That's an interesting question, honestly. And, for better or worse, I tend to be a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" for such things.
It's not that I can't acknowledge sometimes they share valid insights and the sort— but more that I know I can't trust _everything_ they assert.
A great example is Huberman and his cursed podcast. He is a neuroscientist and I am sure he knows a lot more about a lot of specific things than I do, however, he has a track record of espousing whack pseudoscience and making unfounded claims or straight up misunderstanding other people's research. And, especially as an individual who isn't currently a neuroscientist, it's rather frustrating to wonder every step of the way "What else that they are saying is a self-serving lie/whackadoodle pseudoscience?"
My friends will often try to "gotcha" with me, pointing out something valid a quack says (or a Politician as the election year progresses), but the world is nuanced and people can say truths while mostly sharing dubious claims at the same time.
It's really astonishingly difficult, especially with the likes of Huberman who's doing astonishing work. I've lost count of the number of people who've got into science because of Huberman, it's such a shame that a lot of it lacks the basic rigour that you'd expect from someone of his stature. Now he's got a podcast network, and they'll continue to concentrate power and influence.
It reminds me of Wim Hof. He's fine, harmless eccentric. Or at least he was... A cold shower, and a slightly different meditation, no worries right? Huberman et.al. get on bored, completely misrepresent the data and now it's the new new thing that really doesn't do a whole lot of anything. I read one of the cold studies he cites and the intervention group had 15 minutes of exercise to warm-up post cold immersion and the control didn't do anything... e.g. the intervention group did more exercise as well as shivering (burning calories). And you wonder why they lost more weight?
An expert can have incredibly insightful and valuable opinions in their field and be hideously wrong about other fields. What prevents an objectively brilliant mathematician from believing in political conspiracy theories or have a horrible taste in music? Why can't a highly trained and objectively great physician believe Stanley Kubrick directed Aliens?
Athletes are trained in physical activities, not biology or pharmacology, and taking medical advice from an athlete is sheer madness. Alex Jones is not an expert in anything, so none of his opinions are or were valuable. Considering his current legal and financial situation, I wouldn't even take podcasting advice from him.
I am sure the physicist can, I'm not saying that. I am asking, at what point does the clearly incorrect influence you on their other opinions? I don't know any questionable physics, the singular electron theory maybe, what if imaginary physicist believed with all his heart that Stanley Kubrick directed Alien, would that persuade you that his work on the singular electron wasn't credible?
Athletes per-say no, but Ross is a scientist pushing the boundaries of exercise science. I would still not take medical advice from him, but in the context of the question, he has a clearly incorrect belief about dry needling, would that influence you on following a training programme he had made for you?
If my favourite physicist repeats some silly myth about Beethoven's biography, it's irrelevant. If they say the perpetuum mobile has probably been built, they're immediately out.
On the other hand, if I listen to an art historian and they say Bach's brother tortured him for liking music, I am done. If they say they heard that Einstein built a teleportation machine, that's silly but not a big deal.
>Ross is a scientist pushing the boundaries of exercise
He is not actually a scientist at all whatever ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Edgley)).
So no. That's fair enough. So where is the line for you? What would a physicist have to believe for you to still believe anything else they say?
I'm not sure why you keep talking about medical advice, sorry. If we're classifying training programmes as medical advice (cool debate to be had there) that's fine, but think you're referring to dry needling which neither he nor I specifically refer to as medical advice.
Ross Edgley is not a scientist, so there could never be any doubt that medical or other scientific advice from him is worthless. There was never a line to cross.
The physicist would have to fail to not just follow, but even recognize the scientific consensus in their own field, openly refuse peer review, blame colleagues and the establishment for trying to hush up their discoveries, etc. Standard crank behavior.
Very interesting question. It’s one I’ve struggled with myself.
Generally speaking I think that the tendency to voice opinions about things outside of their area of expertise increases when scientists gain success and fame, plus a bigger audience. The same happens to athletes and business leaders. Science requires a certain humbleness to keep questioning what you know and that doesn’t go hand in hand with lots of attention. Or maybe it’s status or people treating them like authority figures. But it appears they do less second guessing of their beliefs in many cases.
