Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Scientific progress relies on empirical evidence, rigorous testing, and peer review, none of which are advanced through public debates with untrained individuals. Unlike politics or philosophy, where personal opinions and rhetoric can shape policy, science is governed by objective data and reproducible facts that remain true regardless of public...

theliverdoc's profile picture

TheLiverDoc™

325,172 subscribers

146,190 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

BildungNachrichten & PolitikWissenschaft & Technologie
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

39 Kommentare

Profilbild von Pankaj Sethi
Pankaj Sethivor 4 Monaten

Great answers. However the questioning by the anchor seemed frivolous at times, and targeted at controversy and at your personality. Wonder if they were using your stature for engagement farming. But well played!

Profilbild von TheLiverDoc™
TheLiverDoc™vor 4 Monaten

Of course it was engagement farming only.

Profilbild von Pankaj Sethi
Pankaj Sethivor 4 Monaten

Yup!😎

Profilbild von Reverence
Reverencevor 4 Monaten

Ur debate on tv finally convinced my father of the nonsense that is ayurveda , he was taking metformin etc.. for his diabetes but he was convinced that apple coder vinegar was the one saving him🫩 , got him on ozempic too now

Profilbild von TheLiverDoc™
TheLiverDoc™vor 4 Monaten

🙌

Profilbild von Vitark (वितर्क)
Vitark (वितर्क)vor 4 Monaten

@Sonal_MK Should have approached this interview with a deeper understanding of science, scientific method and background research on the guest. When you invite scientific professionals, you shouldn't treat it like a content farming, drama-baiting episode just to entertain.

Profilbild von Dr Sangeetha MBBS,MD,Dch
Dr Sangeetha MBBS,MD,Dchvor 4 Monaten

Anchor is a waste of time Doc. She is a South Delhi Delhite with good English speaking skills and no depth.

Profilbild von Swasti Rao ラオ　スワスチイ
Swasti Rao ラオ　スワスチイvor 4 Monaten

This is Indeed a waste of your time Dr. I feel suffocated even listening to this nonsense on opinion vs diplomas vs absolutism vs dogmas vs science vs evidence. . At the societal level we don’t care about science or the scientific method . We don’t even have a scientific temperament.

Profilbild von IRKsome
IRKsomevor 4 Monaten

She's a trp chasing monkey-balancer who knows which side of the bread is buttered. Incidentally reminded me of a cartoon I saw long ago.

Profilbild von Kapil Gorve
Kapil Gorvevor 4 Monaten

Why do fail to understand that “he is not absolutist “. He is just saying what has been scientifically proven by research control trials. You want to challenge that, go and produce clinical evidence. The stupid debates don’t go anywhere other than feeling better about yourself

Profilbild von Joy Raman
Joy Ramanvor 4 Monaten

The interviewer is not stupid like. She is quite savvy. Its her job to ask the questions that the stupids would ask. That’s the sacrifice she has to make to appear as a credible interviewer. In fact, she asked the right questions so that Liverdoc can give the right answers.

Profilbild von Lekha Vishwanath
Lekha Vishwanathvor 4 Monaten

How did you sit through this? She's so stupid.

Profilbild von Rishi / ऋषि
Rishi / ऋषिvor 4 Monaten

Doc: X-ray shows fractured leg Anchor: but fit-influencer says swelling is bcoz of vit-d deficiency Doc: second x-ray still shows fracture Anchor: aren’t you absolutist? Would you like to debate with fit-influencer? Didi OH Didi 🤦‍♂️

Profilbild von Arpita Mallick Kandwal🇮🇳
Arpita Mallick Kandwal🇮🇳vor 4 Monaten

The questions are dumb,and thankfully so. Because those are questions laymen are swayed by. U being gracious to answer them in simple words,might help quite a few trapped in the algorithm.

Profilbild von @tvikr
@tvikrvor 4 Monaten

This clip makes me wonder if journalists are even taking their job seriously. "The fitness influencer has a certificate from Harvard".... How much effort would it take to get the details on this certificate?

Profilbild von sajitblr
sajitblrvor 4 Monaten

Always thought that Jitendra Chouksey was only interested in engagement farming to promote his business model. The guy wanted to debate medical doctors specialised in treating obesity like @DrNadolsky on GLP 1.

Profilbild von Indian First
Indian Firstvor 4 Monaten

This Rice Bag Convert like his funded missionaries hate Indic Knowledge and Culture. He spits on Bharat and hates Hindus.

Profilbild von SNI
SNIvor 4 Monaten

Earlier I used to think you are too rude till I tried to convince a close friend to use science based medicines against alternatives for a serious illness. He now looks at me as an enemy. I now understand how difficult it is. Thanks for what you do and hope good sense prevails.

