WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:24.880 That brings in a house! 00:24.880 --> 00:29.440 I'm so excited I can freak. 00:29.440 --> 00:35.280 Not just this muscle car that gets me excited, it's my guest today. 00:35.280 --> 00:38.080 Sooth spider is in the in the chat already. 00:38.080 --> 00:40.760 Look at that, garden variety human. 00:40.760 --> 00:41.760 That should be good. 00:41.760 --> 00:45.600 Just give me a sound check if you're in the chat already, please, for this one. 00:45.600 --> 00:49.040 Just to make sure everybody's lined up, it should be okay, I just started it. 00:49.040 --> 00:52.480 Thank you there, sir. 00:52.480 --> 00:56.800 And yes, we are speaking to William M. Briggs today. 00:56.800 --> 01:01.840 He is a member of this broken science initiative, it's my first BSI guest. 01:01.840 --> 01:08.360 If you didn't follow my directive yesterday and go and overload the website of brokenscience.org 01:08.360 --> 01:14.000 with your signups, please do it today so that Emily and Greg get a little blip in their 01:14.000 --> 01:18.640 website traffic and they see when we mention us, it would be really great to show them 01:18.640 --> 01:30.800 the power of gigo-on-biological. 01:30.800 --> 01:41.840 Matt, you may recognize Rodney Mullen here in this little spin. 01:41.840 --> 01:44.400 Oh, yeah. 01:44.400 --> 01:45.960 Guys, it's sweetheart. 01:45.960 --> 01:46.960 Oh, my goodness. 01:46.960 --> 01:51.920 Did you know that he got surgery on his spine and now he can stand up straight like skating 01:51.920 --> 01:58.040 again like differently and he's got to relearn everything now because his body moves again. 01:58.040 --> 01:59.040 It's crazy. 01:59.040 --> 02:01.040 I'll be thought, no, I have no idea. 02:01.040 --> 02:04.240 Apparently he's got like three more inches on him though. 02:04.240 --> 02:11.800 I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially... 02:11.800 --> 02:16.760 I want you to go meet my friend Mark on this show that's now on the screen after this. 02:16.760 --> 02:24.000 I think he's a really good guy and you guys would be good acquaintances, I think. 02:24.000 --> 02:25.000 Sure. 02:25.000 --> 02:28.000 And he's got readers that watch him, you know, so you're a book guy. 02:28.000 --> 02:33.240 I mean, he's got readers. 02:33.240 --> 02:38.680 Not that my viewers don't read, I'm not saying that, but Mark has got some really studious 02:38.680 --> 02:39.680 followers. 02:39.680 --> 02:42.320 I really like Mark. 02:42.320 --> 02:44.480 I think truth is good for kids. 02:44.480 --> 02:48.720 We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in society. 02:48.720 --> 02:50.920 We want everybody to feel good. 02:50.920 --> 02:55.240 That's not the way life is. 02:55.240 --> 03:00.960 But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people. 03:00.960 --> 03:01.960 And I have lied. 03:01.960 --> 03:02.960 I'm sure I'll lie again. 03:02.960 --> 03:05.520 I don't want to lie, you know, and I don't think I'm a liar. 03:05.520 --> 03:06.600 I try not to be a liar. 03:06.600 --> 03:08.000 I don't want to be a liar. 03:08.000 --> 03:14.320 I think it's like really important not to be a liar. 03:14.320 --> 03:30.400 Ah, ladies and gentlemen, I'm so excited to be here today and have this show running 03:30.400 --> 03:37.680 in the afternoon working in sync with my family and I just feels really good to start 03:37.680 --> 03:44.280 the stream in the afternoon and so I'm really happy that we've got Matt on the show. 03:44.280 --> 03:45.280 Just a few more seconds. 03:45.280 --> 03:50.720 I got to get this, the recording in the background running, so I'm going to keep this intro going 03:50.720 --> 03:51.720 as usual. 03:51.720 --> 04:01.160 It's like one more minute or so, I think I'm in it 20 seconds. 04:01.160 --> 04:09.160 If you are joining us for the first time, this is Giga Ohm Biological. 04:09.160 --> 04:14.520 It's a high-resistance low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist. 04:14.520 --> 04:20.000 We are based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the back of a rented garage and yeah, that's 04:20.000 --> 04:24.120 the state of knowledge and information in our world. 04:24.120 --> 04:27.440 We're basically working to dispel an enchantment. 04:27.440 --> 04:33.880 It is an enchantment that has been laid down a long time ago and laid down deep and thick. 04:33.880 --> 04:38.320 If you have been following me for a while, you're here at the top of the wave where we 04:38.320 --> 04:41.120 are staying focused on the biology. 04:41.120 --> 04:45.680 We don't take the bait on TV and social media and we love our neighbors. 04:45.680 --> 04:52.320 The way it works is that people share this work and some people even financially contribute 04:52.320 --> 04:56.400 and slowly biology finds new people and more people wake up. 04:56.400 --> 04:57.400 That's my plan anyway. 04:57.400 --> 05:03.440 You can find me at GigaOhm Biological.com and you should be watching at stream.gigohm.vial 05:03.440 --> 05:09.000 if you're not already, which is the new place that I'm trying to store all these videos. 05:09.000 --> 05:16.120 I think it's working out really well thanks to our supporter and follower Ted on the other 05:16.120 --> 05:17.280 side of the planet. 05:17.280 --> 05:20.440 Mike Vandenberg, mixed date. 05:20.440 --> 05:24.960 These are the people that make Giga Ohm Biological possible including all of the subscribers 05:24.960 --> 05:31.440 that are giving some small or large amount monthly or even per year. 05:31.440 --> 05:36.720 There are also sub-stack subscribers that have recently joined the fight and it's been 05:36.720 --> 05:42.760 really a privilege to see how far we can get with this. 05:42.760 --> 05:48.600 I hope that we can continue to bring this biology to the masses. 05:48.600 --> 05:50.120 This is the independent bright web. 05:50.120 --> 05:55.960 It's the opposite of the intellectual dark web which is this loosely organized group 05:55.960 --> 06:01.560 of influencers that was put in place before the pandemic to control the narrative, if 06:01.560 --> 06:07.440 you will, to set this limited spectrum of debate that we are all trapped within. 06:07.440 --> 06:11.280 But it's actually an illusion that is sustained only through your active participation. 06:11.280 --> 06:14.840 You can drop your own hand from your own eyes and escape. 06:14.840 --> 06:16.800 It is just a question of non-compliance. 06:16.800 --> 06:20.640 You've got to actually accept that you've been lied to. 06:20.640 --> 06:26.400 And I think one of the most exciting things about broken science is that it really, although 06:26.400 --> 06:33.600 to steal a phrase from Greg, it may not be for everybody, but it is for anybody to understand 06:33.600 --> 06:42.200 how science has been distorted, has been essentially co-opted into something that no longer is 06:42.200 --> 06:50.400 a real pursuit of knowledge, but it's instead a pursuit of noise or the creation of noise 06:50.400 --> 06:58.640 and I hope that somebody has sophisticated, unlike me, William M. Briggs is going to 06:58.640 --> 07:05.080 be able to help us get through this because the distortion of science and the pursuit 07:05.080 --> 07:10.160 of knowledge has been an integral part of the conscious and intelligent manipulation 07:10.160 --> 07:14.840 of the organized habits and opinions of the masses, and it is an important element of 07:14.840 --> 07:15.840 how we are governed. 07:15.840 --> 07:22.760 In fact, I would argue it is a primary way by which we are governed, and as a recovering 07:22.760 --> 07:30.660 academic biologist, I really feel as though I have a unique, sad insight into how distorted 07:30.660 --> 07:38.560 one's mind can become if you pursue questions based on this reiterative, preparean, questioning 07:38.560 --> 07:44.760 mechanism, and don't realize how easily that can spin out of control and stop producing 07:44.760 --> 07:49.040 knowledge and instead produce noise. 07:49.040 --> 07:52.840 I believe that's how the intellectual dark web works, and I believe that's how they've 07:52.840 --> 07:58.800 essentially removed our ability to exercise informed consent with almost anything with 07:58.800 --> 08:03.600 regard to socioeconomic status and also with regard to public health, with regard to the 08:03.600 --> 08:04.840 education of our children. 08:04.840 --> 08:11.280 We're just so clueless that we just don't have the ability to exercise informed consent 08:11.280 --> 08:12.280 anymore. 08:12.280 --> 08:20.400 And one of the primary bats with with barbed wire wrapped around it is this use of academic 08:20.400 --> 08:26.160 science to create the illusion of knowledge that can then be used against us in a technocratic 08:26.160 --> 08:27.160 sort of way. 08:27.160 --> 08:30.240 Oh my gosh, I'm still talking. 08:30.240 --> 08:31.240 Let me see. 08:31.240 --> 08:32.440 I got him over here. 08:32.440 --> 08:33.440 Yes. 08:33.440 --> 08:34.440 Good. 08:34.440 --> 08:38.120 I'm going to put this down and I'm going to shut this music off and I'm going to say hello 08:38.120 --> 08:46.040 to my good friend, William M. Briggs, actually Matt and I met on a beach and it was very 08:46.040 --> 08:47.040 romantic. 08:47.040 --> 08:54.200 Matt was overdressed for the beach and I was flying my kite and I don't know. 08:54.200 --> 08:57.320 We later met at another meeting and so it was wonderful. 08:57.320 --> 09:00.280 We've been friends since. 09:00.280 --> 09:01.280 I don't know. 09:01.280 --> 09:02.280 Go ahead and introduce yourself. 09:02.280 --> 09:08.080 Tell us what you're up to and then we'll just, I don't know, randomly discuss our clean 09:08.080 --> 09:09.080 eyes. 09:09.080 --> 09:13.400 You know, Greg Glassman and Emily Capin, like you said, the broken science thing. 09:13.400 --> 09:19.680 They found me and I've been delighted to be able to have found them in return and people 09:19.680 --> 09:21.600 like yourself. 