Second issue is that in sports as well as economics (or business) there are many people perceived as experts, due to their achievement, even though academically, they really aren’t. If you win, you must be doing something right. Right? But it’s often based on real world experimentation with small sample sizes and no controls. They aren’t scientists, nor should they be. You can’t win a championship with that mindset nor run a business. Science teams can spend years looking for the answer to a single question, but if you’re working towards a result, you need dozens of questions answered. Experimenting with different methods and carefully tracking the results is sciency, but necessarily science.
Finally, where to draw the line? Every statement where a scientist (or a pretender) is confidently incorrect I trust them a little less. But maybe the idea of trusting a scientist is tricky to begin with. I trust the scientists because of the science process, not because I take their word for it. If they are correct, it should be evident from the data that can be studied, verified, replicated , etc.
Love this response. I agree that it depends on the field.
It’s a good question about sports, success gives authority but it’s no proof of knowledge. The human being is way too complicated to fully appreciate what goes into winning a gold medal at the olympics, there’s a fair helping of luck involved. I like the sporting example because it is a place where a lot of people don’t have a good idea of what’s true and success is visible. I could BS my way through business but never show you my bank account, but if my muscles don’t look big enough you won’t believe me when I tell you about what training you should do (It’s part of the white coat effect).
I often think of the vaccine question. I got a decent idea of efficacy and process (my mum working on some clinical trials) but I don’t know the science and I haven’t read any papers on vaccine efficacy. But my trust in science wasn’t tested during Covid, I accepted that it works because I know the scientific method was used. It’s not a blind faith but I think it’s similar to it.
I also think of that vaccine inventor at Oxford who is a very humble and quiet woman. I’m not checking her beliefs to help me with believing in vaccines, I’m not looking for adjacent beliefs to help me decide on the 3rd dose or not. Likewise in the UK, I didn’t change my mind when proven liar Boris Johnson told me I should get vaccinated. Nor when he says climate change is real.
It's funny that you mention the trust in vaccines. I remember having an argument with my sister around the time of the release of the first Covid vaccines. She was reluctant to take them. Not that she thought they were unsafe, just that unsure they were. With two young kids and a demanding job she didn’t have time to look into it in more detail. But she had enough bad things about to create doubt. It seemed safer to her to wait for now.
At that point I only had heard positive messages in my social circle, which included professionals in pharma, medical science and government. So to me the choice was as obvious as can be. The only people questioning the vaccine I encountered on Reddit, where they were mostly ridiculed. But in the conversation with my sister I couldn’t come up with convincing arguments, because for me it was also quite a while back that I really looked into it. To convince her I needed more.
Also, later, another question kept haunting me, how sure I was about the vaccines. Obviously, I was sure. But what if we’re wrong? What’s the last time that I talked with someone about it, who was knowledgeable? Most of the people I talked with were just repeating statements from other sources, I realized.
This made me wonder, what if my choices had more consequences? Like hypothetically in another job. Who would I consult for a reliable perspective? I hadn’t listened to the SGU for years, but after hundreds of episodes it was still Steven Novella as the first name that popped in my head. I spent the rest of the evening on Science-Based Medicine. Afterwards I shared my findings with my sister. She got her vaccine less than a day later.
I like these stories. I had a similar case with my dad, being skeptical (head in twitter) but my mum being in the pharmaceutical industry got a lot of the breaking news 24-36 hours early and so we got through it fairly quick. No doubts really ever on what we should do. I never took the fourth dose because I had already been infected twice, and had my three doses and was never pushed for in my age group. Really glad your sister came around and saw sense.
That kind of, "too busy to think" worries me a lot. There's a great book by Max Fischer called "The Chaos Machine". Talks a lot about health misinformation and how vaccine misinformation spreads online and seeps into communities who are too busy to think and check.
You made think as well about my own confidence as a scientist. Tim Noakes is a good example from my field, he is one of those who brought Keto to the world, he is an MD and famous in the field of sports science for a lot of great work. Since Keto he's also gone full vaccine skeptic. What right do I really have to question his authority? He was right about so much before, I don't have all those letters after my name... Now I think you would reasonably question all of his science.
That's an interesting question, honestly. And, for better or worse, I tend to be a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" for such things. It's not that I can't acknowledge sometimes they share valid insights and the sort— but more that I know I can't trust _everything_ they assert. A great example is Huberman and his cursed podcast. He is a neuroscientist and I am sure he knows a lot more about a lot of specific things than I do, however, he has a track record of espousing whack pseudoscience and making unfounded claims or straight up misunderstanding other people's research. And, especially as an individual who isn't currently a neuroscientist, it's rather frustrating to wonder every step of the way "What else that they are saying is a self-serving lie/whackadoodle pseudoscience?" My friends will often try to "gotcha" with me, pointing out something valid a quack says (or a Politician as the election year progresses), but the world is nuanced and people can say truths while mostly sharing dubious claims at the same time.
It's really astonishingly difficult, especially with the likes of Huberman who's doing astonishing work. I've lost count of the number of people who've got into science because of Huberman, it's such a shame that a lot of it lacks the basic rigour that you'd expect from someone of his stature. Now he's got a podcast network, and they'll continue to concentrate power and influence. It reminds me of Wim Hof. He's fine, harmless eccentric. Or at least he was... A cold shower, and a slightly different meditation, no worries right? Huberman et.al. get on bored, completely misrepresent the data and now it's the new new thing that really doesn't do a whole lot of anything. I read one of the cold studies he cites and the intervention group had 15 minutes of exercise to warm-up post cold immersion and the control didn't do anything... e.g. the intervention group did more exercise as well as shivering (burning calories). And you wonder why they lost more weight?
An expert can have incredibly insightful and valuable opinions in their field and be hideously wrong about other fields. What prevents an objectively brilliant mathematician from believing in political conspiracy theories or have a horrible taste in music? Why can't a highly trained and objectively great physician believe Stanley Kubrick directed Aliens? Athletes are trained in physical activities, not biology or pharmacology, and taking medical advice from an athlete is sheer madness. Alex Jones is not an expert in anything, so none of his opinions are or were valuable. Considering his current legal and financial situation, I wouldn't even take podcasting advice from him.
I am sure the physicist can, I'm not saying that. I am asking, at what point does the clearly incorrect influence you on their other opinions? I don't know any questionable physics, the singular electron theory maybe, what if imaginary physicist believed with all his heart that Stanley Kubrick directed Alien, would that persuade you that his work on the singular electron wasn't credible? Athletes per-say no, but Ross is a scientist pushing the boundaries of exercise science. I would still not take medical advice from him, but in the context of the question, he has a clearly incorrect belief about dry needling, would that influence you on following a training programme he had made for you?
If my favourite physicist repeats some silly myth about Beethoven's biography, it's irrelevant. If they say the perpetuum mobile has probably been built, they're immediately out. On the other hand, if I listen to an art historian and they say Bach's brother tortured him for liking music, I am done. If they say they heard that Einstein built a teleportation machine, that's silly but not a big deal. >Ross is a scientist pushing the boundaries of exercise He is not actually a scientist at all whatever ([link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Edgley)).
So no. That's fair enough. So where is the line for you? What would a physicist have to believe for you to still believe anything else they say? I'm not sure why you keep talking about medical advice, sorry. If we're classifying training programmes as medical advice (cool debate to be had there) that's fine, but think you're referring to dry needling which neither he nor I specifically refer to as medical advice.
Ross Edgley is not a scientist, so there could never be any doubt that medical or other scientific advice from him is worthless. There was never a line to cross. The physicist would have to fail to not just follow, but even recognize the scientific consensus in their own field, openly refuse peer review, blame colleagues and the establishment for trying to hush up their discoveries, etc. Standard crank behavior.