Profilbild von Tiku
Tikuvor 4 Monaten

I often feel it's good that this debate happened despite the theatrics by her. In the age where people are consuming this kind of stuff more viewership is expected and that's a good sign to spread the message. It's been shared a lot. Though I'm sorry you had to tolerate this.. :(

Profilbild von Bharat
Bharatvor 4 Monaten

Now that you have proved that all generic medicines in India are equally good as Branded then why doctors don't prefer to prescribe Generic Medicines and why they say quietly that quality of generic medicines is inferior than branded? Is their personal interest to say so? Pls adv

Profilbild von Krooraa
Krooraavor 4 Monaten

These people don't know how to debate..this is modern day journalism.. She want one to change view on scientific fact because it makes him look authoritarian not because of any research which falsified that

Profilbild von S M
S Mvor 4 Monaten

What a stupid argument “not in same domain”… Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, Alan Tuning .. a chemist, a monk, a mathematician have contributed to medicine, genetics and biology…. You are a narcissist…. How can someone who likes science can be so closed minded

Profilbild von Ks_Rao
Ks_Raovor 4 Monaten

It needs a fair understanding of statistics to understand how evidence based medicine works. Our news anchors are not exactly educated enough to understand this. Maybe our psephologist newsman could. Baaki sab kaali axar bhains barabar hai.

Profilbild von lazybones
lazybonesvor 4 Monaten

I consider @Sonal_MK as a good, engaging reporter. But course when are talking about science, we have to be "absolutist". There's no "but", unless you show me an evidence for that. I hope @Sonal_MK asks for the evidence in the next podcast she's having with Ayurveda preachist.

Profilbild von Sandip Pandey
Sandip Pandeyvor 4 Monaten

Well said doc.

Profilbild von Anup Shetty
Anup Shettyvor 4 Monaten

That smile … that dumb idiotic smile of hers… painful to watch, Doc you did so well

Profilbild von Dr Farzana Islam
Dr Farzana Islamvor 4 Monaten

Completely agree. Doctors and researchers spend years generating evidence and treating patients before reaching scientific conclusions. Science is driven by data and evidence, not loud opinions or social media debates.

Profilbild von Parijat Sen
Parijat Senvor 4 Monaten

“You wont debate it? So you are an absolutist” The earth revolves around the sun. If someone has a contrarian opinion, are we engaging in a “debate” with them. Would we be an “absolutist” otherwise I shudder at the fate of the youth when I see anchors spiting such nonsense 😩

Profilbild von Karthik
Karthikvor 4 Monaten

Science is not debated ! Science is proven - words to die by courtesy of @theliverdoc

Profilbild von PBGMC
PBGMCvor 4 Monaten

📢Hello doctors! Now that there are evidences that generic medicines are cheaper & equally good, how many of you started generic prescription? Or the evidence must also align with business interests? 🤣 #DhruvBhaiMBBS #usmle @DghsIndia @JPNadda @MoHFW_INDIA @NMC_BHARAT Satire 👇

Profilbild von Raul
Raulvor 4 Monaten

It's abundantly clear that you're nothing more than a propagandist and a foreign-funded missionary pushing a hidden agenda. You're actively misleading people, particularly the youth, with your baseless narratives.

Profilbild von Deirdre R Singh
Deirdre R Singhvor 4 Monaten

I’m so glad you schooled JC!😆

Profilbild von TheLiverDoc™
TheLiverDoc™vor 4 Monaten

Anyone can be like JC. But it takes sacrifice to be a doctor who goes through MBBS, MD, DM or its equivalent, where public health is part of the intense training throughout.

Profilbild von Deirdre R Singh
Deirdre R Singhvor 4 Monaten

I know.I had a diff of opinion on his keto being sustainable long ago.Ive seen too many new degrees and certificates for a few bucks for just abt anything for a very short duration which is a joke now bec it takes away from those who’ve put in the time with study n experience.

Profilbild von catatonic
catatonicvor 4 Monaten

This interviewer is genuinely stupid

Profilbild von Hameed Pasha حمید پاشا
Hameed Pasha حمید پاشاvor 4 Monaten

You have tonnes of patience to be even answering her stupid questions...she doesn't even have basic knowledge about how evidence based medicine works...she didn't do her homework properly before the interview for sure...what a dumbass!!

Profilbild von Khan
Khanvor 4 Monaten

@Sonal_MK , please go through the reviews which involves you You were good in NDTV

Profilbild von Ranvir Singh 🇮🇳
Ranvir Singh 🇮🇳vor 4 Monaten

I can sometimes read faces... You were absolutely fuming inside, seething at her nonstop, over-the-top smiling while she kept firing the dumbest questions. A couple of times you even resisted saying it on her face. 😂 😂

Profilbild von Begum Blanchett
Begum Blanchettvor 4 Monaten

I feel bad that today, a scientist is called an absolutist. What the hell is wrong with our society!

Ähnliche Videos

HISTORIC: President Trump just signed an executive order to codify gold-standard science into U.S. government policy This is a massive win for the MAHA movement—and a crushing blow to Fauci-era mandates and the climate alarmist junk science that’s shaped national policy for decades. From the Oval Office, White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf read the order aloud: “This executive order is entitled ‘Restoring Gold-Standard Science.’” “One of the issues we’ve had in recent decades is that government policy has been made on the back of junk science—scientific studies and findings that included conflicts of interest or scientific misconduct.” The order does one thing clearly: put truth back at the center of policymaking. “The purpose of this executive order is to re-center policymaking around gold-standard science—scientific efforts that follow appropriate methods and don’t include conflicts of interest.” And it forces transparency across the board: “To ensure that when departments and agencies rely on scientific studies, to promulgate rules, to promulgate regulations, that the science that they’re relying on is highly reliable and available to the public.” The days of captured science are over.
1:08

