Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

~ This time I will talk about “Cherry Picking Science”, with my guest Robert Nasi Robert Nasi Director of Science at CIFOR-ICRAF ~ Over my long career in sustainability, I have rarely seen scientific insights on climate change fully integrated into corporate strategies. Remember, that corporations are basically, governments,...

AidaGreenbury's profile picture

Aida Greenbury

19,587 subscribers

15,846 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологииНовости и политикаОбразование
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

David founder Peter Rahal on why there's not much innovation in food: "Food entrepreneurs are predominately luddites. A lot of talented entrepreneurs just don’t go into food. Because it’s hard. And it’s not obvious how to differentiate. Nutrition science is not seen as a real science. This leads to a lot confusion in the market. For example, the economics don’t work to study the effect of a potato on the human body. There’s just not enough money in potatoes to justify the R&D budget to learn more about them. And so there’s actually not a lot of money going into the research and science of nutrition. Peter Thiel has a quote “If you ever put science behind something, it’s not a real science.” And so nutrition science is not a real science. But it can be. There’s just no money in it. And what is food? It’s really just understanding biochemistry. But it just doesn’t exist. And I think it’s probably driven by the economics of it. So I think that’s the main reason. But hopefully it will change in the future." Full conversation with Peter here:
2:02

David founder Peter Rahal on why there's not much innovation in food: "Food entrepreneurs are predominately luddites. A lot of talented entrepreneurs just don’t go into food. Because it’s hard. And it’s not obvious how to differentiate. Nutrition science is not seen as a real science. This leads to a lot confusion in the market. For example, the economics don’t work to study the effect of a potato on the human body. There’s just not enough money in potatoes to justify the R&D budget to learn more about them. And so there’s actually not a lot of money going into the research and science of nutrition. Peter Thiel has a quote “If you ever put science behind something, it’s not a real science.” And so nutrition science is not a real science. But it can be. There’s just no money in it. And what is food? It’s really just understanding biochemistry. But it just doesn’t exist. And I think it’s probably driven by the economics of it. So I think that’s the main reason. But hopefully it will change in the future." Full conversation with Peter here:

The Peel

12,128 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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 просмотров • 1 год назад

We like to think of science as objective, open to challenge, and committed to the truth. But what happens when scientists fall in love with their own ideas? I spoke to Joe Rogan about how that played out in #nutrition science. Researchers like Ancel Keys and Mark Hegsted became so committed to the diet-heart hypothesis that they stopped questioning it. They cherry-picked data, dismissed contradictory findings, and suppressed opposing views. I spent nine years investigating this story, and the deeper I looked, the clearer it became: science didn’t fail because the evidence was lacking. It failed because belief got in the way. When a scientific field stops self-correcting, the public pays the price.
1:40

We like to think of science as objective, open to challenge, and committed to the truth. But what happens when scientists fall in love with their own ideas? I spoke to Joe Rogan about how that played out in #nutrition science. Researchers like Ancel Keys and Mark Hegsted became so committed to the diet-heart hypothesis that they stopped questioning it. They cherry-picked data, dismissed contradictory findings, and suppressed opposing views. I spent nine years investigating this story, and the deeper I looked, the clearer it became: science didn’t fail because the evidence was lacking. It failed because belief got in the way. When a scientific field stops self-correcting, the public pays the price.

Nina Teicholz, PhD

23,539 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨 Ex-Climate Scientist sounds the ALARM on Climate Industry!!! : “In REAL science, you have a theory, you test it, and if the test fails you know your theory is wrong!…” Alas, Climate scientists have decided this FUNDAMENTAL principle of scientific inquiry does not apply to THEM! Imagine if a doctor prescribed a medicine that killed its patients, or an engineer designed a bridge that fell down - the press would be ALL over it! Not in climate science… I smell a rat… Watch the full video at:
1:14