09:21.600 --> 09:26.240 There's a core group of people who understand what's going on and what's going wrong with 09:26.240 --> 09:28.080 science, I should say. 09:28.080 --> 09:32.960 It's not everybody like you say, like Greg says, but it is, it is some people anyway 09:32.960 --> 09:41.400 and we, we are trying to gather together and at least speak to those willing to listen 09:41.400 --> 09:45.520 about what we think is wrong with science and how we could go about fixing it. 09:45.520 --> 09:50.800 And my background is like yourself, recovering academic, you know, I started off in academia. 09:50.800 --> 09:59.440 I was in the, I was in the Department of Medicine at Cornell University, you know, the med school. 09:59.440 --> 10:02.000 I was a statistician there, bio statistician there. 10:02.000 --> 10:05.880 I'm sorry, but my favorite part is the fact that you were a meteorologist because when 10:05.880 --> 10:10.640 I was a child, when I was a child, I thought that the weather was also very fascinating. 10:10.640 --> 10:13.640 And I sat outside in, in thunderstorms and stuff. 10:13.640 --> 10:19.560 I thought that tornado warnings were kind of cool and my parents never understood it. 10:19.560 --> 10:22.040 But I just, I was never afraid of these things. 10:22.040 --> 10:25.360 I just thought they were interesting. 10:25.360 --> 10:31.640 The reason I got involved, I was in the Air Force a long time ago doing cryptography. 10:31.680 --> 10:37.360 And I was wondering, should I go get out of the Air Force and do something more useful 10:37.360 --> 10:38.920 with my life? 10:38.920 --> 10:44.760 And at that time, this was in the late 80s, early 90s, global warming as it was called 10:44.760 --> 10:46.360 then was the thing. 10:46.360 --> 10:48.400 And I thought, hey, this is, this is interesting. 10:48.400 --> 10:53.280 And I sort of, and I wrote some of the people and the original IPCC, the Intergovernmental 10:53.280 --> 10:58.360 Panel on Climate Change, some of the scientists involved in that. 10:58.360 --> 11:03.360 And I was just this, nobody sergeant at a cadina Air Force base in Okinawa. 11:03.360 --> 11:06.600 I said, hey, can I read this, this in that paper? 11:06.600 --> 11:12.920 And this one gentleman sent it to me and to my surprise, I could read it. 11:12.920 --> 11:15.920 So I thought, you know what, maybe I better get out and do something about this. 11:15.920 --> 11:16.920 It seems so important. 11:16.920 --> 11:18.480 And I, I bought all this stuff. 11:18.480 --> 11:24.560 I mean, I thought it was just as dire and, and calamitous as was being predicted and 11:24.560 --> 11:27.560 so forth because I was young and naive. 11:27.600 --> 11:33.920 But I, I progressed through my studies and my specialty actually, I got my Ph.D. 11:33.920 --> 11:36.120 and not, not in atmospheric physics. 11:36.120 --> 11:41.120 I got, that was my masters, but I got, I did mathematical statistics. 11:41.120 --> 11:44.960 And the reason is, I was interested in models. 11:44.960 --> 11:45.960 What makes a good model? 11:45.960 --> 11:50.920 What makes a good climate model, medical model, biological model, any of these kind of models? 11:50.920 --> 11:53.280 And how do you tell if it's good or bad? 11:53.280 --> 11:57.400 And that involves probability and uncertainty and all this kind of a thing. 11:57.400 --> 12:03.480 So that's how I slowly became a skeptic, the more I learned about how uncertainty really 12:03.480 --> 12:12.520 works and how, about how over certain everything that they pushing at us is, and not everything 12:12.520 --> 12:17.040 I should say, you know, you know, we have a pretty good understanding of the way capacitors 12:17.040 --> 12:20.120 work, for instance, and so forth. 12:20.120 --> 12:21.880 But these are not political things. 12:21.880 --> 12:28.160 It's all the stuff that turned political that the over certainty is vast as we've learned 12:28.160 --> 12:31.960 to our, you know, sadness this last four years. 12:31.960 --> 12:33.200 Right, right. 12:33.200 --> 12:37.680 I think over certain is a, is a wonderful way to really overlaps with how I've been saying 12:37.680 --> 12:42.640 it is that you can almost, you should immediately be skeptical of anyone who's certain and then 12:42.640 --> 12:48.920 even more if they're certain about a very simple explanation for a complex thing. 12:48.920 --> 12:54.040 And oftentimes I've started with that basis of interpreting the pandemic, for example, 12:54.040 --> 13:00.760 is it just can't be this simple that somebody spilled something in Wuhan and now it's everywhere. 13:00.760 --> 13:10.640 And so anyway, what do you think from the perspective of the broad picture, how can we, 13:10.640 --> 13:14.160 in your experience, you know, you're selling, you're selling a couple books, which I just 13:14.160 --> 13:16.400 put up before it, I don't mean it to say it in a bad way. 13:16.400 --> 13:22.760 I mean it to say it in a good way that, that he is capable of putting down his thoughts 13:22.760 --> 13:25.480 in a way that I can't and has done it several times. 13:25.480 --> 13:30.240 I actually, I don't, I, somewhere I can't find everything you believe is wrong book. 13:30.240 --> 13:35.360 I know I have it, but for some reason I couldn't find it to put on the screen, but I do have 13:35.360 --> 13:36.720 the book on certainty. 13:36.720 --> 13:43.000 And I think because that's the one I have, that's the only one I've read. 13:43.000 --> 13:45.440 That's this one here. 13:45.440 --> 13:53.840 How do we get people interested in this philosophical level of science in a way that, you know, 13:53.840 --> 14:01.920 most people won't be, you know, I mean, they'll be interested in the more practical matters 14:01.920 --> 14:06.080 of here's what these people are trying to sell you and here's why it's wrong. 14:06.080 --> 14:10.640 I mean, we could clearly see that they're trying to manipulate you into taking certain 14:10.640 --> 14:15.560 medications and so forth or they're trying to, they're trying to tell you a certain 14:15.560 --> 14:16.560 thing. 14:16.560 --> 14:20.160 Tomorrow I have a thing on gas stoves, now they're going after gas stoves even as they 14:20.160 --> 14:21.960 tell you they're not going to. 14:21.960 --> 14:25.080 They want to tell you that they're bad for the, the environment of their bad for your 14:25.080 --> 14:26.760 health and that kind of stuff. 14:26.760 --> 14:31.920 So we could show that those kinds of claims are wrong and that's enough for most people 14:31.920 --> 14:33.320 and that's fine. 14:33.320 --> 14:38.960 But if you want to know why those things are wrong, how it is that the scientists themselves 14:39.960 --> 14:46.880 beyond simple matters like fraud and lying and so forth, which we see a lot from top experts 14:46.880 --> 14:51.720 and rulers and the like, but most scientists are sincere in their beliefs. 14:51.720 --> 14:57.040 They're just vastly over certain or they're wrong, but they don't know how they're being 14:57.040 --> 14:58.200 wrong. 14:58.200 --> 15:01.720 And that's the level at which we need to fix science. 15:01.720 --> 15:06.160 Now a lot of people can just, you know, follow along, they can gain entry to, you know, podcasts 15:06.160 --> 15:07.960 like yours and so forth. 15:07.960 --> 15:08.960 The woman found it. 15:08.960 --> 15:10.760 Others that show what things are doing wrong. 15:10.760 --> 15:11.760 That's the other one. 15:11.760 --> 15:13.760 The woman found it. 15:13.760 --> 15:14.760 Thank you. 15:14.760 --> 15:19.760 And then we can get people to sort of grasp these more fundamental things, but they are 15:19.760 --> 15:21.160 more difficult. 15:21.160 --> 15:25.280 You know, I mean, it's, it's, you were there, we were all there last week or a week and 15:25.280 --> 15:26.280 a half ago. 15:26.280 --> 15:31.680 I guess we were out in back in Arizona for another epistemological boot camp or I guess 15:31.680 --> 15:36.200 we called it and they were difficult subjects being broached. 15:36.200 --> 15:41.200 You know, what, what is the nature of probability if we're speaking of uncertainty, we must 15:41.200 --> 15:42.200 use probability. 15:42.200 --> 15:46.360 How do we, how do we then understand what probability is and so forth and how does that 15:46.360 --> 15:51.040 relate across a broad range of sciences, everything from, you know, medicine biology all the way 15:51.040 --> 15:56.920 to astrophysics, fundamental quantum probability and all those kind of a thing. 15:56.920 --> 15:58.200 So it's difficult. 15:58.200 --> 16:02.440 We're not going to get everybody along and that kind of a thing, but we can get people 16:02.440 --> 16:09.280 to understand that because people are using these procedures that they think is guaranteeing 16:09.280 --> 16:16.760 them certainty or not, we could just show that they're wrong on that kind of a thing. 16:16.760 --> 16:22.560 Whether they get delved deeper into the mechanics of why exactly it's wrong, that's, that's, 16:22.560 --> 16:25.280 that's going to be only for a fraction of people, I think. 16:25.280 --> 16:31.920 Do you think that, um, one of the things that struck me years ago already was that, um, 16:31.920 --> 16:36.560 in neuroscience, there was this time, I, I, I've been in neuroscience, I was in neuroscience 16:36.560 --> 16:38.520 for around 18 years. 16:38.520 --> 16:46.120 And when I started in neuroscience, I noticed that there was this momentum in the acquisition 16:46.120 --> 16:47.480 of physicists. 16:47.480 --> 16:52.680 And the reason why was because physicists could make simple models and models were what 16:52.680 --> 17:00.520 every, every, uh, every biology's journal wanted you to have a model with a little neuronal 17:00.520 --> 17:05.680 network that showed how your data was relevant to brain function. 17:05.680 --> 17:12.720 And because these physicists had this toolbox, you could just bring them in to a, to a department 17:12.720 --> 17:18.560 and they could be on every paper that needed a model and every paper needs a model in this, 17:18.560 --> 17:21.040 in this, in this kind of scheme. 