HISTORIC: President Trump just signed an executive order to codify gold-standard science into U.S. government policy This is a massive win for the MAHA movement—and a crushing blow to Fauci-era mandates and the climate alarmist junk science that’s shaped national policy for decades. From the Oval Office, White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf read the order aloud: “This executive order is entitled ‘Restoring Gold-Standard Science.’” “One of the issues we’ve had in recent decades is that government policy has been made on the back of junk science—scientific studies and findings that included conflicts of interest or scientific misconduct.” The order does one thing clearly: put truth back at the center of policymaking. “The purpose of this executive order is to re-center policymaking around gold-standard science—scientific efforts that follow appropriate methods and don’t include conflicts of interest.” And it forces transparency across the board: “To ensure that when departments and agencies rely on scientific studies, to promulgate rules, to promulgate regulations, that the science that they’re relying on is highly reliable and available to the public.” The days of captured science are over.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

315,474 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

FDA’s Dangerous Betrayal of Science & Transparency: A Warning from Dr. Marty Makary "We just watched our government do the most dangerous thing a government could ever do." Dr. Marty Makary, renowned surgeon and public health expert, delivers a chilling indictment of the FDA’s reckless approval of a novel vaccine for young, healthy kids—despite internal dissent. Two top vaccine experts were fired for opposing its authorization. Then, the government mandated it, silenced doctors demanding data, and crushed scientific debate. This isn’t just failure—it’s a fundamental betrayal of science. Science thrives on transparency, skepticism, and evolving with evidence. Instead, we got censorship, coercion, and blind allegiance from the very institutions meant to protect public trust. "The purpose of science is open dialogue—to disagree, question, and adapt as data emerges." Yet today, doctors are punished for asking questions, data is hidden, and dissent is labeled "misinformation." This isn’t science—it’s authoritarianism in a lab coat. If we don’t demand accountability now, what will they force next?
0:46

FDA’s Dangerous Betrayal of Science & Transparency: A Warning from Dr. Marty Makary "We just watched our government do the most dangerous thing a government could ever do." Dr. Marty Makary, renowned surgeon and public health expert, delivers a chilling indictment of the FDA’s reckless approval of a novel vaccine for young, healthy kids—despite internal dissent. Two top vaccine experts were fired for opposing its authorization. Then, the government mandated it, silenced doctors demanding data, and crushed scientific debate. This isn’t just failure—it’s a fundamental betrayal of science. Science thrives on transparency, skepticism, and evolving with evidence. Instead, we got censorship, coercion, and blind allegiance from the very institutions meant to protect public trust. "The purpose of science is open dialogue—to disagree, question, and adapt as data emerges." Yet today, doctors are punished for asking questions, data is hidden, and dissent is labeled "misinformation." This isn’t science—it’s authoritarianism in a lab coat. If we don’t demand accountability now, what will they force next?

Camus

84,870 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I've never been impressed by Harari's work. After all these years, Harari still seems unable to grasp that ideology does not flow in a single direction from storytellers to scientists. The relationship is circular. To claim that "stories control facts" is, ultimately, a mistake. What is striking is how much of his framework rests on an extraordinarily fragile dualism. He assumes that there are brute, pre-conceptual, neutral facts simply waiting to be discovered, and that the nuclear scientist, to use his own example, is merely an executor of objective truths, while the storyteller is the true holder of symbolic and narrative power. That reflects a remarkably naïve understanding of how ideology actually operates. Scientific facts do not exist independently of interpretation. They emerge within conceptual frameworks and established scientific practices. There is no such thing as a pure accumulation of facts. Harari's position remains captive to a distinctly Rousseauian form of political naturalism. It assumes that human nature is inherently rational and fundamentally good, only to be corrupted by external narratives. Ultimately, Harari portrays science as a privileged mechanism of self-correction that, unlike religion or political ideology, merely eliminates error without ever producing ideology itself. That is profoundly naïve, AGAIN. To claim that science stands outside ideology is itself an ideological claim.
1:05

I've never been impressed by Harari's work. After all these years, Harari still seems unable to grasp that ideology does not flow in a single direction from storytellers to scientists. The relationship is circular. To claim that "stories control facts" is, ultimately, a mistake. What is striking is how much of his framework rests on an extraordinarily fragile dualism. He assumes that there are brute, pre-conceptual, neutral facts simply waiting to be discovered, and that the nuclear scientist, to use his own example, is merely an executor of objective truths, while the storyteller is the true holder of symbolic and narrative power. That reflects a remarkably naïve understanding of how ideology actually operates. Scientific facts do not exist independently of interpretation. They emerge within conceptual frameworks and established scientific practices. There is no such thing as a pure accumulation of facts. Harari's position remains captive to a distinctly Rousseauian form of political naturalism. It assumes that human nature is inherently rational and fundamentally good, only to be corrupted by external narratives. Ultimately, Harari portrays science as a privileged mechanism of self-correction that, unlike religion or political ideology, merely eliminates error without ever producing ideology itself. That is profoundly naïve, AGAIN. To claim that science stands outside ideology is itself an ideological claim.

