Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

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™

324,905 subscribers

145,773 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationNews & PoliticsScience & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

The FDA commissioner went on national television and misquoted the Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, twisting careful scientific language into a false claim. The Dean’s actual public statement mirrored exactly what was written in the review article itself: “This biological evidence lends support to the possibility of a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.” That is not the same as saying there is evidence for causation. In science, it’s common to note that evidence of association can support the possibility of causation, but that’s very different from actually finding causal evidence. Misquoting him so deliberately and egregiously is misleading the public, creating confusion, and politicizing an active scientific debate. We deserve honest communication about evidence. Not whatever this administration is doing to bastardize the scientific process. - Dr. Jessica Knurick 🔥
2:59

The FDA commissioner went on national television and misquoted the Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, twisting careful scientific language into a false claim. The Dean’s actual public statement mirrored exactly what was written in the review article itself: “This biological evidence lends support to the possibility of a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.” That is not the same as saying there is evidence for causation. In science, it’s common to note that evidence of association can support the possibility of causation, but that’s very different from actually finding causal evidence. Misquoting him so deliberately and egregiously is misleading the public, creating confusion, and politicizing an active scientific debate. We deserve honest communication about evidence. Not whatever this administration is doing to bastardize the scientific process. - Dr. Jessica Knurick 🔥

Dr. Jonathan N. Stea

14,668 views • 10 months ago

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 views • 1 year ago

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 views • 11 months ago

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

13,616 views • 15 days ago

Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s Surgeon General, exposes the troubling divide in how science is interpreted through a political lens. In a candid discussion, he highlights the stark polarization surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and masks, lamenting how ideology often trumps evidence. “I look at the data, and it’s just like, I don’t know how people can defend these positions,” Ladapo says, pointing to the inseparability of politics and science in public discourse. He specifically calls out the evidence on masks, noting that randomized clinical trials show “no benefit or maybe a tiny little benefit at best.” Yet, interpretations of this data vary wildly based on political leanings. “If you’re a researcher and lean to the right, you interpret it one way. If you lean to the left, you interpret another way,” he observes, underscoring the distortion of objective truth. This is a wake-up call: science should unite us in pursuit of facts, not divide us by ideology. When politics hijacks data, trust in institutions erodes, and public health suffers. Dr. Ladapo’s frustration is a plea for reason—can we return to evidence-based discourse, or are we too far gone?
0:58

Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Florida’s Surgeon General, exposes the troubling divide in how science is interpreted through a political lens. In a candid discussion, he highlights the stark polarization surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and masks, lamenting how ideology often trumps evidence. “I look at the data, and it’s just like, I don’t know how people can defend these positions,” Ladapo says, pointing to the inseparability of politics and science in public discourse. He specifically calls out the evidence on masks, noting that randomized clinical trials show “no benefit or maybe a tiny little benefit at best.” Yet, interpretations of this data vary wildly based on political leanings. “If you’re a researcher and lean to the right, you interpret it one way. If you lean to the left, you interpret another way,” he observes, underscoring the distortion of objective truth. This is a wake-up call: science should unite us in pursuit of facts, not divide us by ideology. When politics hijacks data, trust in institutions erodes, and public health suffers. Dr. Ladapo’s frustration is a plea for reason—can we return to evidence-based discourse, or are we too far gone?

Camus

11,420 views • 1 year ago

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 views • 3 months ago

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:
2:04

The “scientific consensus” talking point was succinctly dismantled by Dr. Judith Curry in her interview with John Stossel back in October. 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹: “The overwhelming scientific consensus. That’s what people still believe.” 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . when you talk about ‘scientific consensus,’ like the Earth orbits the sun, you don’t need to say ‘There’s a consensus that the Earth orbits the sun,’ it’s a well-known fact. When you’re talking about consensus, it’s usually on a topic where there is disagreement, and a government has asked a group to come to some sort of an agreement on what’s what. You see it in science, you see it in. . . medical boards. . . So, it’s a manufactured consensus. It’s a consensus of scientists, which is different than a scientific consensus. . .” Dr. Curry goes on to explain that there is no consensus on the most contentious issues of climate change, such as extent of human contribution and the impacts. 𝗗𝗿. 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝘆: “. . . there’s a true scientific consensus on very little of this, you know that, • The temperatures have been increasing for over a hundred years. • That burning of fossil fuels emits CO₂ into the atmosphere. • And, CO₂ has a radiation spectrum that sort of keeps the Earth’s surface warm, all other things being equal. Beyond that, there’s no real big consensus on anything. The most consequential issues we don’t have a consensus on: • How much of the recent warming is caused by fossil fuels? We still don’t know. • Is fossil fuel and is warming dangerous? This is the weakest part of the argument. There’s no agreement as to whether warming is dangerous.” 🔗 You can watch the full 40+ minute interview here:

Chris Martz

112,060 views • 2 years ago

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 🇦🇺

40,704 views • 5 months ago

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 views • 4 months ago

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 @pyautogen #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 @pyautogen #AI #ScientificResearch #GraphReasoning #AI4Science #MaterialsScience #InterdisciplinaryResearch #SciAgents #OpenAI Chi Wang