17:21.040 --> 17:25.120 And I was struck by how, what are they doing like transport models and the like that kind 17:25.120 --> 17:26.120 of thing. 17:26.120 --> 17:31.360 So just simple network models that show that, you know, something, some connection could 17:31.360 --> 17:32.360 be relevant. 17:32.360 --> 17:40.000 Um, it, to me, it's really just a question of again, how are we using them and are we 17:40.000 --> 17:45.440 using them to advance our understanding or are we using them to, to, I don't know, 17:45.440 --> 17:50.800 obfuscate obfuscate or, or, or, or to add complexity for the sake of, for the sake of 17:50.800 --> 17:53.080 complexity, which turns it into science. 17:53.080 --> 17:54.080 It's funny. 17:54.080 --> 17:58.080 You mentioned it's just a week ago or two weeks ago that somebody had a paper out that 17:58.080 --> 18:00.440 looked at literature papers of all things. 18:00.440 --> 18:02.440 And I guess these are spoof papers. 18:02.440 --> 18:06.840 They had regular papers and then they had the same papers, but they had equations in them. 18:06.840 --> 18:10.960 And the ones that had equations in them just for no reason were the ones that were viewed 18:10.960 --> 18:12.400 as a much more scientific. 18:12.400 --> 18:13.400 Oh, yeah. 18:13.400 --> 18:14.400 Wow. 18:14.400 --> 18:15.400 That, that's the level of stuff. 18:15.400 --> 18:16.400 I mean, it's easy to create a lot. 18:16.400 --> 18:20.800 I mean, not, not everybody can do it, but once you, once you learn how it's, it's trivial 18:20.800 --> 18:23.000 to create models. 18:23.000 --> 18:24.640 That's one of the problems. 18:24.640 --> 18:25.640 It's, it's too easy. 18:25.640 --> 18:26.640 Science is too easy. 18:26.640 --> 18:33.200 It's, it's difficult to understand that maybe, but because science is so easy to do now in 18:33.200 --> 18:36.200 a lot. 18:36.200 --> 18:42.600 Hi, what happened there? 18:42.600 --> 18:46.680 Is garage is like my garage? 18:46.680 --> 18:47.680 Come on back now. 18:47.680 --> 18:49.680 You hear? 18:49.680 --> 18:50.680 I don't know. 18:50.680 --> 19:02.440 Maybe you should snap to that might help on he'll call back. 19:02.440 --> 19:08.760 I want very much to see if there's too many people doing it and numbers of people just 19:08.760 --> 19:12.360 because there's going to be a lot more error, but it's something, something. 19:12.360 --> 19:13.360 Here you go. 19:13.360 --> 19:14.360 There we go. 19:14.360 --> 19:15.360 Yeah. 19:15.360 --> 19:21.160 It's probably me, the, the camera, it doesn't, it does a visual acuity check on me and sort 19:21.160 --> 19:22.160 of bocks. 19:22.160 --> 19:23.160 Yeah, it's all good. 19:23.160 --> 19:26.520 So, we were talking about models and it just took for a couple of seconds. 19:26.520 --> 19:28.280 So it's okay. 19:28.280 --> 19:30.040 What is different? 19:30.040 --> 19:34.360 I mean, for the, for example, you were in meteorology, they could only get away with, 19:34.360 --> 19:36.560 they can't get away with crappy models, right? 19:36.560 --> 19:40.480 If they use a crappy model, then they're, they're prediction for even tomorrow would 19:40.480 --> 19:41.480 be off, right? 19:41.480 --> 19:46.040 But to a certain, this is, this is, this is a, you bring up a good point, an excellent 19:46.040 --> 19:49.440 point, as a matter of fact, because it's one of the few fields. 19:49.440 --> 19:56.680 In fact, one of the very, very few fields that model goodness, the idea of what we call 19:56.680 --> 20:00.880 it, the technical term is verification, model verification. 20:00.880 --> 20:02.120 That's where it was really born. 20:02.120 --> 20:06.320 That's where all the statistics and the probability and the understanding of the philosophy of 20:06.320 --> 20:12.120 model goodness arose from meteorology, because it's for obvious reasons. 20:12.120 --> 20:16.220 They make weather forecasts, they come out at least twice a day, and they want to verify 20:16.220 --> 20:18.000 how good they're doing. 20:18.000 --> 20:26.280 And because they did, they developed all kinds of ideas, all kinds of measures, like numerical 20:26.280 --> 20:30.840 measures that show you how good the predictions are behaving and the like. 20:30.840 --> 20:34.440 And they use those to sort of feedback and improve the models. 20:34.440 --> 20:38.800 And they have meteorological models over the last 50 years or so, they've increased 20:38.800 --> 20:40.040 dramatically. 20:40.040 --> 20:46.120 They're now very accurate out to a short, short period of time, out to like four or five 20:46.120 --> 20:51.560 days, they're great, out to beyond that, they diminish in quality fairly rapidly. 20:51.560 --> 20:56.360 And you know, they, for technical reasons, you know, the atmosphere is just chaotic and 20:56.360 --> 21:00.280 it's, it's not cooperative at, at times past that. 21:00.320 --> 21:05.240 And let me ask you this, just in the context, if they had more measuring devices with these 21:05.240 --> 21:09.320 models become better or the models are already at their peak sort of in that sense. 21:09.320 --> 21:10.320 No. 21:10.320 --> 21:11.960 So not really. 21:11.960 --> 21:12.960 Okay. 21:12.960 --> 21:18.520 Part of the problem, they have, we have satellite data and they can sort of make satellite data 21:18.520 --> 21:22.360 for a lot of a lot more points and so forth. 21:22.360 --> 21:27.120 But their computational power becomes one of the, one of the bottlenecks. 21:27.120 --> 21:29.360 The other is the atmospheric chaotic. 21:29.360 --> 21:30.360 Good Lorenz. 21:30.360 --> 21:34.440 He was one of the, a meteorologist at the time using early versions of computers. 21:34.440 --> 21:39.480 He was running a program, very simple dynamical model, very simple dynamical model. 21:39.480 --> 21:42.240 I think he coded it in Fortran. 21:42.240 --> 21:46.720 And he was running the thing and then he had to step away or something like this and he 21:46.720 --> 21:51.680 came back and somebody else had used the time on the computer. 21:51.680 --> 21:55.400 Back then you had to get time on a computer, you didn't have personal use of it. 21:55.400 --> 21:58.520 You had to sort of subscribe for time. 21:58.520 --> 22:01.680 And he wanted to restart the computer exactly where it left off. 22:01.680 --> 22:07.440 So he reprogrammed in the, you know, using punch cards, the constants that the model 22:07.440 --> 22:11.920 spit out at a certain point, but he didn't get them to the exact decimal level all the 22:11.920 --> 22:14.640 way out to however many digits the computer did. 22:14.640 --> 22:18.800 And he found to his surprise that diverged wildly. 22:18.800 --> 22:25.680 And chaos as a science was born from his paper. 22:25.680 --> 22:27.120 And it's amazing. 22:27.600 --> 22:33.200 And it turns out to be sensitivity to initial conditions is sort of defining characteristic 22:33.200 --> 22:34.200 of chaos. 22:34.200 --> 22:41.640 In other words, you could have a perfectly defined rigorously analytic dynamical system 22:41.640 --> 22:46.440 that because it starts off in a slightly, just the tiniest little, you wouldn't make 22:46.440 --> 22:54.320 any difference initial point, but can diverge wildly from a model that starts off slightly 22:54.320 --> 22:55.720 different from it. 22:55.760 --> 22:59.240 So that's the way the atmosphere sort of behaves, people are discovering that you can 22:59.240 --> 23:03.840 kind of get away with that by making your predictions coarser. 23:03.840 --> 23:10.280 And only speaking of averages and the like and do a little bit better in that respect. 23:10.280 --> 23:14.840 But it's still meteorology that led the way. 23:14.840 --> 23:18.880 And that's how I learned of all this kind of stuff, because that's how I started doing 23:18.880 --> 23:22.600 and doing model goodness, how do you check? 23:22.640 --> 23:26.520 So you could apply this, these same tools to all kinds of models, like we were being 23:26.520 --> 23:28.520 foisted upon us all the time. 23:28.520 --> 23:31.080 And it turns out a lot of the models just stink. 23:31.080 --> 23:32.080 They're terrible. 23:32.080 --> 23:33.080 They're never verified. 23:33.080 --> 23:39.000 In fact, the leading practice of most science, the leading practice of most science and most 23:39.000 --> 23:50.160 science papers is to fit a model to data, announce the quality of the fit and stop. 23:50.160 --> 23:51.160 That's it. 23:51.160 --> 23:53.560 And then they act as if they've found something. 23:53.560 --> 23:59.840 But as we already discussed, anybody could fit a model to data, anybody could fit any 23:59.840 --> 24:01.400 kind of model to any kind of data. 24:01.400 --> 24:04.280 It just doesn't take that much ingenuity anymore. 24:04.280 --> 24:10.920 And therefore, we're flooded with, you know, just acres and acres of this stuff of bad 24:10.920 --> 24:14.040 science of just good model fits. 24:14.040 --> 24:15.120 Well, so what? 24:15.120 --> 24:17.760 These models are never checked against reality after that. 24:17.760 --> 24:20.920 But everybody takes it as if it was. 24:20.920 --> 24:21.920 It's a huge problem. 24:21.920 --> 24:22.920 Right. 24:22.920 --> 24:26.800 And I think you could formulate that in the reverse and say that if your scientific paper 24:26.800 --> 24:29.800 doesn't start out with, my model predicts the following. 24:29.800 --> 24:36.400 So we checked or measured the following, then you're really not, you're really not verifying 24:36.400 --> 24:37.400 a model. 24:37.400 --> 24:42.600 You're actually, again, as you said, making observations and then fitting a model to it, 24:42.600 --> 24:43.920 which is big deal. 24:43.920 --> 24:46.520 That's a big difference. 24:46.520 --> 24:49.680 You can almost say anything you want if you use that strategy. 24:49.680 --> 24:56.280 But the vast majority papers, biology and medicine, and all of the soft sciences, almost 24:56.280 --> 24:58.120 all their models are like this. 24:58.120 --> 25:04.720 They just fit a model and they're all ad hoc models, for the most part, in the soft sciences. 