Guilherme Gomes Santos

13,997 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Stephen Meyer just exposed one of the dirtiest secrets of modern science. We’re constantly told: “Trust the science.” “The scientific consensus says…” But scientists are only exposing themselves when they say things like that, according to Meyer. “When scientists appeal to consensus, almost invariably, there isn’t one.” “You only appeal to consensus to shut down dissenting opinions.” “If there really is a consensus, you don’t need to appeal to one.” “Scientists never say: the consensus is that the formula for water is H2O.” “They only appeal to consensus when there’s actual debate, and they want to shut down a dissenting group of scientists who hold a different opinion.” “We’ve had this move made or applied against us numerous times.” “Proponents of intelligent design, or critics of Darwinian evolution or neo-Darwinian evolution will be told: this is settled science, and to challenge it is pseudoscience.” “When there’s an appeal to consensus… it’s usually a rhetorical ploy to silence an alternative perspective or a group of dissenting scientists.” “And this is actually ironically profoundly unscientific behavior.” “If there’s no serious dissent, you don’t need to appeal to consensus.” “When people appeal to settled science or consensus, it’s often a tell that there’s subterranean dissent that needs to be heard.” Stay tuned for my full interview with Stephen C. Meyer—coming this Saturday at 5PM ET!
3:38

Stephen Meyer just exposed one of the dirtiest secrets of modern science. We’re constantly told: “Trust the science.” “The scientific consensus says…” But scientists are only exposing themselves when they say things like that, according to Meyer. “When scientists appeal to consensus, almost invariably, there isn’t one.” “You only appeal to consensus to shut down dissenting opinions.” “If there really is a consensus, you don’t need to appeal to one.” “Scientists never say: the consensus is that the formula for water is H2O.” “They only appeal to consensus when there’s actual debate, and they want to shut down a dissenting group of scientists who hold a different opinion.” “We’ve had this move made or applied against us numerous times.” “Proponents of intelligent design, or critics of Darwinian evolution or neo-Darwinian evolution will be told: this is settled science, and to challenge it is pseudoscience.” “When there’s an appeal to consensus… it’s usually a rhetorical ploy to silence an alternative perspective or a group of dissenting scientists.” “And this is actually ironically profoundly unscientific behavior.” “If there’s no serious dissent, you don’t need to appeal to consensus.” “When people appeal to settled science or consensus, it’s often a tell that there’s subterranean dissent that needs to be heard.” Stay tuned for my full interview with Stephen C. Meyer—coming this Saturday at 5PM ET!

Jan Jekielek

11,823 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN's Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on "Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy." The UN wants to categorise any statement that "undermines" their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn't provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data. It’s alarming that those in charge of "information integrity" at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others. To claim someone is spreading "misinformation" requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim. We cannot allow "consensus" or UN-dictated "integrity" to replace real, verifiable science. I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.
7:27

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN's Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on "Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy." The UN wants to categorise any statement that "undermines" their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn't provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data. It’s alarming that those in charge of "information integrity" at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others. To claim someone is spreading "misinformation" requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim. We cannot allow "consensus" or UN-dictated "integrity" to replace real, verifiable science. I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

40,721 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Can #AI not only support but actually drive the future of scientific discovery? We are excited to introduce SciAgents💡🔬, an agentic AI aimed towards scientific discovery through the integration of large-scale knowledge graphs, LLMs, and adversarial interactions between multiple experts. The model is capable of autonomously advancing scientific understanding by exploring novel domains, identifying complex patterns, and uncovering previously unseen connections in vast scientific data, while retrieving new data via literature search. Using graph reasoning, SciAgents identifies interdisciplinary relationships that might otherwise remain hidden, offering a step-by-step strategy for discovery & innovation. The video features an audiotrack generated using 🍓#o1 based on the original paper and design examples, providing an explanation of the work and its implications. Key elements include: 1⃣Ontological Knowledge Graphs: Structuring and connecting scientific concepts to highlight relationships across fields. 2⃣Multi-Agent Collaboration: AI agents autonomously generate and refine hypotheses, critique research, and evaluate emerging trends. 3⃣Graph-Based Reasoning: Identifying novel material designs, such as mycelium-based composites or silk-pigment blends, informed by both natural and artificial patterns. SciAgents can be used as an autonomous or collaborative tool to assist human researchers. The system offers a more powerful way to process vast data, providing innovative paths to explore nature-inspired designs or unexpected material properties. In the field of materials science, for instance, SciAgents has already demonstrated how principles from biology, music, and art can converge to create new biomimetic materials. Through isomorphic mapping, parallels have been drawn between Beethoven’s 9th Symphony and biological structures, pointing to a broader applicability of AI-driven insights across disciplines. This project allows us to enhance capabilities of researchers, allowing them to explore larger datasets and propose hypotheses grounded in a vast, interconnected web of knowledge. The agentic system was built using Auto Gen #AI #ScientificResearch #GraphReasoning #AI4Science #MaterialsScience #InterdisciplinaryResearch #SciAgents #OpenAI Chi Wang
8:14