🚨 Ex-Climate Scientist sounds the ALARM on Climate Industry!!! : “In REAL science, you have a theory, you test it, and if the test fails you know your theory is wrong!…” Alas, Climate scientists have decided this FUNDAMENTAL principle of scientific inquiry does not apply to THEM! Imagine if a doctor prescribed a medicine that killed its patients, or an engineer designed a bridge that fell down - the press would be ALL over it! Not in climate science… I smell a rat… Watch the full video at:

Anika

88,550 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.
2:45

David Chalmers on why consciousness is science's greatest unsolved problem: Science has mapped subatomic particles, distant stars, the chemistry of life yet it remains almost completely silent on the one thing we know most directly: our own conscious experience. In a rare early interview, philosopher David Chalmers explains why: "Consciousness is at once the most familiar thing in the world and the most mysterious. Consciousness is what we start with when it comes to knowing the world. I know that I exist. I know that I'm conscious. Everything else is secondary." And yet, despite this intimacy, consciousness sticks out like a sore thumb in the scientific picture. Chalmers points to a deep irony: science has made extraordinary progress on phenomena that are extraordinarily remote: subatomic particles, distant galaxies, the molecular machinery of biology while making almost no progress on the one thing closest to us. Why? Because science, by design, eliminates the subjective. "To do proper science, you have to be objective. You have to eliminate anything subjective from the picture." He uses heat as the perfect example. Physics gives us a complete account of heat molecules in motion, energy transfer, temperature gradients. It explains every objective aspect of the phenomenon. But it never explains what hotness actually feels like. "Science doesn't actually give a theory of the conscious feeling of hotness." This is what Chalmers calls the Hard Problem of Consciousness. You can trace every neural signal from your heat sensor along your nerves into your brain and still have explained nothing about the subjective experience of feeling warm. As interviewer Jeffrey Mishlove puts it: you can't even do science without a conscious mind to observe, interpret, and make meaning of data. Consciousness is the precondition for science itself and yet science has no framework to account for it. Chalmers' conclusion is striking: The methods of science may need to be expanded. Consciousness might not be something science explains away. It might be something science has to learn to start with.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

32,186 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

BREAKING IN WASHINGTON: Dr. Fauci tells Congress he had to contradict President Trump on the podium because he felt it was his responsibility to tell the American people the truth, to tell them about what science actually said. He was responding to a leading question by Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz (Jared Moskowitz). WATCH Question: Dr. Fauci, you talked about how we live in partisan times. A lot of misinformation and colleagues on this body said you should be charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one that's happened to is your former boss. But the question I have is when you saw a lot of that disinformation, whether it was we can use a disinfectant to do like a cleaning or do light in the body, or that China is working super hard, President Xi's got it contained. All of this stuff that was being put out, were you concerned? What was your feeling at that time working in the administration, seeing that come from the podium? Answer: Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to preserve. Question: He must have thought you did a great job. He gave you a commendation right before he left. Answer: Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, as to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth. And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean that I am science. What I meant was that when the data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people saying, oh, it does, I'll give it to people, and we know it can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that you really are attacking science because science has shown that it doesn't work. That's what I meant when you attack me, you're attacking science. Response: Thank you, doctor. Thank you, mister chairman. I yield back, time's expired. Now recognize Mister Jordan from...
1:59

BREAKING IN WASHINGTON: Dr. Fauci tells Congress he had to contradict President Trump on the podium because he felt it was his responsibility to tell the American people the truth, to tell them about what science actually said. He was responding to a leading question by Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz (Jared Moskowitz). WATCH Question: Dr. Fauci, you talked about how we live in partisan times. A lot of misinformation and colleagues on this body said you should be charged and found guilty. Of course, the only one that's happened to is your former boss. But the question I have is when you saw a lot of that disinformation, whether it was we can use a disinfectant to do like a cleaning or do light in the body, or that China is working super hard, President Xi's got it contained. All of this stuff that was being put out, were you concerned? What was your feeling at that time working in the administration, seeing that come from the podium? Answer: Well, I was very frustrated by that. It was very clear I was put in a very difficult position that I didn't like of having to contradict publicly the president of the United States. I took no great pleasure in that, but I felt it was my responsibility to preserve. Question: He must have thought you did a great job. He gave you a commendation right before he left. Answer: Well, I felt it was my responsibility, you know, as to preserve my own personal integrity and my major responsibility to the American public to tell them the truth. And if I could just take this opportunity. When I was saying that if you attack me, you attack science, I didn't mean that I am science. What I meant was that when the data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work and there are people saying, oh, it does, I'll give it to people, and we know it can be hurtful to them, then when you're attacking what I'm saying, that the science shows it doesn't work and the science shows that bleach doesn't work, that when you attack that you really are attacking science because science has shown that it doesn't work. That's what I meant when you attack me, you're attacking science. Response: Thank you, doctor. Thank you, mister chairman. I yield back, time's expired. Now recognize Mister Jordan from...