25:04.720 --> 25:07.480 They fit the model to the data. 25:07.480 --> 25:13.600 They announced after they manipulate the data and the model that the model fits well. 25:13.600 --> 25:14.600 And that's it. 25:14.600 --> 25:18.520 And now we're supposed to take their word that they have found some causative agent in 25:18.520 --> 25:19.520 nature. 25:19.520 --> 25:21.960 And it's just not the case. 25:21.960 --> 25:24.240 They may have happened upon something. 25:24.240 --> 25:26.320 They may have gotten lucky. 25:26.320 --> 25:30.160 But it's not because of their procedures that they're correct. 25:30.160 --> 25:35.560 It's just by chance, by luck, that they're off and right. 25:35.560 --> 25:41.720 Or by some intuition too, a lot of scientists are smart guys, but it doesn't mean that 25:41.720 --> 25:47.840 the procedures they're using are guaranteeing them the kind of veracity that they tell us 25:47.840 --> 25:49.240 that they have. 25:49.240 --> 25:53.280 That's why when people say, follow the science, no, it isn't like that. 25:53.280 --> 26:00.440 We should not follow the science and tell that science has been independently, by disinterested 26:00.440 --> 26:08.640 parties, checked and its accuracy, its predictive accuracy, otherwise we've never known. 26:08.640 --> 26:13.800 One of the things that I've been thinking about is how can, because broken science 26:13.800 --> 26:19.000 brings together this really weird group of people where there can be lots of owners 26:19.000 --> 26:24.200 of CrossFit gyms or athletes or martial artists or people interested in nutrition 26:24.200 --> 26:31.080 or training, and then also, you know, physicists and people like yourself with a million different 26:31.080 --> 26:33.040 things in their background. 26:33.040 --> 26:39.040 And what I'm wondering is a lot of times we get so deep into that discussion that we can't, 26:39.040 --> 26:45.240 we need, I love the list that Greg has made of all of the pseudo sciences. 26:45.240 --> 26:53.040 But I felt like the last meeting was missing a little session about concrete examples, 26:53.040 --> 26:54.800 which is what you said earlier. 26:54.800 --> 26:59.760 And I almost want to suggest that somebody should build a website of concrete examples 26:59.760 --> 27:03.800 of what the model is and how it's not ever tested. 27:03.800 --> 27:09.000 I mean, the ones that I've been plugging for a long time are the model of antibodies 27:09.000 --> 27:11.880 equals immunity, but they never really test that. 27:12.880 --> 27:17.160 And when they do, they don't get the answer that their model predicts they should get, 27:17.160 --> 27:19.080 but they don't care. 27:19.080 --> 27:24.640 And so I wonder if it wouldn't be useful for us to make a list like that. 27:24.640 --> 27:25.640 That was my first thing. 27:25.640 --> 27:28.120 And I also have a thing about funding, but what do you think about that? 27:28.120 --> 27:29.120 Is there a... 27:29.120 --> 27:33.000 I think it's a fantastic idea, of course, absolutely. 27:33.000 --> 27:39.880 I do these things all the time, you know, maybe once or twice a week, I publish a piece daily, 27:39.880 --> 27:45.680 but maybe once or twice a week is looking at bad papers and from all range of science 27:45.680 --> 27:47.440 that use these techniques. 27:47.440 --> 27:49.760 So yeah, it would be very worthwhile. 27:49.760 --> 27:50.760 That's a good project. 27:50.760 --> 27:57.880 I'm going to consider that and how to bring it about putting it on a more systematic basis. 27:57.880 --> 27:59.520 I think that's a fantastic idea. 27:59.520 --> 28:04.120 I mean, neuroscience is just littered with models of how the brain works that have like 28:04.120 --> 28:06.120 two variables. 28:06.120 --> 28:07.920 And it's extraordinary. 28:07.920 --> 28:11.760 I mean, and then they would take an fMRI measurement and look, there it is. 28:11.760 --> 28:17.840 We got some difference between these two relative signals and it looks a lot like our model. 28:17.840 --> 28:20.920 That's a perfect example of the type of thing where models... 28:20.920 --> 28:22.840 It's model upon model. 28:22.840 --> 28:23.840 The fMRI... 28:23.840 --> 28:27.320 You'd know this better than I do, but for your listeners probably know it better than 28:27.320 --> 28:28.320 I do too. 28:28.320 --> 28:29.320 But the fMRI... 28:29.320 --> 28:32.120 The output from that is already a model. 28:32.120 --> 28:33.200 It's already a model. 28:33.200 --> 28:36.640 It's not like they've gone into the brain and dissected, taking a look at this mirror 28:36.640 --> 28:39.560 and saying, oh, yeah, this is a bigger fashion over here. 28:39.560 --> 28:43.160 No, this thing is an inverse problem and it's already a model. 28:43.160 --> 28:46.720 So there's uncertainty already in the data that you have out of it. 28:46.720 --> 28:53.920 And then they use this uncertain data as if it were certain downstream and further models. 28:53.920 --> 28:58.560 And to some of the most preposterous things, I mean, Sam Harris was... 28:58.560 --> 29:01.600 He has one I picked apart a long time ago. 29:01.600 --> 29:03.240 Ridiculous things. 29:03.240 --> 29:07.520 People are more likely to believe in Santa Claus if the sublocutist area of the brain 29:07.520 --> 29:09.240 lights up in their effort. 29:09.240 --> 29:15.960 All kind of statistical nonsense that they try to pull off because it shows how well their 29:15.960 --> 29:19.720 model could fit, the model of the model. 29:19.720 --> 29:25.840 So yes, all he's there is they all suffer from the same problems over modeling. 29:25.840 --> 29:29.640 What do you have to have models in science, but they're not verified. 29:29.640 --> 29:35.440 Another place that models probably play a more reasonable role in describing reality 29:35.440 --> 29:40.520 is in business where uncertainty equals risk. 29:40.520 --> 29:47.400 Is there any way we could use the idea that businesses don't use models that don't work? 29:47.400 --> 29:49.720 Insurance companies don't use models that don't work. 29:49.720 --> 29:55.160 So there have to be people that understand that model verification is at the heart of 29:55.160 --> 29:56.160 knowledge generation. 29:57.160 --> 29:58.160 Oh, yeah, sorry. 29:58.160 --> 29:59.160 Did you hear what I just said? 29:59.160 --> 30:01.640 I'm going to let that come back. 30:01.640 --> 30:09.320 Yeah, business models of verification and business models use uncertainty as risk. 30:09.320 --> 30:16.040 And so there's a lot of sort of feedback in business for their models in actuarial science 30:16.040 --> 30:17.040 and whatever. 30:17.040 --> 30:23.680 So there have to be people that from a professional perspective understand how if they do it like 30:23.680 --> 30:28.920 this at work, but academic science doesn't like that, then there ought to be lots of 30:28.920 --> 30:33.960 people that could be woken up very easily who just because of their professional background 30:33.960 --> 30:38.320 are, this will just snap into their head, don't you think or? 30:38.320 --> 30:42.720 I think you're absolutely right, actuaries are an excellent point because if the insurance 30:42.720 --> 30:49.160 companies didn't model accurately, they would stand to lose a lot of money. 30:49.160 --> 30:55.520 Of course, the other problem after that is not scientific, but sociological, the government 30:55.520 --> 31:00.240 comes in and begins to regulate them because their models are sometimes too accurate and 31:00.240 --> 31:05.760 they're not politically desirable accuracies, that's so that's a whole other problem. 31:05.760 --> 31:06.760 Oh, wow. 31:06.760 --> 31:08.360 I didn't know that that happened. 31:08.360 --> 31:09.360 Okay. 31:09.360 --> 31:13.600 Well, you know, you ever you know, we don't want to talk about all this idea, but you 31:13.600 --> 31:21.440 know, there's official, you know, there's some groups need more need more help from 31:21.440 --> 31:23.000 the government dollars. 31:23.000 --> 31:26.120 And so the government steps in and and and modifies it. 31:26.120 --> 31:30.440 Well, you know, you're not you're not allowed to have noticing of certain things. 31:30.440 --> 31:35.120 And so now I see what you mean, yeah, there is that, but but actuaries do do a good job 31:35.120 --> 31:38.520 of looking at how well their models portray. 31:38.520 --> 31:44.880 And because, you know, they're not the most complex models in the world, they're more 31:44.880 --> 31:49.040 or less just, you know, counting. 31:49.040 --> 31:50.040 Here's what happened. 31:50.040 --> 31:53.320 And here's what we can expect to happen again in the future, which is a very good way to 31:53.320 --> 31:54.320 do things. 31:54.320 --> 31:55.320 Right. 31:55.320 --> 31:56.320 Not that the math is simple. 31:56.320 --> 31:57.320 I don't mean that. 31:57.320 --> 32:03.640 But I mean, to say that as far as model complexity goes, it's not that not that difficult. 32:03.640 --> 32:10.080 Would you would you want to, um, for my viewers, just take a crack at a brief explanation 32:10.080 --> 32:18.920 of how the the no hypothesis falsification thing isn't actually verifying models and, 32:18.920 --> 32:22.400 you know, pull an example out of your out of your brain at random? 32:22.400 --> 32:23.400 Is that a? 32:23.400 --> 32:26.280 Yeah, it's a it's a very good question. 32:26.280 --> 32:31.360 Not the null hypothesis and statistics is kind of the straw man of statistics. 32:31.360 --> 32:34.640 And everybody knows the straw man is a sort of informal fallacy. 32:34.640 --> 32:38.640 It's it's set up to be able to knock down and knock down easily. 