Can #AI not only support but actually drive the future of scientific discovery? We are excited to introduce SciAgents💡🔬, an agentic AI aimed towards scientific discovery through the integration of large-scale knowledge graphs, LLMs, and adversarial interactions between multiple experts. The model is capable of autonomously advancing scientific understanding by exploring novel domains, identifying complex patterns, and uncovering previously unseen connections in vast scientific data, while retrieving new data via literature search. Using graph reasoning, SciAgents identifies interdisciplinary relationships that might otherwise remain hidden, offering a step-by-step strategy for discovery & innovation. The video features an audiotrack generated using 🍓#o1 based on the original paper and design examples, providing an explanation of the work and its implications. Key elements include: 1⃣Ontological Knowledge Graphs: Structuring and connecting scientific concepts to highlight relationships across fields. 2⃣Multi-Agent Collaboration: AI agents autonomously generate and refine hypotheses, critique research, and evaluate emerging trends. 3⃣Graph-Based Reasoning: Identifying novel material designs, such as mycelium-based composites or silk-pigment blends, informed by both natural and artificial patterns. SciAgents can be used as an autonomous or collaborative tool to assist human researchers. The system offers a more powerful way to process vast data, providing innovative paths to explore nature-inspired designs or unexpected material properties. In the field of materials science, for instance, SciAgents has already demonstrated how principles from biology, music, and art can converge to create new biomimetic materials. Through isomorphic mapping, parallels have been drawn between Beethoven’s 9th Symphony and biological structures, pointing to a broader applicability of AI-driven insights across disciplines. This project allows us to enhance capabilities of researchers, allowing them to explore larger datasets and propose hypotheses grounded in a vast, interconnected web of knowledge. The agentic system was built using Auto Gen #AI #ScientificResearch #GraphReasoning #AI4Science #MaterialsScience #InterdisciplinaryResearch #SciAgents #OpenAI Chi Wang

Markus J. Buehler

209,581 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

I recently had the pleasure (and honor) of speaking with Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine, a publication that has shaped debates on science, skepticism, and truth for decades. It was a privilege to discuss questions that have occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries: How do we know what is true? Why do humans believe things that are not true? And what role should science, philosophy, and public reasoning play in an age increasingly shaped by narratives and technology? Our conversation went from science and religion, tribalism and conspiracy theories, to artificial intelligence, biotechnology, morality, free will, and even the possibility of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations. What I particularly appreciated was the opportunity to engage across intellectual traditions, bringing perspectives from Western philosophy as well as ideas rooted in Indian thought, including reflections inspired by the Bhagavad Gita and the ideal of Satyamev Jayate: truth alone triumphs. It was a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion with someone whose work has shaped these debates for decades.
1:10:40

I recently had the pleasure (and honor) of speaking with Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic Magazine, a publication that has shaped debates on science, skepticism, and truth for decades. It was a privilege to discuss questions that have occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries: How do we know what is true? Why do humans believe things that are not true? And what role should science, philosophy, and public reasoning play in an age increasingly shaped by narratives and technology? Our conversation went from science and religion, tribalism and conspiracy theories, to artificial intelligence, biotechnology, morality, free will, and even the possibility of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations. What I particularly appreciated was the opportunity to engage across intellectual traditions, bringing perspectives from Western philosophy as well as ideas rooted in Indian thought, including reflections inspired by the Bhagavad Gita and the ideal of Satyamev Jayate: truth alone triumphs. It was a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion with someone whose work has shaped these debates for decades.

Pooja Arora

38,068 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

I've been attending public hearings in relation to Climate Integrity and what I've witnessed in these hearings reveals a sobering preview of Australia's future under this government. Instead of using the Senate Committee to find the truth, I watched this Labor-Greens government use the platform to bully experts and silence dissent. To hear a Senator claim that science is "not contested anymore" once a consensus is reached isn't just wrong, it’s a rejection of the scientific method itself. Science relies on evidence and questioning, not government-mandated agreement. Labor wants to be the "thought police" of Australia, censoring any opinion they find inconvenient. They are treating our Senate like a rubber stamp for censorship. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: One Nation will fight this every inch of the way. We will not let this government, with the help of the Greens, turn our beloved country into a place where free speech is not allowed.
2:00

I've been attending public hearings in relation to Climate Integrity and what I've witnessed in these hearings reveals a sobering preview of Australia's future under this government. Instead of using the Senate Committee to find the truth, I watched this Labor-Greens government use the platform to bully experts and silence dissent. To hear a Senator claim that science is "not contested anymore" once a consensus is reached isn't just wrong, it’s a rejection of the scientific method itself. Science relies on evidence and questioning, not government-mandated agreement. Labor wants to be the "thought police" of Australia, censoring any opinion they find inconvenient. They are treating our Senate like a rubber stamp for censorship. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: One Nation will fight this every inch of the way. We will not let this government, with the help of the Greens, turn our beloved country into a place where free speech is not allowed.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

21,392 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Jordan Peterson made a profound point on Chris Williamson’s podcast. When God dies, a lot of unexpected things die with Him, including science. Science isn’t some purely neutral, secular tool. It rests on deeply religious assumptions: that truth exists, that it’s knowable, that pursuing it is good, and that the universe makes sense. These aren’t scientific claims, they’re metaphysical, rooted in a religious worldview. The universities themselves grew out of monasteries. Without that deeper foundation, science eventually stops being about truth and becomes just another tool for power, ideology, or convenience. You lose the reason to be honest when the data gets inconvenient. Do you think science can survive long-term without any belief in objective truth or a higher moral order?
2:07

