A very insightful and inspiring discussion, one of the best episodes of the year! Please invite them back to share about their intellectual development and growth over the decades and the origin of their friendship!
I share John's regrets for lacking faith and its attendant comforts. Being a lapsed Catholic, I am intrigued by Robbie's pointing out that Catholic doctrine asserts that faith and reason are complementary. I wish the discussion could have gone past the limited time allocated by The Glenn Show. Please bring back Robbie & Cornel.
Outstanding episode. I wish the conversation could have kept going at the end, it was turning into a really deep conversation, almost like a mini therapy session for John!
One disagreement with Cornel: He states we'd react differently if they were dead Israelis. Probably. But we certainly wouldn't care at all if they were dead Arabs killed by other Arabs.
And to disagree with Glenn: Science does coalesce around "accepted" dogma (the "Truth"). But at the frontier, there's lively & feisty debate. Or at least there should be. It's the whole point of a heterodox academy. And scientists used to (most still do) value that disagreement.
Overall, that was wonderful. And it was difficult to watch John feel so isolated. And, after John says it's all chemicals, to say "everyone has humanity" -- I want to ask "What's the big deal with humanity? If we are going to reduce it to chemicals, where's the humanity come in?" And (in case there's doubt), I'm a Christian....
And I have to tip my hat to Cornel. He was wonderful and oh so eloquent. The best I've ever seen from him!
The speakers argued that scientists recognize some objective truth, but there is not a similar objective truth in social sciences, and this line of thought starts around the 29 minute mark. After going through the Covid epidemic, we should recognize that this is not the case. For example, the Great Barrington statement was based on the current scientific consensus, and the people making the statement were experts in statistics and epidemiology. They were also supported by John Ioannidis, who was widely recognized as THE expert in medical research methodology. They were opposed by a group led by Biden, Fauci, and Collins, none of whom had any serious background in statistics, epidemiology, or medical research methodology. Despite that, the media organized support for those advocating a strategy that was outside the previous scientific consensus.
Another example is screening colonoscopies. Until recently, no scientific randomized study of screening colonoscopies had ever been conducted. Retrospective studies of those getting screening colonoscopies vs. those not getting them were conducted. These studies found that those who received colonoscopies were less likely to die from cancer, and they lived longer. Those getting colonoscopies were also people who had better diets, they got more exercise, they were less likely to smoke cigarettes, etc. The researchers attributed all of the benefits to getting a colonoscopy, thus implicitly assuming that the lifestyle variables had no effect on longevity or dying from cancer. A couple of years ago, a scientific randomized colonoscopy study by a research group from Belgium, The Netherlands, and Scandinavia was completed and published in the NEJM. That study found that there were few benefits, if any, for screening colonoscopies. Many American physicians, especially gastroenterologists, were outraged, and they argued that the NEJM never should have allowed the scientific study to be published. Here are a couple of items from Vinay Prasad with a deep dive on these studies.
I think that fields like epidemiology and human biology sit somewhere in between hard sciences (physics, chemistry) and the social sciences as they study extremely complex, interacting systems that are best described with (unfortunately) noisy statistics. This makes them hard to make predictions from.
*Disclaimer: I'm a physicist and this fact likely biases my opinion, but I thought I'd share anyway.*
To John in response to your sharing of “I feel alone” as you confront your atheism in the midst of truly thoughtful Christians: A so-called expert of language who perceives not the spiritual nature of words is far beyond alone. You are a learning how to teach dances to never dance.
It has passed the time for the left wing Universities to start edging in a little viewpoint diversity. Now is the time for academic pirate outsiders to take them down from inside and out.
I’m a subscriber and I’m wondering if anyone knows if a subscriber episode can be shared with a friend? The Sam Harris podcast explicitly allows that. Hoping I can do that with Glenn’s podcast, too (this one, I want to send to two professor friends of mine). Thanks.
A very insightful and inspiring discussion, one of the best episodes of the year! Please invite them back to share about their intellectual development and growth over the decades and the origin of their friendship!
This was a mind-blowing conversation, with moments of transendece
I share John's regrets for lacking faith and its attendant comforts. Being a lapsed Catholic, I am intrigued by Robbie's pointing out that Catholic doctrine asserts that faith and reason are complementary. I wish the discussion could have gone past the limited time allocated by The Glenn Show. Please bring back Robbie & Cornel.
The only appropriate response to that episode is the following
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0AJlmwqfxg
Outstanding episode. I wish the conversation could have kept going at the end, it was turning into a really deep conversation, almost like a mini therapy session for John!
This was very moving and worth several repeats to me.
Happy Easter guys! Take that in whatever sense you like. This was a conversation I really needed to hear right now.
Great discussion.
wonderful!
One disagreement with Cornel: He states we'd react differently if they were dead Israelis. Probably. But we certainly wouldn't care at all if they were dead Arabs killed by other Arabs.
And to disagree with Glenn: Science does coalesce around "accepted" dogma (the "Truth"). But at the frontier, there's lively & feisty debate. Or at least there should be. It's the whole point of a heterodox academy. And scientists used to (most still do) value that disagreement.
Overall, that was wonderful. And it was difficult to watch John feel so isolated. And, after John says it's all chemicals, to say "everyone has humanity" -- I want to ask "What's the big deal with humanity? If we are going to reduce it to chemicals, where's the humanity come in?" And (in case there's doubt), I'm a Christian....
And I have to tip my hat to Cornel. He was wonderful and oh so eloquent. The best I've ever seen from him!
Thanks Glenn!
The speakers argued that scientists recognize some objective truth, but there is not a similar objective truth in social sciences, and this line of thought starts around the 29 minute mark. After going through the Covid epidemic, we should recognize that this is not the case. For example, the Great Barrington statement was based on the current scientific consensus, and the people making the statement were experts in statistics and epidemiology. They were also supported by John Ioannidis, who was widely recognized as THE expert in medical research methodology. They were opposed by a group led by Biden, Fauci, and Collins, none of whom had any serious background in statistics, epidemiology, or medical research methodology. Despite that, the media organized support for those advocating a strategy that was outside the previous scientific consensus.
Another example is screening colonoscopies. Until recently, no scientific randomized study of screening colonoscopies had ever been conducted. Retrospective studies of those getting screening colonoscopies vs. those not getting them were conducted. These studies found that those who received colonoscopies were less likely to die from cancer, and they lived longer. Those getting colonoscopies were also people who had better diets, they got more exercise, they were less likely to smoke cigarettes, etc. The researchers attributed all of the benefits to getting a colonoscopy, thus implicitly assuming that the lifestyle variables had no effect on longevity or dying from cancer. A couple of years ago, a scientific randomized colonoscopy study by a research group from Belgium, The Netherlands, and Scandinavia was completed and published in the NEJM. That study found that there were few benefits, if any, for screening colonoscopies. Many American physicians, especially gastroenterologists, were outraged, and they argued that the NEJM never should have allowed the scientific study to be published. Here are a couple of items from Vinay Prasad with a deep dive on these studies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMRS4-ng8T0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbYxrH5L9e0
The bottom line is that there are many scientific issues for which there is no scientific truth or for which the truth is willfully ignored.
I think that fields like epidemiology and human biology sit somewhere in between hard sciences (physics, chemistry) and the social sciences as they study extremely complex, interacting systems that are best described with (unfortunately) noisy statistics. This makes them hard to make predictions from.
*Disclaimer: I'm a physicist and this fact likely biases my opinion, but I thought I'd share anyway.*
To John in response to your sharing of “I feel alone” as you confront your atheism in the midst of truly thoughtful Christians: A so-called expert of language who perceives not the spiritual nature of words is far beyond alone. You are a learning how to teach dances to never dance.
It has passed the time for the left wing Universities to start edging in a little viewpoint diversity. Now is the time for academic pirate outsiders to take them down from inside and out.
I’m a subscriber and I’m wondering if anyone knows if a subscriber episode can be shared with a friend? The Sam Harris podcast explicitly allows that. Hoping I can do that with Glenn’s podcast, too (this one, I want to send to two professor friends of mine). Thanks.
“I tried Jesus and it worked, Jamal tried Jesus and it didn’t work, Shaniqua tried Jesus and it worked half the time” 😂😂😂
I loved Robert George’s description of faith. And yes I think you can find God in Sondheim, and music is proof of the divine.
The discussion totally avoids the authoritarian government in power.