32:38.640 --> 32:45.280 Normally, what happens is you set up an ad hoc model, something like a regression, very common 32:45.280 --> 32:52.560 thing, and you relate some X to some Y, some, some measure to some observable thing that 32:52.560 --> 32:54.760 you're interested in. 32:55.760 --> 33:01.480 The null hypothesis is that whatever your X is has nothing to do with this Y. 33:01.480 --> 33:07.920 And you encapsulate that into a probability model, a parameterized probability model, 33:07.920 --> 33:12.960 and you set the value of that parameter at some level, typically zero, you say, if this 33:12.960 --> 33:19.440 parameter exactly equals zero precisely exactly equals zero, why that's my null hypothesis. 33:19.440 --> 33:26.240 And then you calculate all kinds of numbers, namely, like a P value, a bit of arcane magic 33:26.240 --> 33:30.560 that if it's small enough, you can go waving your we P value in front of people saying, 33:30.560 --> 33:37.640 look how small my P value is, I have disproved my null hypothesis and therefore the opposite 33:37.640 --> 33:40.880 of the contrary of the null hypothesis must be true. 33:40.880 --> 33:47.920 If we've said this parameter is exactly precisely equal to zero, and the parameter is a very 33:47.920 --> 33:55.960 sort of measure of strength, therefore it's not zero, the null hypothesis has been shown 33:55.960 --> 34:02.000 to be false, and so not zero, therefore it must be important, this X must be important 34:02.000 --> 34:09.160 in describing this Y. Of course, it's not true. For one thing, you've never disproved 34:09.160 --> 34:13.280 the null hypothesis, you've just made an active will, you said, you know what, I'm going 34:13.280 --> 34:19.560 to decide that this null hypothesis is not significant, and what does significant mean? 34:19.560 --> 34:23.640 Significant means the P value is small. And what does the P value being small mean? Well, 34:23.640 --> 34:30.040 it means significant. It's a circular definition. It's just an active will to say, I think this 34:30.040 --> 34:36.760 correlation is causation. And that's it. I think this correlation that I have found 34:36.760 --> 34:42.480 is causation. And you have some mathematical apparatus that helps you in this ritual. One 34:42.480 --> 34:50.920 of the guys who was at the thing last week, Greg Gigarenzer, it's his phrase, the ritual 34:50.920 --> 34:57.320 of statistics or ritualized statistics or something. Just following these things to sort of bless 34:57.320 --> 35:02.800 your results, you run these typical procedures over them, and if things work out, well then 35:02.800 --> 35:10.160 you claim that you have found something. So null hypotheses, we can eliminate them entirely. 35:10.160 --> 35:17.320 We don't need them in science at all. We can instead form our models in this predictive 35:17.320 --> 35:23.280 sense. If you say that X, knowing what X is, tells you something about Y. So one of my 35:23.280 --> 35:31.040 favorite examples is, I've used this example many times, attendance at a Fourth of July 35:31.040 --> 35:37.000 parade when you're young. That's our X. The attendance at a Fourth of July parade when 35:37.040 --> 35:41.960 you're young, predicts whether or not you're going to turn out to be a Republican. That's 35:41.960 --> 35:52.120 our why. You're frozen again, just hold on one second. Darn it. He's got to fix that 35:52.120 --> 35:58.520 camera. At least he stopped at a place where I can accurately characterize where he needs 35:58.520 --> 36:04.320 hypothesis is catching up again, your camera parade attendance has. Yeah, sorry, your camera 36:04.320 --> 36:08.280 just caught you off. So I don't know what the deal is. It's a it's okay. You're at 36:08.280 --> 36:13.640 perfect. It's right at the part where you said, okay, parade attendance predicts whether 36:13.640 --> 36:17.800 or not you're going to be a Republican and then it stopped. So all right. So the null 36:17.800 --> 36:21.680 hypothesis is parade attendance has nothing to do with it. Whether you're going to be 36:21.680 --> 36:27.080 a Republican or Democrat or something like this. So you form this model, you put it 36:27.080 --> 36:31.520 in a regression, you get a VP value, which is what these researchers from Harvard did. 36:31.520 --> 36:40.000 And they said, yes, attendance at a Fourth of July parade, when you're young, predicts 36:40.000 --> 36:44.360 whether or not you're going to be a Republican. And that's the that was what the headlines 36:44.360 --> 36:49.360 read. So, you know, these young patriotic little kids you're imagining are being radical 36:49.360 --> 36:55.640 on ice into into being far right extremist leg waivers by attending Fourth of July parade, 36:55.640 --> 37:01.560 but they cheated. They didn't use for the July parade attendance. What they did was 37:01.560 --> 37:07.600 they looked at people's residents when they were young, the address that they thought 37:07.600 --> 37:12.360 they lived at when they were young. And then they went back into the meteorological records 37:12.360 --> 37:18.920 and looked whether or not it rained on the Fourth of July. And if there was any precipitation 37:18.920 --> 37:26.120 on the Fourth of July, they said there was no parade. And the child could not have gone. 37:26.120 --> 37:31.680 And if it did not rain, if it was any kind of cloudy or clear day, they said, well, there 37:31.680 --> 37:36.680 must have been a Fourth of July parade and there must have been the kid attending it. 37:36.680 --> 37:42.920 That's the level of science. It's absolutely absurd because I always use this joke, but 37:42.920 --> 37:47.840 in San Francisco, of course, it never rains on the Fourth of July, almost never. And so 37:47.840 --> 37:54.520 the city should be teeming with Republicans because they would all go to these parades 37:54.520 --> 37:59.720 and so forth. But because we have this null hypothesis that's so easy to swap down. I 37:59.720 --> 38:04.040 mean, if you're not getting, if you're not rejecting your null hypothesis, you're not 38:04.040 --> 38:09.880 trying hard enough. It's always possible to do just just requires a little bit of ingenuity 38:09.880 --> 38:13.360 and you could do it. That's why we have so much bad science. 38:13.720 --> 38:21.600 Yeah, wow, that's a really good example because there you're really actually testing for 38:21.600 --> 38:28.200 even raining on Fourth of July. It's not even the parade, right? So that's one thing. But 38:28.200 --> 38:33.760 I really feel like that's a very good analogy for how far we are from actual understanding 38:33.760 --> 38:37.640 of what happened during the pandemic. They want you to believe it's as simple as some 38:37.640 --> 38:43.000 RNA molecules filled in a puddle and Wuhan. And now it's everywhere. But there's so much 38:43.000 --> 38:53.640 involved in that it's a massive pile of assumptions in the end. And I think it's useful to think 38:53.640 --> 39:00.040 of that as a model of reality that makes predictions. If you say that that's the way the pandemic 39:00.040 --> 39:04.720 worked, then that makes all kinds of predictions about how future RNA should transmit around 39:04.720 --> 39:10.120 the world and how these future signals could be found. And I think those that's where this 39:10.160 --> 39:15.360 whole thing would really fall apart like a like it should. I mean, because again, if 39:15.360 --> 39:22.600 you challenge them to make predictions, they can't. And that's I feel another side of the 39:22.600 --> 39:27.720 coin with regard to models being fitted to data versus, you know, making a model and 39:27.720 --> 39:32.440 then going out and seeking validation of it. I don't know. Absolutely. I don't know where 39:32.440 --> 39:36.120 I was going with that question, but no, no, it's absolutely right. You're absolutely right. 39:36.120 --> 39:41.080 If you can't make observe predictions of observables, it's the whole point is these 39:41.080 --> 39:45.880 observables are the things that are supposed to matter to us. And if you can't make, you 39:45.880 --> 39:52.080 can't make skillful predictions, it's a technical term, skillful predictions of these things, 39:52.080 --> 39:56.520 then you have no business feisting it off onto the public and making us follow the science 39:56.520 --> 39:59.200 is just, it's absurd, it's absurd. 39:59.200 --> 40:05.480 Well, that's the reason why I think it's important for people to understand then that if if done 40:05.480 --> 40:12.000 well, and even with malevolence, for example, if they want to create the illusion of pandemic 40:12.000 --> 40:17.360 potential using academic biology, they can do it. And they can even put p values behind 40:17.360 --> 40:23.000 it. And they can get peer review behind it. And so this whole system, right, has been 40:23.000 --> 40:29.600 distorted into, they call it knowledge, but it's not knowledge, it's not generating knowledge. 40:29.600 --> 40:35.440 And I really feel that big picture is something that a lot of people can get a grasp on. And 40:35.440 --> 40:41.680 if they do, it might put them in a place of healthy skepticism that gives them also a 40:41.680 --> 40:48.000 short, rather a small toolbox. You know, if you approach these problems as okay, what 40:48.000 --> 40:53.240 is the model that they are presenting to me and try to understand the cartoon version 40:53.240 --> 40:58.160 of reality that they are foisting upon you with the story that they tell and then evaluate 40:58.160 --> 41:02.200 whether or not that model makes any predictions that have value. I don't think that's hard 41:02.240 --> 41:06.680 for well, it could be hard for some people, but I think there are a lot of people who 41:06.680 --> 41:07.520 are capable of doing it. 41:07.520 --> 41:13.800 Couldn't be. It shouldn't be difficult. I mean, the best science we have, all science 41:13.800 --> 41:18.440 uses models. It's not using models. That's the problem that we should emphasize. You 41:18.440 --> 41:24.000 have to have a model, because you can't encompass all of reality all at once. You have to have 41:24.000 --> 41:30.680 a slice of it. You have to have some abstraction and some kind of model that that's not wrong. 41:30.680 --> 41:38.080 But the model should at least have proved itself. And fitting past data is nothing. 