Jordan Peterson made a profound point on Chris Williamson’s podcast. When God dies, a lot of unexpected things die with Him, including science. Science isn’t some purely neutral, secular tool. It rests on deeply religious assumptions: that truth exists, that it’s knowable, that pursuing it is good, and that the universe makes sense. These aren’t scientific claims, they’re metaphysical, rooted in a religious worldview. The universities themselves grew out of monasteries. Without that deeper foundation, science eventually stops being about truth and becomes just another tool for power, ideology, or convenience. You lose the reason to be honest when the data gets inconvenient. Do you think science can survive long-term without any belief in objective truth or a higher moral order?

Camus

270,459 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

We all know Zac Kaizen has targeted, doxxed and harassed innocent women, alongside many otherwise anonymous users. When someone like Zac holds a senior software engineering role at a major credit-reporting company like Experian Experian_US, the public and the company’s stakeholders expect a high bar for judgment and discretion. Experian sits on some of the most sensitive personal data in existence —names, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial histories, and more. Trust is the core product. If an employee in that position is simultaneously running a high-volume personal X account that names private individuals, posts their photos, digs into personal situations, and engages in pointed public doxxing, the optics become immediately problematic for several reasons: 1. Appearance of poor judgment: Senior technical roles require people who can be trusted with elevated access and decision-making power. Aggressive, personal online targeting of ordinary people creates the impression that the individual lacks the restraint expected of someone in that position. 2. Blurred lines between professional access and personal activity: Even if every piece of information shared is publicly available, the mere fact that an employee of a data company is skilled at finding, compiling, and publicly amplifying personal details about private citizens raises questions. Outsiders will wonder whether professional tools, skills, or access are being leveraged (or could be leveraged) for personal score-settling. 3. Reputational risk to the employer: Credit bureaus and data firms already face intense public skepticism. Any story that can be framed as “person with access to sensitive databases spends free time publicly targeting individuals online” is easy for critics, journalists, or regulators to amplify. The company does not need to be directly involved for the association to become damaging. 4. Regulatory and compliance sensitivity: These companies operate under strict frameworks (FCRA and related rules). Leadership is highly motivated to avoid any perception that employees might misuse data skills or systems. Public behavior that looks like personal targeting or harassment creates internal risk even if no policy has been formally broken. 5. Asymmetry of power: An ordinary person being named and mocked by someone who works at a company that holds their credit file creates an inherent power imbalance in the eyes of the public. That imbalance is what makes the optics especially bad, regardless of the underlying facts of any individual dispute. In short: the combination of elevated access to sensitive personal data and Experian+ a public pattern of naming and targeting private individuals online is a classic reputational and risk problem. It does not require proven illegal conduct or confirmed database misuse to look extremely bad. The perception alone is enough to create serious institutional discomfort. I hope Experian clarifies this accordingly and swiftly. This shouldn't escalate any further.
1:07

We all know Zac Kaizen has targeted, doxxed and harassed innocent women, alongside many otherwise anonymous users. When someone like Zac holds a senior software engineering role at a major credit-reporting company like Experian Experian_US, the public and the company’s stakeholders expect a high bar for judgment and discretion. Experian sits on some of the most sensitive personal data in existence —names, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial histories, and more. Trust is the core product. If an employee in that position is simultaneously running a high-volume personal X account that names private individuals, posts their photos, digs into personal situations, and engages in pointed public doxxing, the optics become immediately problematic for several reasons: 1. Appearance of poor judgment: Senior technical roles require people who can be trusted with elevated access and decision-making power. Aggressive, personal online targeting of ordinary people creates the impression that the individual lacks the restraint expected of someone in that position. 2. Blurred lines between professional access and personal activity: Even if every piece of information shared is publicly available, the mere fact that an employee of a data company is skilled at finding, compiling, and publicly amplifying personal details about private citizens raises questions. Outsiders will wonder whether professional tools, skills, or access are being leveraged (or could be leveraged) for personal score-settling. 3. Reputational risk to the employer: Credit bureaus and data firms already face intense public skepticism. Any story that can be framed as “person with access to sensitive databases spends free time publicly targeting individuals online” is easy for critics, journalists, or regulators to amplify. The company does not need to be directly involved for the association to become damaging. 4. Regulatory and compliance sensitivity: These companies operate under strict frameworks (FCRA and related rules). Leadership is highly motivated to avoid any perception that employees might misuse data skills or systems. Public behavior that looks like personal targeting or harassment creates internal risk even if no policy has been formally broken. 5. Asymmetry of power: An ordinary person being named and mocked by someone who works at a company that holds their credit file creates an inherent power imbalance in the eyes of the public. That imbalance is what makes the optics especially bad, regardless of the underlying facts of any individual dispute. In short: the combination of elevated access to sensitive personal data and Experian+ a public pattern of naming and targeting private individuals online is a classic reputational and risk problem. It does not require proven illegal conduct or confirmed database misuse to look extremely bad. The perception alone is enough to create serious institutional discomfort. I hope Experian clarifies this accordingly and swiftly. This shouldn't escalate any further.