Simon Ateba

2,818,632 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Dr. Joel Gator Warsh is blowing the whistle — saying the science is far from settled on vaccines and autism. “There is nothing that has shocked me more in my entire life than looking into the autism research myself.” “When I went through training, we were told vaccines do not cause autism.” “They said, ‘The science is settled. We have tons of great research to prove it.’” “But when I looked into the research myself, that was not true.” “You don’t think to question it when you’re in training or when you hear it on the media — ‘The science is settled, it’s been debunked.’” “And it’s like why would people be lying to you?” “When you start to read other books and look at the research yourself, you realize that we haven’t studied this question almost at all.” “Not one study exists comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and autism.” “We haven’t done a prospective trial.” “We haven’t looked at all the ingredients.” “To say it’s been debunked or the science is settled is ridiculous.” “It’s so far from that.”
1:38

Dr. Joel Gator Warsh is blowing the whistle — saying the science is far from settled on vaccines and autism. “There is nothing that has shocked me more in my entire life than looking into the autism research myself.” “When I went through training, we were told vaccines do not cause autism.” “They said, ‘The science is settled. We have tons of great research to prove it.’” “But when I looked into the research myself, that was not true.” “You don’t think to question it when you’re in training or when you hear it on the media — ‘The science is settled, it’s been debunked.’” “And it’s like why would people be lying to you?” “When you start to read other books and look at the research yourself, you realize that we haven’t studied this question almost at all.” “Not one study exists comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated kids and autism.” “We haven’t done a prospective trial.” “We haven’t looked at all the ingredients.” “To say it’s been debunked or the science is settled is ridiculous.” “It’s so far from that.”

Children’s Health Defense

27,147 просмотров • 1 год назад

Joe Rogan and Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas get into a serious conversation about Fauci and “The Science.” ROGAN: "One of the things that was really weird about the whole COVID pandemic was that we weren't supposed to question science… when Fauci said if you question Anthony Fauci, you are questioning science." SRINIVAS: "That's because they try to assign credibility through their degrees, through their affiliations... but not through the scientific method. Anybody should be allowed to ask questions, as long as they are open to new evidence. And that's the most important quality of a scientist." ROGAN: "There was an actual government push to silence questioning, and legitimate researchers were kicked off of Twitter because they didn't back the narrative. This is all anti-science." SRINIVAS: "Curbing that is almost like a way of saying, 'Look, I'm going to tell you what happened. You need to believe in my worldview, and I'm not open to new perspectives.'" Science demands questioning. The moment someone tells you not to, they've stopped doing science.
1:22

Joe Rogan and Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas get into a serious conversation about Fauci and “The Science.” ROGAN: "One of the things that was really weird about the whole COVID pandemic was that we weren't supposed to question science… when Fauci said if you question Anthony Fauci, you are questioning science." SRINIVAS: "That's because they try to assign credibility through their degrees, through their affiliations... but not through the scientific method. Anybody should be allowed to ask questions, as long as they are open to new evidence. And that's the most important quality of a scientist." ROGAN: "There was an actual government push to silence questioning, and legitimate researchers were kicked off of Twitter because they didn't back the narrative. This is all anti-science." SRINIVAS: "Curbing that is almost like a way of saying, 'Look, I'm going to tell you what happened. You need to believe in my worldview, and I'm not open to new perspectives.'" Science demands questioning. The moment someone tells you not to, they've stopped doing science.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