Markus J. Buehler

208,414 views • 1 year ago

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 🇦🇺

21,382 views • 4 months ago

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

269,167 views • 1 month ago

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 views • 3 months ago

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 views • 1 year ago

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

25,234 views • 2 months ago

A breath of fresh air is finally sweeping through the corridors of American public health. Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is doing exactly what he was appointed to do: restore integrity, demand scientific rigor, and dismantle a captured system that has failed the American people for decades. The recent faux outrage from former CDC officials and political operatives like Senator Cassidy is not just predictable—it’s a badge of honor. These are the same voices who presided over a "very troubled agency," oversaw catastrophic policy failures, and eroded public trust with their rigid, one-size-fits-all dogma. Their sudden concern for "legitimacy" is laughable. Where were these guardians of science during the opioid crisis, the childhood obesity epidemic, or the alarming rise in chronic illness? They were silent. They are members of a vaccine cult, focusing myopically on a single tool while ignoring the holistic health of the nation. Their resignations are not a loss; they are a necessary clearing of the deck. Secretary Kennedy’s new ACIP committee—a panel of independent thinkers unafraid to question long-settled and often corporate-influenced science—is exactly what we need. True science is never settled; it is constantly questioned, tested, and refined. That is the very essence of the scientific method these bureaucrats have abandoned. Cassidy’s recommendation to reject any advice from the new ACIP is dangerous, anti-science political posturing. He would rather protect a broken status quo than allow for genuine, transparent debate. The American people deserve better than blind allegiance to a flawed system. This is the end of ideology and the return of real, evidence-based inquiry. This is leadership.
2:28

A breath of fresh air is finally sweeping through the corridors of American public health. Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is doing exactly what he was appointed to do: restore integrity, demand scientific rigor, and dismantle a captured system that has failed the American people for decades. The recent faux outrage from former CDC officials and political operatives like Senator Cassidy is not just predictable—it’s a badge of honor. These are the same voices who presided over a "very troubled agency," oversaw catastrophic policy failures, and eroded public trust with their rigid, one-size-fits-all dogma. Their sudden concern for "legitimacy" is laughable. Where were these guardians of science during the opioid crisis, the childhood obesity epidemic, or the alarming rise in chronic illness? They were silent. They are members of a vaccine cult, focusing myopically on a single tool while ignoring the holistic health of the nation. Their resignations are not a loss; they are a necessary clearing of the deck. Secretary Kennedy’s new ACIP committee—a panel of independent thinkers unafraid to question long-settled and often corporate-influenced science—is exactly what we need. True science is never settled; it is constantly questioned, tested, and refined. That is the very essence of the scientific method these bureaucrats have abandoned. Cassidy’s recommendation to reject any advice from the new ACIP is dangerous, anti-science political posturing. He would rather protect a broken status quo than allow for genuine, transparent debate. The American people deserve better than blind allegiance to a flawed system. This is the end of ideology and the return of real, evidence-based inquiry. This is leadership.

Camus

11,449 views • 11 months ago

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 views • 5 months ago

.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

114,992 views • 1 year ago

The fingerprints of an advanced predecessor culture are visible across the ancient world. Randall’s question is not whether they exist - he considers the evidence for that overwhelming - but who left them, and what the nature of their knowledge actually was. The term he reaches for is sacred science - a deliberate fusion of what modern thinking has artificially separated into religion and physics, spirituality and technology. That separation, Randall argues, is a recent invention. It did not exist in the knowledge systems of the cultures that preceded us. The framework Randall builds on is Arthur C. Clarke's observation that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - and by extension, from the miraculous. A civilization practicing sacred science would have produced phenomena that later cultures could only interpret through a spiritual lens, because the scientific framework needed to recognize it as technology had been lost along with everything else. Randall’s position is that this is precisely what happened - that predecessor cultures were operating within a unified system where science and spirituality were a single discipline, and that the fingerprints they left behind are the residue of that holy science waiting to be correctly read.
0:45

The fingerprints of an advanced predecessor culture are visible across the ancient world. Randall’s question is not whether they exist - he considers the evidence for that overwhelming - but who left them, and what the nature of their knowledge actually was. The term he reaches for is sacred science - a deliberate fusion of what modern thinking has artificially separated into religion and physics, spirituality and technology. That separation, Randall argues, is a recent invention. It did not exist in the knowledge systems of the cultures that preceded us. The framework Randall builds on is Arthur C. Clarke's observation that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - and by extension, from the miraculous. A civilization practicing sacred science would have produced phenomena that later cultures could only interpret through a spiritual lens, because the scientific framework needed to recognize it as technology had been lost along with everything else. Randall’s position is that this is precisely what happened - that predecessor cultures were operating within a unified system where science and spirituality were a single discipline, and that the fingerprints they left behind are the residue of that holy science waiting to be correctly read.

Randall Carlson

11,737 views • 5 months ago