Travis

124,841 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Geological Diplomacy Why Russia Should Maintain a Presence in UNESCO Amid politically strained relations with UNESCO after 2022, Russia will maintain a working channel of interaction through geosciences and geoparks—one of the few areas where we retain expert weight and a clear international agenda. ▪️The main recent result of this interaction is the Toratau Geopark in Bashkortostan, approved for inclusion in the UNESCO Global Geoparks network in 2025–2026. For Russia, this is not just a local success: the idea of ​​a national geopark system with a base site in Bashkortostan is being promoted as a model for replication in other regions of the country. ▪️A geopark is not just a "beautiful place with rocks," but an official status for a territory where geology is used as a foundation for education, tourism, and sustainable development. The status is important because it confers international recognition, attracts tourists and investment, opens access to UNESCO's network of experts and programs, and strengthens the country's position in the soft science and cultural agenda. There are currently approximately 229 geoparks in 50 countries worldwide. ▪️The Karpinsky Institute, which also organizes specialized events at UNESCO, is responsible for preparing and providing expert support for applications. This allows the Institute to remain a visible participant in the international geoscience network, despite the general context. 🖍At the same time, the Institute is implementing an educational project with an international reach—"Karpinsky Classes": specialized geological classrooms with equipment, curricula, and online courses. Over the past two years, classrooms have opened in Cuba, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Ghana, and the CIS countries. We have been following them for a long time. 🚩A separate area is inclusive geology: adapting geoscience education for children with disabilities and audiences with limited access to STEM. In other words, geology and related sciences are being redesigned to make them accessible to those who are typically excluded by barriers—for health or social reasons. At international forums, this is presented as a contribution to the accessibility of science in countries of the Global South—an agenda that always resonates with UNESCO. 🏳️The third track is scientific. Russia remains a country with a significant base in polar research, and geophysical data from Antarctica fits into UNESCO's program on geodynamics, plate tectonics, and climate change. This is an argument that is difficult to ignore: in a number of areas, Russian science is simply indispensable as a provider of fundamental data. 📌Overall, all the aforementioned tracks together form an important and convenient tool of soft power in the face of sanctions. Russia demonstrates that it remains part of the global scientific community, is responsible for major sectors of the scientific agenda, and is building long-term ties with countries in Africa and Eurasia through education and science. In official documents of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO, geoparks and geosciences are explicitly cited as one of the few positive avenues of cooperation. This makes sense: while contact on many fronts is frozen, science—sustainable development and education—remains a channel that neither side is interested in completely closing.
1:40

Geological Diplomacy Why Russia Should Maintain a Presence in UNESCO Amid politically strained relations with UNESCO after 2022, Russia will maintain a working channel of interaction through geosciences and geoparks—one of the few areas where we retain expert weight and a clear international agenda. ▪️The main recent result of this interaction is the Toratau Geopark in Bashkortostan, approved for inclusion in the UNESCO Global Geoparks network in 2025–2026. For Russia, this is not just a local success: the idea of ​​a national geopark system with a base site in Bashkortostan is being promoted as a model for replication in other regions of the country. ▪️A geopark is not just a "beautiful place with rocks," but an official status for a territory where geology is used as a foundation for education, tourism, and sustainable development. The status is important because it confers international recognition, attracts tourists and investment, opens access to UNESCO's network of experts and programs, and strengthens the country's position in the soft science and cultural agenda. There are currently approximately 229 geoparks in 50 countries worldwide. ▪️The Karpinsky Institute, which also organizes specialized events at UNESCO, is responsible for preparing and providing expert support for applications. This allows the Institute to remain a visible participant in the international geoscience network, despite the general context. 🖍At the same time, the Institute is implementing an educational project with an international reach—"Karpinsky Classes": specialized geological classrooms with equipment, curricula, and online courses. Over the past two years, classrooms have opened in Cuba, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Ghana, and the CIS countries. We have been following them for a long time. 🚩A separate area is inclusive geology: adapting geoscience education for children with disabilities and audiences with limited access to STEM. In other words, geology and related sciences are being redesigned to make them accessible to those who are typically excluded by barriers—for health or social reasons. At international forums, this is presented as a contribution to the accessibility of science in countries of the Global South—an agenda that always resonates with UNESCO. 🏳️The third track is scientific. Russia remains a country with a significant base in polar research, and geophysical data from Antarctica fits into UNESCO's program on geodynamics, plate tectonics, and climate change. This is an argument that is difficult to ignore: in a number of areas, Russian science is simply indispensable as a provider of fundamental data. 📌Overall, all the aforementioned tracks together form an important and convenient tool of soft power in the face of sanctions. Russia demonstrates that it remains part of the global scientific community, is responsible for major sectors of the scientific agenda, and is building long-term ties with countries in Africa and Eurasia through education and science. In official documents of the Commission of the Russian Federation for UNESCO, geoparks and geosciences are explicitly cited as one of the few positive avenues of cooperation. This makes sense: while contact on many fronts is frozen, science—sustainable development and education—remains a channel that neither side is interested in completely closing.