41:38.080 --> 41:44.800 It's absolutely zero. It's necessary, but it's far from sufficient, because any set 41:44.800 --> 41:51.600 of past data that you give me and any field, I can fit not just one, but any number of 41:51.600 --> 41:59.720 models to it and to any arbitrary precision. I can fit them perfectly. I can always find 41:59.760 --> 42:06.320 at least one model that will fit that past data perfectly. And this is a trivial, absolutely 42:06.320 --> 42:12.880 trivial mathematical exercise. So that we have sophisticated models done on a computer 42:12.880 --> 42:17.160 and they're done by experts and the model has been peer reviewed by people who also 42:17.160 --> 42:22.760 create their own models means nothing. It's absolutely nothing. It adds nothing to it. 42:22.760 --> 42:27.360 Like you say, it's not generating knowledge. It's generating noise. It's only when these 42:27.400 --> 42:34.080 models are verified and we're found. And again, it has to be by disinterested people. 42:34.080 --> 42:39.280 It can't be the same people who create the model and then make predictions to say, yeah, 42:39.280 --> 42:45.360 trust us. Everything's fine. No, no, we should know enough about now how the world works 42:45.360 --> 42:51.200 that we cannot have people who have an extreme interest in their own project, be that their 42:51.200 --> 42:56.360 own judge. There's legal maximums that guide this kind of a stuff. We need those same 42:56.360 --> 43:00.680 maximums to guide science. That was one of the useful discussions. I think we had two over 43:00.680 --> 43:06.600 the last week. Right. Right. I think a concrete example for people that are listening or watching 43:06.600 --> 43:12.520 for what Matt just said would be a mechanical model of the solar system. And you could crank 43:12.520 --> 43:16.840 it backwards and you can see that, Oh, wow, last month, it's okay. And the month before that, 43:16.840 --> 43:21.800 it's okay. And wow, it works for that eclipse from two months ago. But then you crank it 43:21.880 --> 43:28.040 forward and you go to tomorrow and the moon is backwards. And then you go a week a farther than 43:28.040 --> 43:32.680 that. And it's like the earth turns upside down. Then something inside of that box is not working 43:32.680 --> 43:37.320 correctly. Because even though when you crank it backwards, it seems to recapitulate the past 43:38.200 --> 43:42.840 astronomical data, when you crank it forward, if it doesn't make a prediction that happens in 43:42.840 --> 43:48.120 the future, then those gears are not working. And I think if you if you apply that to some of 43:48.120 --> 43:53.320 these biological models, or these nutritional models, or these, you know, a lot of this pandemic 43:53.320 --> 43:57.880 models, you get to the point where when you crank that thing forward, it's useless. It's 43:57.880 --> 44:05.400 absolutely useless. That's precisely it. And it's even worse than the picture than you're painting. 44:06.280 --> 44:10.120 Because think about this, think about that model we have now, we do have a model of the solar 44:10.120 --> 44:15.560 system, like a Copernican type model, we do crank it forward. And we do see that it does work rather 44:15.560 --> 44:22.440 well. However, there was an older model, a tolemaic model that had all these epicycles of things 44:22.440 --> 44:28.280 spinning this way and that way. That model also predicted very well. It predicted beautifully. 44:29.000 --> 44:36.760 So even if this is why it's a bare minimum to get the model to make good predictions, 44:36.760 --> 44:42.120 that's the first entry. After that, it still doesn't mean that you have proved you found a real 44:42.120 --> 44:47.400 cause of something. I love that. Oh, I love that you have a lot more to do. 44:47.960 --> 44:52.360 I love that you said that. Wow, that's really spectacular. I love that you said that. And that's 44:52.360 --> 44:57.960 really where where the grinding of science happens when there are two models that work pretty well. 44:57.960 --> 45:03.400 And now you need to come up with experiments that's able to dissect their their predictive 45:03.960 --> 45:10.120 value like that. That I imagined as a kid was what what all scientists were doing was at the 45:10.120 --> 45:14.680 me too, the cutting edge of knowledge deciding between the two best models 45:15.560 --> 45:19.880 with a clever experiment that got them a lab like obviously, isn't that what they're all doing? 45:21.160 --> 45:26.040 I don't know. Sometimes we can't always do experiments, you know, like in cosmology and so 45:26.040 --> 45:33.000 forth, or they're very limited. But yeah, that's it. That's it. We have to find, like I'm always 45:33.000 --> 45:38.440 saying, you we have to, this brings us back to broken science. One of the things that's broken 45:38.520 --> 45:46.200 about science is is the metaphysics. In order to do physics, you have to first have a metaphysics. 45:46.200 --> 45:54.280 So we need to understand the limits of the metaphysics that we currently use and of 45:54.280 --> 45:58.520 possible replacements and the superiority of replacements and so forth. But that's a whole 45:58.520 --> 46:05.640 other discussion. That's that's why it's very difficult to explain these kinds of things because 46:06.520 --> 46:12.440 we have to first get past the point where we recognize we've had a broken model and then we 46:12.440 --> 46:17.160 have to get to the point where we realize that models are not being used in a predictive sense. 46:17.160 --> 46:22.840 And then we have to realize that we have to have a firm understanding of what it means to cause 46:22.840 --> 46:29.000 and what what does cause something mean and all that kind of thing. So we really have to we really 46:29.000 --> 46:33.480 have to fix the foundations of science. And that's that's kind of what this broken science 46:33.480 --> 46:39.640 things about. I heard you leading a disc or having a discussion randomly between sessions. 46:40.920 --> 46:46.680 And it had to do a little bit with this, the idea that the table doesn't exist because actually 46:46.680 --> 46:50.040 it's mostly space. And then if we go farther and farther and farther, all of a sudden there's 46:50.040 --> 46:56.200 no causes at all or something like this. And that's really kind of where in a sort of, 46:56.920 --> 47:02.040 I'm terrible at these kinds of discussions, but that's sort of where where Sam Harris is with 47:02.040 --> 47:06.200 regard to, you know, free will and everything else is just we're all particles moving, right? 47:06.200 --> 47:10.600 And if we just had enough data, we would be able to predict the future and everything. 47:12.040 --> 47:16.520 Of course, I think that's false. And that he does. He's the kind of guy that there's not the 47:16.520 --> 47:21.720 table's not really there because it's mostly mostly empty space. And my metaphysics says the 47:21.720 --> 47:27.160 table's here. It's real. And in fact, the particles don't exist in it anymore. They only exist virtually 47:27.160 --> 47:32.920 in potentia. They're now part of the thing that is the table. There's no separation of 47:32.920 --> 47:38.040 particles and atoms anymore that makes the table. It just is a table, just as common sense 47:38.600 --> 47:43.320 shows it to you. And of course, about free will, I always make the joke. It's a standard joke, 47:43.320 --> 47:48.760 but it's true that you read these guys papers who try to prove to you that free will doesn't 47:48.760 --> 47:54.360 exist. And every one of these papers, they always say, if only people understood they couldn't make 47:54.360 --> 48:01.080 choices, they would make better choices. They always want to save the world by telling us that 48:01.080 --> 48:05.800 we really can't make choices. That's absurd. It's absurd. Here, what are they doing? They're 48:05.800 --> 48:11.960 using their free will to write it. That contradiction, when you call them on it, they'll just say, 48:11.960 --> 48:16.840 Oh, no, no, it doesn't work. It's an illusion. Okay. Fine. It's an illusion. Who is having the 48:16.840 --> 48:23.960 illusion? Right. Wow. Yeah. Who is having the illusion? It's a bluff. It's always a fluff. There's 48:23.960 --> 48:29.000 a lot of bluffs in science. And that's one of them. Yeah, that's wonderful way to put it. That's 48:29.000 --> 48:37.160 great. I'm I'm just sort of humbled by the fact that the first couple of these meetings were so 48:37.160 --> 48:44.360 overwhelming to me that the big picture of how to use this is a way to bring people to the light 48:44.360 --> 48:50.440 of things. It really felt like this was the first time where Greg nailed it, where other people nailed 48:50.520 --> 48:57.400 it and where I was comfortable enough in my seat to absorb it. And so I'm very, very excited about 48:58.120 --> 49:05.400 being able to to apply these ideas as you do now to biological papers and to like think about 49:06.040 --> 49:11.320 what I'm really calling out as far as what's broken with how they're doing it. And the other 49:11.320 --> 49:15.960 thing that was missing from my descriptions was understanding that there were lots of people 49:16.040 --> 49:20.360 who've thought about this, right? It's not some kind of secret. I mean, people have written books 49:20.360 --> 49:27.000 like you, but before you as well that that that part of the reason why we're here is because people 49:27.000 --> 49:33.800 like Popper wrote stuff. And yeah, and so it is important. I was pretty naive to all of that, 49:33.800 --> 49:38.920 that literature. And so it's been a big eye opening experience for me to realize that in the 49:38.920 --> 49:43.400 best. Well, that's just it. You could go through as a scientist. I did. I went through the whole 49:43.400 --> 49:50.280 thing. Cornell, I got my master's and atmospheric, you know, PhD, whatever. Many, many people, 49:50.280 --> 49:56.680 you never once have to be confronted by any of these philosophical matters. Never. 49:57.400 --> 50:02.520 Never. You can go through and finish. You don't, at the end, you're going to ask, what is science? 50:02.520 --> 50:08.040 Well, science is what I do. Yeah, right. You know, that's an answer, but it's not, it's not a very 50:08.040 --> 50:12.360 good answer. But that's what most people's answer is. And if they've absorbed anything, 50:12.360 --> 50:18.280 they've absorbed this idea of the Popperian, you know, falsifiability, and you now see the limits of 50:18.280 --> 50:25.000 that. But most scientists don't because they sort of dismiss a lot of philosophers. 50:25.560 --> 50:30.040 Well, I think they should dismiss a lot of them. There's a lot of these academic philosophers, 50:30.040 --> 50:35.400 you know, kind of postmodernistic kind of nonsense that they preach. It doesn't seem to have any 50:35.400 --> 50:41.800 bearing on what a scientist does. And they're right, it doesn't. But there's, there's, you still 50:41.800 --> 50:47.800 can't operate and be a scientist without some philosophy. You might not recognize that it's a 50:47.800 --> 50:53.640 philosophy, but you have one. You absolutely must have a philosophy in order to apply 50:55.320 --> 51:01.240 the skills that you've learned to, to build your models, to understand your models, 51:01.240 --> 51:04.120 to know what a model is, make predictions, all these kinds of things. 51:04.120 --> 51:10.840 I mean, I'll give you an example of how, I mean, how bad I'm going to burn myself here, but I 51:10.840 --> 51:18.840 think it's an important example. I think you'll be able to see this. So if you, if you had a 51:18.840 --> 51:24.920 neuron and a slice of brain where I used to work, and it would be surrounded by other neurons, 51:24.920 --> 51:30.920 of course. And in that slice, there would also be axons, which were coming in from other brain 51:30.920 --> 51:36.440 regions that were cut off, but were still transmitting neurotransmitter to the neuron 51:36.440 --> 51:41.560 that you're going to record from. And so one of the measurements that you would get from this 51:41.560 --> 51:48.840 recording would be these spontaneous events, which would look like this. And they're basically 51:49.960 --> 51:55.480 signals that are coming from these synapses, which have been cut, but are still active. 51:55.480 --> 52:01.720 And you can see the synaptic events in real time as this neuron receives them. Now, interestingly, 52:01.720 --> 52:07.640 one of the main, not one of the main, one of the ways that you create this, this scenario where 52:07.640 --> 52:15.480 you can write a paper about it would be to apply a drug here. And if the baseline amount of this 52:15.480 --> 52:24.920 signal were to change, then you would say that somehow or another, that drug is interacting with 52:25.800 --> 52:30.440 with these, the receptors or the proteins on these and changing the release probability 52:30.440 --> 52:35.640 of the glutamate there. And so then you start to understand how the drug works or doesn't work. 52:35.640 --> 52:41.160 Now, of course, this assumption would be backed up by pharmacological blocking here and all kinds 52:41.160 --> 52:48.280 of other things like that. But my point is more abstract in the sense of if you imagine how complex 52:48.280 --> 52:55.960 the brain is, it's pretty easy to get here and have a significant result when you pharmacologically 52:55.960 --> 53:05.320 alter the circuit. Now, the reason why I'm saying this is because I feel as though we're at the 53:05.320 --> 53:11.640 verge of being able to explain to people how it is. And with where I wasn't, I'm going to stop 53:11.640 --> 53:19.560 talking very soon. When I was in grad school, no one ever used the word straw man to describe 53:19.560 --> 53:27.080 the null hypothesis. And that was partly because it was kind of a sacred ritual. You would never 53:27.080 --> 53:33.880 be so, be so, how would you say coy or, or, or sorry, it's almost like sarcastic and not, 53:33.880 --> 53:39.560 it's not the right word. But you're being so honest, if you said that, that it was a straw man, and 53:39.640 --> 53:45.160 but it would be so useful from the perspective of teaching a graduate student exactly what this 53:45.160 --> 53:50.360 game is. Quite frankly, I feel as though knowing what I know now in broken science, I could go 53:50.360 --> 53:56.280 back to academia and be much more successful, because I understand what the formula is asking 53:56.280 --> 54:03.400 for. And it's not clouded by this ideal of what I imagine I'm doing. Can you can you relate to that 54:03.400 --> 54:09.160 illusion that I created for myself? That's absolutely it. That's that's that's how people 54:09.880 --> 54:15.160 that you described how a lot of people wake up from the rituals that they're practicing and 54:15.160 --> 54:22.200 understanding that this this method just doesn't give what they they wanted to give. I mean, 54:22.200 --> 54:25.880 you're trying to what you're trying to do there, you're trying to fundamentally fundamentally 54:25.880 --> 54:31.400 understand the causes at play. And that's exactly the right way to do it. That's absolutely the 54:31.400 --> 54:37.960 right way to do it. But it's brutal hard work, right? I mean, there's all kind of you realize 54:37.960 --> 54:42.440 after you set up a little simple experiment that you just drew right there. And and you saw the 54:42.440 --> 54:46.680 signals and suddenly you realize or you have other evidence that comes in later, you know, 54:46.680 --> 54:50.920 there's other things that could account for that change in signal to. And you have to keep 54:50.920 --> 54:57.000 eliminating them one by one by one. And it takes a very long time. It's very difficult to do the 54:57.080 --> 55:02.440 very best. Brutal brutal brutal hard work. Absolutely. That's what science is really like. 55:02.440 --> 55:08.760 But we've tried to make it too easy and it is now far too easy just apply this formula. And if it 55:08.760 --> 55:13.880 pops out this number pops out, well, then you you you prove what you want to do it. It's very sweet 55:13.880 --> 55:19.560 the way you say it because actually I I felt when I was stepping out of neuroscience or when I was 55:19.560 --> 55:26.600 my career was waning before I got let go. It was because I was still having to put in 55:27.320 --> 55:32.600 hundreds of hours to get my data set. I couldn't just roll someone into an fMRI machine and then 55:32.600 --> 55:38.760 go back to my computer for a couple weeks and then publish a paper. I had to find something that 55:38.760 --> 55:43.720 was in effect and then do some other experiments that showed that the effect wasn't from something 55:43.720 --> 55:48.840 else. And that was the pharmacological blocking and this kind of thing. And so I did feel 55:49.640 --> 55:55.480 a little bit like I was part of a small group of people that was still and I'm not trying to 55:55.480 --> 56:00.120 to my own horn. I'm trying to say how I felt it didn't fit in. I didn't have this 56:00.760 --> 56:05.240 five papers a year machine going. I couldn't figure I couldn't see it. I didn't I didn't 56:05.240 --> 56:09.640 have an answer to that problem, which was, you know, you're going to need eight papers in the next 56:09.640 --> 56:14.520 three years or you're not going to make it. And it's like what if you tell me that I could say 56:14.520 --> 56:18.440 immediately in that meeting, well, then I'm not going to make it because what I do doesn't work 56:18.440 --> 56:24.280 like that. And so do I need more students? Do I don't know what the answer was? But I was already 56:25.240 --> 56:29.240 finding that wheel unable to grind. I just couldn't do it anymore. 56:29.240 --> 56:34.200 Oh, yeah. For everybody who hasn't been exposed to academia, it's toxic in that way. 56:34.200 --> 56:38.920 It really is publisher parish. It's terrible. It's terrible. That accounts for the flood of bad 56:38.920 --> 56:43.320 papers. I mean, they're pushing out a lot of nonsense just because they have to keep their 56:43.320 --> 56:53.240 positions or to bring in grants to pay for themselves and their lab or and most importantly to to provide 56:53.560 --> 57:00.280 kickback to the deans in the form of overhead. That's you could write one paper a year or even 57:00.280 --> 57:05.480 none if you're bringing in good overhead. If you're bringing in that, which is, you know, 57:05.480 --> 57:11.720 it was at Cornell at one point, I think it was up to like 60%, 59 and a half percent overhead. 57:12.440 --> 57:17.640 I mean, so you get the grant grants a million dollars and then they tack on another $590,000 57:18.600 --> 57:23.480 overhead, and that just goes to the college, which becomes part of the slush funds for the 57:23.480 --> 57:29.640 deans. Yeah, absolutely. When my grant application or my grant, R01, for example, if I had 57:31.400 --> 57:40.200 when my supervisor got an R01, he paid 155% of my salary to the university. So 55% of my salary 57:40.200 --> 57:45.800 was rent. And he did that for every student and himself. So that's quite a, that's quite a load of 57:45.800 --> 57:50.200 money. If you think there are 130 faculty members just in that department that are all 57:50.200 --> 57:54.200 working under the same model and all those grad students walking around are all paying rent 57:54.760 --> 58:01.080 to the tune of thousands of dollars a year. I mean, it's extraordinary amount of money. That's why 58:01.080 --> 58:05.240 they can pay deans millions of dollars a year. They pay deans as much as they pay basketball 58:05.240 --> 58:12.760 coaches these days. Yep. It's extraordinary. So how about this? How about this? What have we got 58:12.760 --> 58:21.000 a bunch of weaponized money and started funding science that was, you know, we do have that in 58:21.000 --> 58:28.360 the way though, private companies that are not tied up with the government that are not tied up 58:28.360 --> 58:34.200 with the government that that proviso is the strongest one I could possibly make. You can say 58:34.200 --> 58:38.200 it's what I have an interest with the government and it becomes political. Well, that's just the 58:38.200 --> 58:44.680 same as being the government. That's where things can be done. So it's exactly that. It's private 58:44.680 --> 58:52.040 money in a patronage-like system trying to discover things for the sake of discovering them. 58:52.840 --> 58:58.920 They could be towards the desire of having a useful product or something. There's nothing 58:58.920 --> 59:07.640 per se wrong with that. It's only when it becomes, you know, as we saw with COVID, when it becomes, 59:07.640 --> 59:13.960 you know, a very political thing that the whole thing becomes somewhat difficult. And it becomes 59:13.960 --> 59:18.760 no different than regular academia. And you know as well as I do that same people go in and out of 59:18.760 --> 59:23.320 these corporations into the government that judges the granting agencies and all this kind of stuff. 59:23.320 --> 59:32.120 It's the same set of people. Yeah. It's a very difficult problem to get your head around. I 59:32.120 --> 59:37.240 think one of the things that I liked that I heard somebody say at the meeting, which I also think 59:37.240 --> 59:41.160 is something that can get people's wheels turning if they haven't thought about this before, is that 59:41.160 --> 59:48.440 all the real good sciences top secret, all the, I don't know to what extent that's really true 59:48.440 --> 59:55.000 or if it's just funny, but I do think that they're that identifying places like, you know, meteorology, 59:55.000 --> 01:00:04.040 like actuarial science, where models are required to verify, we can find examples where, you know, 01:00:04.920 --> 01:00:10.680 we can we can push science in that direction over time. We can teach, you know, if we can break 01:00:10.680 --> 01:00:15.640 into a university and teach and teach this to undergraduates, that would be great. We probably 01:00:15.640 --> 01:00:23.960 ruin their graduate experience, but I don't know. I'm still trying to do it. We can do it. The tools 01:00:23.960 --> 01:00:29.960 are there. Like I say, the tools, the tools we have, it's not it's not unknown. I mean, there's all 01:00:29.960 --> 01:00:35.560 kinds of investigations that can go on to improve these tools and so forth, but the basic set 01:00:36.440 --> 01:00:43.080 are there waiting for us to be used. Can I ask you a personal question now? Hey, can I ask you 01:00:43.080 --> 01:00:48.920 a personal question? What what do you do for, for, you know, to make ends meet? Are you teaching 01:00:48.920 --> 01:00:54.440 anywhere? Do you do you have online course or I mean, why not do it online? I should do an online 01:00:54.520 --> 01:01:01.240 course. No, I I basically have private clients. Okay. Would you want would you want enough? 01:01:01.800 --> 01:01:06.840 Would you want any help with an online course? Like I could be your technical guy or or I could 01:01:06.840 --> 01:01:11.800 I do need to figure out. I do need to do it. I keep swearing. I'm going to, but video is not 01:01:11.800 --> 01:01:18.040 I'm very naive about video. Oh, but you could, for example, you could record it in your own home. 01:01:18.040 --> 01:01:23.160 I have I have a chalkboard. Right. But then you then you send me the video and I edit it for you and 01:01:23.160 --> 01:01:28.680 add subtitles and all that stuff. I can do all that. I would be happy to do it. And we'll chat 01:01:28.680 --> 01:01:33.960 about that. Okay. I would think this would be really a good idea. And also, I would obviously 01:01:33.960 --> 01:01:39.160 learn from it a lot too. I think that's where we need to go. I think we need people like you 01:01:40.360 --> 01:01:45.320 taking over this thing. You know, I mean, if you could it, well, how awesome would it be if you 01:01:45.320 --> 01:01:52.200 meet somebody randomly? Oh, yeah, I took Matt Briggs's course last year. Bang. It should be a it should 01:01:52.200 --> 01:01:57.080 be something that people put on their website or people put on their social media. It I think 01:01:57.080 --> 01:02:02.600 you're a guy who, you know, you have the kind of charisma that can do it. You're you're a good 01:02:02.600 --> 01:02:07.640 speaker. And you and you've got all of the work done already in your books. You've already thought 01:02:07.640 --> 01:02:12.440 about this and develop these ideas. And so there's nothing I would have colored chalk. Well, there 01:02:12.440 --> 01:02:17.960 you go. I mean, is it the fancy stuff from Japan or is it just good? No, that's the one I got that 01:02:17.960 --> 01:02:24.600 got the one to this Korean. Yeah, yeah, that's good too. Yeah, no dust. 01:02:27.480 --> 01:02:31.080 That's fabulous. Oh my gosh, that's great. I love writing. That's awesome. 01:02:32.520 --> 01:02:36.920 If we are at like 59 minutes and I don't know what we said for time, but it feels like a very 01:02:36.920 --> 01:02:41.560 good time to wrap up and you just promised to come back because I'll have you on with more material 01:02:41.560 --> 01:02:46.440 and more more questions next time we can go into something specific that I get out of James as I 01:02:46.440 --> 01:02:52.600 read it. Oh, absolutely. Okay, cool. So I'm going to put this link up one more time. 01:02:52.600 --> 01:02:57.000 This is where you can find, unfortunately, it's an Amazon link, but that's the easiest for me. 01:02:57.000 --> 01:03:01.800 You can see his full name William M Briggs. You can see the books that he's got available. 01:03:01.800 --> 01:03:06.440 I would recommend the yellow one and everything you believe is not wrong, although he has contributed 01:03:06.440 --> 01:03:13.480 to this price of panic, which is specifically about the COVID COVID thing. And you can also find 01:03:13.480 --> 01:03:18.120 him at I think William M Briggs dot sub stack, something like that is at William Briggs. 01:03:18.120 --> 01:03:26.440 W M W M Briggs at sub stack. So thank you very much, Matt, for joining me. 01:03:26.440 --> 01:03:32.280 Can you remind me again? Well, maybe I'll do that offline. But I wanted to say hello to your wife 01:03:32.280 --> 01:03:37.560 as well. And for whatever reason, my mind is blanking on a name. So please give her a hug and say hello 01:03:37.560 --> 01:03:43.000 for me. And we will we will have you on within a month. I guarantee it unless you really object 01:03:43.640 --> 01:03:47.720 anytime. Cool. Very good. Very good. Thank you, Matt, for joining me. And I will talk to you again soon. 01:03:51.720 --> 01:03:57.080 Bao, Zawi. Okay, that went well. Thank you very much, guys, for joining me. I'm going to put this 01:03:57.080 --> 01:04:02.600 little slide back up again. This is, of course, the broken science meeting that happened a couple 01:04:02.600 --> 01:04:07.400 weeks ago. I hope Matt wasn't surprised that I let him go there so quick. I'll call him back on 01:04:07.400 --> 01:04:16.360 the phone. We are a group of people loosely organized around two people named Emily Kaplan 01:04:16.360 --> 01:04:22.520 and Greg Glassman. Greg Glassman is the originator, the creator of CrossFit, a very smart guy who 01:04:22.520 --> 01:04:28.440 actually had a very smart Papa named Jeff Glassman who worked for Hughes Aviation. And it was his 01:04:28.440 --> 01:04:33.720 upbringing with his very intelligent dad that has brought him all the way to understanding this 01:04:33.720 --> 01:04:40.520 stuff because CrossFit ran into legal problems with fake science. Basically, science, fake science 01:04:40.520 --> 01:04:45.960 was published to try and say that CrossFit enters people. And over the course of investigating this, 01:04:45.960 --> 01:04:50.600 he found out that his dad's been right about science his whole life. And it has put him on this 01:04:50.600 --> 01:04:57.960 crusade to try and, you know, leave a legacy for his children and for our children of his dad and 01:04:58.920 --> 01:05:06.760 these philosophers like Stove, these thinkers like Stove, and also our contemporaries like Matt 01:05:06.760 --> 01:05:13.560 Briggs. And so I really think this is one of the most worthwhile sort of initiatives and I'm so 01:05:14.120 --> 01:05:19.560 humbled to be considered a small part of it. So thank you, Emily. Thank you, Greg. And thank 01:05:19.560 --> 01:05:25.720 you, Matt, for coming on the show. And I think we're going to have a lot of interesting conversations 01:05:25.800 --> 01:05:30.120 as we go forward. At some point in time, of course, we're going to have Greg on the show. But I don't 01:05:30.120 --> 01:05:34.920 want to, I don't want to play that card too early because I don't, number one, I'm no, he's a busy 01:05:34.920 --> 01:05:39.560 guy. And so that'll be hard to organize. But number two, I want to have all of my ducks in a row and 01:05:39.560 --> 01:05:44.360 already have been paid back a little bit to him, the stuff that I've learned through a series of 01:05:44.360 --> 01:05:49.240 streams that this is the first one of. So thank you very much, guys, for joining me. This has been 01:05:49.240 --> 01:05:55.320 Giga Ohm Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist. 01:05:55.320 --> 01:06:02.840 19th of March, 2024. The afternoon shows are going to be a street because I really like this time frame. 01:06:05.080 --> 01:06:11.400 Thanks for joining me, guys. 73 people in the chat. Very understandable conversation. I hope 01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:17.240 good to see you, Pamela. Thanks for the link in the chat. She's always good for that. 01:06:17.240 --> 01:06:22.680 Can I see Janet Reno in the audience? Awesome. I didn't see you there earlier. I'm sorry, Janet. 01:06:22.680 --> 01:06:30.360 Janet's one of my favorite anonymous viewers because obviously it's not Janet Reno. It might be, 01:06:30.360 --> 01:06:39.000 it might be Ford. Some reason I think it might be Ford or something like that anyway. Thanks very 01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:47.080 much for joining me, guys. 01:07:17.240 --> 01:07:23.240 Thanks for joining me, and I'll see you in the next video.