194,809 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Eric Weinstein on Elon Musk: “His real company I think isn’t SpaceX, it’s xAI (Grok). I think he’s given up on the corruption of science. He keeps talking about the fact that he doesn’t like the term ‘researcher’ — he only believes in Engineers. I don’t think he doesn’t believe in scientists, I think he thinks science has gotten corrupt and he doesn’t want to deal with it. I think what he is doing is building Grok to do science in a world where humans are too corrupt to be truthful.” Interesting take. (Via Ranveer Allahbadia Podcast)
1:50

Eric Weinstein on Elon Musk: “His real company I think isn’t SpaceX, it’s xAI (Grok). I think he’s given up on the corruption of science. He keeps talking about the fact that he doesn’t like the term ‘researcher’ — he only believes in Engineers. I don’t think he doesn’t believe in scientists, I think he thinks science has gotten corrupt and he doesn’t want to deal with it. I think what he is doing is building Grok to do science in a world where humans are too corrupt to be truthful.” Interesting take. (Via Ranveer Allahbadia Podcast)

Nic Cruz Patane

794,077 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Terence Tao, UCLA mathematics professor and Fields Medallist, on why AI may be succeeding at science while scientists get worse at it: Tao starts by naming the tension directly: "There is this paradox that on the one hand AIs are becoming more powerful and more capable and making fewer mistakes, and they are ostensibly achieving a lot of the goals that we think scientists are trying to do. They're running experiments. They're analyzing data. They're writing papers." Experiments run, data analyzed, papers written — the exact outputs any university or funding body would cite as proof that science is working. Tao's concern is what those outputs stop telling you: "It may be that it comes at the cost of the AI picks up some skill but no human scientist gets any better at doing the science." The skill still accumulates, just in the wrong place. The system gets more capable while the people operating it stand still, because the work that used to build a researcher is now the work being handed off. And the cost shows up in the one thing scientists are supposed to be able to do: "No human can communicate exactly what just happened and why. This scientific discovery is interesting, why this proof is new and what features it has and how it connects." That final clause is the sharp end of it. Tao is describing a result nobody can place — a proof that arrives with no one able to say what makes it new, how it's built, or how it connects to the rest of the field. Understanding is a separate achievement from getting the answer, and it can quietly disappear while the answers keep arriving on schedule. Which is why he thinks the target itself needs re-examining: "We may have to sort of redesign our conception of what science is and what we actually want out of science. What exactly is science for and what are we trying to do? And is there a danger that we are optimizing the wrong thing when we are pointing our AI tools at science?"
0:52

Terence Tao, UCLA mathematics professor and Fields Medallist, on why AI may be succeeding at science while scientists get worse at it: Tao starts by naming the tension directly: "There is this paradox that on the one hand AIs are becoming more powerful and more capable and making fewer mistakes, and they are ostensibly achieving a lot of the goals that we think scientists are trying to do. They're running experiments. They're analyzing data. They're writing papers." Experiments run, data analyzed, papers written — the exact outputs any university or funding body would cite as proof that science is working. Tao's concern is what those outputs stop telling you: "It may be that it comes at the cost of the AI picks up some skill but no human scientist gets any better at doing the science." The skill still accumulates, just in the wrong place. The system gets more capable while the people operating it stand still, because the work that used to build a researcher is now the work being handed off. And the cost shows up in the one thing scientists are supposed to be able to do: "No human can communicate exactly what just happened and why. This scientific discovery is interesting, why this proof is new and what features it has and how it connects." That final clause is the sharp end of it. Tao is describing a result nobody can place — a proof that arrives with no one able to say what makes it new, how it's built, or how it connects to the rest of the field. Understanding is a separate achievement from getting the answer, and it can quietly disappear while the answers keep arriving on schedule. Which is why he thinks the target itself needs re-examining: "We may have to sort of redesign our conception of what science is and what we actually want out of science. What exactly is science for and what are we trying to do? And is there a danger that we are optimizing the wrong thing when we are pointing our AI tools at science?"

Big Brain AI

42,366 просмотров • 16 дней назад

RFK Jr: “Trusting the experts is a feature of religion and totalitarian systems, not of democracy or science” “The biggest group of scientists right now in this country is working for the processed food industry. They’re designing foods that are designed to not fill you up, to leave you hungry. They’re designed to contain ingredients that are addictive, that drive you to get more and more, more sugar, more salt, or a lot of these artificial, synthetic chemicals. The whole thing is a lie. You’re not eating food, you’re eating… chemicals. The system has been utterly corrupted. We were all told during Covid to trust the experts, but that’s not a thing. Trusting the experts is not a feature of science, it’s the opposite of science.” If we’re gonna be a science-based country with science-based policies, which we pride ourselves on, if we’re gonna have a democracy, then we need to question everything.” From Robert Breedlove
2:57

RFK Jr: “Trusting the experts is a feature of religion and totalitarian systems, not of democracy or science” “The biggest group of scientists right now in this country is working for the processed food industry. They’re designing foods that are designed to not fill you up, to leave you hungry. They’re designed to contain ingredients that are addictive, that drive you to get more and more, more sugar, more salt, or a lot of these artificial, synthetic chemicals. The whole thing is a lie. You’re not eating food, you’re eating… chemicals. The system has been utterly corrupted. We were all told during Covid to trust the experts, but that’s not a thing. Trusting the experts is not a feature of science, it’s the opposite of science.” If we’re gonna be a science-based country with science-based policies, which we pride ourselves on, if we’re gonna have a democracy, then we need to question everything.” From Robert Breedlove

Holden Culotta

195,767 просмотров • 2 лет назад

🚨 WOAH: Senator Mullin RIPS INTO Democrat Colleagues for being "Anti-Science" During Second RFK Jr. Hearing "I DON'T GET IT, GUYS! AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO QUESTION SCIENCE?" "If he were Biden's pick, you'd LOVE that he's questioning the science! You would probably support his positions 100%, but because he's now on the Republican side, you guys are like, "Wait, how dare he question science." My God, if we didn't question science, where would we be today? We've always questioned science. I mean, what word we did today if we didn't ever question science? But I will say there's an issue that I have as a father of six that when my kids come out from getting their vaccines, they look like a freaking pincushion. I mean 72 vaccinations, I think there's a reason we should be questioning this. Who wouldn't want to look at everything? I don't get it guys. I don't understand your point other than the fact you just oppose him because he supports a president that you guys don't like now. I applaud him for going into the situation and saying, "Let's question something." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, and expecting different results. Is it not true, that you're supposed to question science? Is anybody going to question the fact that that's not true?" 👏
1:58

🚨 WOAH: Senator Mullin RIPS INTO Democrat Colleagues for being "Anti-Science" During Second RFK Jr. Hearing "I DON'T GET IT, GUYS! AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO QUESTION SCIENCE?" "If he were Biden's pick, you'd LOVE that he's questioning the science! You would probably support his positions 100%, but because he's now on the Republican side, you guys are like, "Wait, how dare he question science." My God, if we didn't question science, where would we be today? We've always questioned science. I mean, what word we did today if we didn't ever question science? But I will say there's an issue that I have as a father of six that when my kids come out from getting their vaccines, they look like a freaking pincushion. I mean 72 vaccinations, I think there's a reason we should be questioning this. Who wouldn't want to look at everything? I don't get it guys. I don't understand your point other than the fact you just oppose him because he supports a president that you guys don't like now. I applaud him for going into the situation and saying, "Let's question something." The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, and expecting different results. Is it not true, that you're supposed to question science? Is anybody going to question the fact that that's not true?" 👏

Lauren Lee

66,343 просмотров • 1 год назад