Rybar in English

70,813 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Peter Robinson (Peter Robinson) speaks with Jay Bhattacharya, a former Stanford professor and epidemiologist, and the newly appointed director of the National Institutes of Health. Once labeled a "fringe epidemiologist" by the previous administration at NIH, he now leads the world's largest biomedical research agency and its $50 billion annual budget. Their conversation explores the structural flaws in America's public health institutions, including the replication crisis, the culture of scientific risk aversion, and the NIH's growing failure to address the rise of chronic disease. Dr. Bhattacharya outlines his vision for reform—emphasizing transparency, innovation, and restoring public trust in science. He also addresses the politics of scientific funding, the need for better vaccine evaluation standards, and the rationale behind the administration's new restrictions on gain-of-function research. It is a candid and thoughtful discussion with a scientist now tasked with reshaping the very system that once attacked him. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge on X:
1:10:04

Peter Robinson (Peter Robinson) speaks with Jay Bhattacharya, a former Stanford professor and epidemiologist, and the newly appointed director of the National Institutes of Health. Once labeled a "fringe epidemiologist" by the previous administration at NIH, he now leads the world's largest biomedical research agency and its $50 billion annual budget. Their conversation explores the structural flaws in America's public health institutions, including the replication crisis, the culture of scientific risk aversion, and the NIH's growing failure to address the rise of chronic disease. Dr. Bhattacharya outlines his vision for reform—emphasizing transparency, innovation, and restoring public trust in science. He also addresses the politics of scientific funding, the need for better vaccine evaluation standards, and the rationale behind the administration's new restrictions on gain-of-function research. It is a candid and thoughtful discussion with a scientist now tasked with reshaping the very system that once attacked him. Watch the full episode of Uncommon Knowledge on X:

Hoover Institution

19,696 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Professor Jones, whose work sits at the center of the climate change modeling apparatus, stated plainly that he would not share his data even if the World Meteorological Organization requested it. His reasoning was that 25 years of work had gone into the research, and he saw no obligation to hand it over to people whose aim was to find something wrong with it. That statement is worth reading slowly, because it is a precise inversion of how science is supposed to work. The whole point of publishing a scientific claim is that other researchers can examine the underlying data, attempt to replicate the result, and either confirm or challenge the conclusion. That is not a hostile process. That is the process. Replication is the mechanism by which a scientific claim earns the right to be called scientific. When a researcher withholds the data behind conclusions that are being used to drive policy affecting hundreds of millions of people, the enterprise has left the domain of science and entered the domain of politics. The 25 years invested in the work is not a justification for withholding it. If anything, the scale of that investment makes independent scrutiny more important, not less. You do not get to claim scientific authority while simultaneously blocking the one process that confers it.
0:47

Professor Jones, whose work sits at the center of the climate change modeling apparatus, stated plainly that he would not share his data even if the World Meteorological Organization requested it. His reasoning was that 25 years of work had gone into the research, and he saw no obligation to hand it over to people whose aim was to find something wrong with it. That statement is worth reading slowly, because it is a precise inversion of how science is supposed to work. The whole point of publishing a scientific claim is that other researchers can examine the underlying data, attempt to replicate the result, and either confirm or challenge the conclusion. That is not a hostile process. That is the process. Replication is the mechanism by which a scientific claim earns the right to be called scientific. When a researcher withholds the data behind conclusions that are being used to drive policy affecting hundreds of millions of people, the enterprise has left the domain of science and entered the domain of politics. The 25 years invested in the work is not a justification for withholding it. If anything, the scale of that investment makes independent scrutiny more important, not less. You do not get to claim scientific authority while simultaneously blocking the one process that confers it.

Randall Carlson

25,354 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Just wrapped up another two days of public hearings in Canberra on the Greens-Labor inquiry into "Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy". This is my session with Dr Karl. What do you think of his behaviour? He asked me whether I thought the past 10 years have been the hottest on record globally I replied directly “No, I don’t”. He responded with mockery and ridicule, then shifted the topic to what he claimed is a “99.999% consensus.” (BTW, consensus is a political tool. Instead, science is decided using data). I replied with actual data. Later Dr Karl admitted science is "never settled" - when it suited his Newton/Einstein analogies. Yet he refused to acknowledge the actual historical climate records from our own 1880s. It seems that he’s more interested in "elitist" condescension than hard facts. Notice how he has many tricks for avoiding answering questions or changing the topic? Real integrity requires debate, not evasiveness and dismissiveness.
8:49

Just wrapped up another two days of public hearings in Canberra on the Greens-Labor inquiry into "Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy". This is my session with Dr Karl. What do you think of his behaviour? He asked me whether I thought the past 10 years have been the hottest on record globally I replied directly “No, I don’t”. He responded with mockery and ridicule, then shifted the topic to what he claimed is a “99.999% consensus.” (BTW, consensus is a political tool. Instead, science is decided using data). I replied with actual data. Later Dr Karl admitted science is "never settled" - when it suited his Newton/Einstein analogies. Yet he refused to acknowledge the actual historical climate records from our own 1880s. It seems that he’s more interested in "elitist" condescension than hard facts. Notice how he has many tricks for avoiding answering questions or changing the topic? Real integrity requires debate, not evasiveness and dismissiveness.

Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺

57,327 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.
4:50

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

116,352 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr