critical thinking.
Good example of someone who is great at critiquing while offering no solutions
Great science is art. Good science plays by the rules, coloring inside the lines …
Regarding the statement at the end, my mind goes to Kant: Metaphysics is an instinct and a temperament of humankind and has to be dealt with
This man has my respect
"Load bearing behaviours" ❤
I love your videos
I wonder if we need to use cold as a drive for intersteller travel. Maybe we have had it all wrong and we could move faster with tempretures near absolute zero to pull us instead of heat pushing. If heat expands and creates combustion and cold contracts couldnt we use it in the opposit way? I think about how the salmon sit swimming in the river using very little enegy to just stand stillbut tge water is rushing by maybe we can find a way to hold our position and let the universe expand past us as we just tread water.
Eric's got a good point ... except, I disagree with his analysis of Dirac, having met Dirac...and a few other points... Feynman was an 'off the scale' great and entertaining mentor...(Eric's DEI comment is a "well DUH!", and it is noteworthy how many 'intellectuals' don't 'get it' as easily as does Eric)...(this is an interesting interview to watch and enjoy)... I think that one of Teller's videos about seeing an Einstein's GR lecture is also 'off the scale' entertaining - and speaks volumes - a must view for current math/physics students...This comment is from an older physics/math major, a solid decade older than Eric... (but not necessarily wiser, again hmm, Eric & I also love listening to Bill Maher... 🙂)
Personally, I like the "load-bearing behavior" line the best. This is really a powerful idiom, especially when combined with a lot of the topics his brother discusses.
Great interview of a brilliant man.
An Atheist who Prays is a stunning feat on his part as it falls neatly into the kosher mindset:
(clip of an email I sent to a friend)
-------------
Eric Weinstein on his Atheism when responding to the question of "How Faith is influencing your work?"
He starts by saying he is an "Atheist who prays" (t=14m55s)
Utterly brilliant commentary by the fact that his Atheism is CONTRIVED because it allows him to perceive scientific truths that he so covets while at the same time maintains his Judaism being that he KNOWS that its cultural formula helps him maximize his creativity in his field.
He is wise enough to know he does not understand WHY Judaism creates such success, thus he does not throw it away as if it were mystical mumbo jumbo; AND uses his atheism as a tool for clearer vision in regards to all things science. Thus his 'Atheism' is contrived or should i say he bifurcates his faith: Left Brain for High Res Science (Detail Oriented) and Right Brain Low Res for Theology (Big Picture). IOW... he uses his Atheism like a tool - as it should be.
Dr Tinker sums up Atheism to be used as a TOOL quite succinctly:
(From Youttube "An honest & Sensible conversation about Global Energy' T=30s)
"Faith is a process of removing doubt, Science is a process of requiring doubt"
Thus the importance of having 'kosher' thought process and bifurcating the disciplines of Science and Theology (Gods Truth and Gods Love).
Check out the Growing Earth theory
In my opinion, the needed revolution is in education. There were countless times that I was subjected to criticism and questioning of my abilities. For example, they would test my hearing, they would send me to therapy. There was nothing wrong. I may have been a little more emotionally sensitive than others for a boy, but there was and still is nothing wrong with me. But the teachers and the children begged to differ. It was a brutal environment and my guess is that very little has changed about it. That was in Canada, and from what I’ve seen in the States, it’s likely even worse here. There needs to be an environment where we respect our differences. I’m not speaking of gender, race, politics, etc. that’s another can of worms. But to respect how we frame the world, how we learn, how we can be happy. That has and is desperately missing in our education system. So, it’s not a big surprise that there not enough divergent minds in science to be more than good, but to be great, and break the old models and replace with their version of greatness.
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
Truly one of the great thinkers of our time! Great interview, thanks!
Yes! I've felt this for so long too. It's like we've lost the true meaning of the scientific revolution and instead embraced science like a religion or authority, which has allowed power structures to come in and establish themselves as representing science and having authority over its practice.
Science is a process incompatible with authority. Nullius in verba - no man's word - was the phrase of the royal society and foundation of the enlightenment. It's about the concept of observation and search for understanding, free from dogma and not constrained by preconceptions or authority.
When Fauci claimed he "represents science", he demonstrated his true lack of appreciation for the foundations of science. It was a very unscientific thing to say and really represented not science, but precisely where we've gone wrong in science.
The thing about creativity was interesting too. It seems that it's possible focus and creativity on a cognitive level might necessary be opposed. One invites a broad, sometimes partly random context characterised by lack of top down inhibition, while focus is the other extreme, with strong inhibition from top down processes.
The later case is far more suitable for empirical science, but it's true that this might be a constraint and as Eric suggests. If academia is saturated with this mindset, we risk losing those truly creative minds that think differently.
Well scientific revolution comes from sober theories like Oppenheim's one, not from theories like Geometric Unity or String theory
Wait…he didn’t cite Kuhn here……..??😑
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.
Wow thought i was the only one who thought that school is the problem, i never memorized the time table because i understand how it works lets move on. Found a lot of shortcuts because of it.
We already have a scientific revolution in form of my unifying quantum gravity theory called space particle dualism theory, or SPD. It contains the similar worlds interpretation (SWI), entropic expansion (EE), charge mass duality (CMD), SPD-chromogravity and SPD-electrogravity.
"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...
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.
"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!
Well, that was fascinating. Thank you, gentlemen.
I’d like to hear more conversations about the good we can use AI for instead of conversations on perceived threat of Armageddon