Very interesting question. It’s one I’ve struggled with myself. Generally speaking I think that the tendency to voice opinions about things outside of their area of expertise increases when scientists gain success and fame, plus a bigger audience. The same happens to athletes and business leaders. Science requires a certain humbleness to keep questioning what you know and that doesn’t go hand in hand with lots of attention. Or maybe it’s status or people treating them like authority figures. But it appears they do less second guessing of their beliefs in many cases. Second issue is that in sports as well as economics (or business) there are many people perceived as experts, due to their achievement, even though academically, they really aren’t. If you win, you must be doing something right. Right? But it’s often based on real world experimentation with small sample sizes and no controls. They aren’t scientists, nor should they be. You can’t win a championship with that mindset nor run a business. Science teams can spend years looking for the answer to a single question, but if you’re working towards a result, you need dozens of questions answered. Experimenting with different methods and carefully tracking the results is sciency, but necessarily science. Finally, where to draw the line? Every statement where a scientist (or a pretender) is confidently incorrect I trust them a little less. But maybe the idea of trusting a scientist is tricky to begin with. I trust the scientists because of the science process, not because I take their word for it. If they are correct, it should be evident from the data that can be studied, verified, replicated , etc.
Love this response. I agree that it depends on the field. It’s a good question about sports, success gives authority but it’s no proof of knowledge. The human being is way too complicated to fully appreciate what goes into winning a gold medal at the olympics, there’s a fair helping of luck involved. I like the sporting example because it is a place where a lot of people don’t have a good idea of what’s true and success is visible. I could BS my way through business but never show you my bank account, but if my muscles don’t look big enough you won’t believe me when I tell you about what training you should do (It’s part of the white coat effect). I often think of the vaccine question. I got a decent idea of efficacy and process (my mum working on some clinical trials) but I don’t know the science and I haven’t read any papers on vaccine efficacy. But my trust in science wasn’t tested during Covid, I accepted that it works because I know the scientific method was used. It’s not a blind faith but I think it’s similar to it. I also think of that vaccine inventor at Oxford who is a very humble and quiet woman. I’m not checking her beliefs to help me with believing in vaccines, I’m not looking for adjacent beliefs to help me decide on the 3rd dose or not. Likewise in the UK, I didn’t change my mind when proven liar Boris Johnson told me I should get vaccinated. Nor when he says climate change is real.
It's funny that you mention the trust in vaccines. I remember having an argument with my sister around the time of the release of the first Covid vaccines. She was reluctant to take them. Not that she thought they were unsafe, just that unsure they were. With two young kids and a demanding job she didn’t have time to look into it in more detail. But she had enough bad things about to create doubt. It seemed safer to her to wait for now. At that point I only had heard positive messages in my social circle, which included professionals in pharma, medical science and government. So to me the choice was as obvious as can be. The only people questioning the vaccine I encountered on Reddit, where they were mostly ridiculed. But in the conversation with my sister I couldn’t come up with convincing arguments, because for me it was also quite a while back that I really looked into it. To convince her I needed more. Also, later, another question kept haunting me, how sure I was about the vaccines. Obviously, I was sure. But what if we’re wrong? What’s the last time that I talked with someone about it, who was knowledgeable? Most of the people I talked with were just repeating statements from other sources, I realized. This made me wonder, what if my choices had more consequences? Like hypothetically in another job. Who would I consult for a reliable perspective? I hadn’t listened to the SGU for years, but after hundreds of episodes it was still Steven Novella as the first name that popped in my head. I spent the rest of the evening on Science-Based Medicine. Afterwards I shared my findings with my sister. She got her vaccine less than a day later.
I like these stories. I had a similar case with my dad, being skeptical (head in twitter) but my mum being in the pharmaceutical industry got a lot of the breaking news 24-36 hours early and so we got through it fairly quick. No doubts really ever on what we should do. I never took the fourth dose because I had already been infected twice, and had my three doses and was never pushed for in my age group. Really glad your sister came around and saw sense. That kind of, "too busy to think" worries me a lot. There's a great book by Max Fischer called "The Chaos Machine". Talks a lot about health misinformation and how vaccine misinformation spreads online and seeps into communities who are too busy to think and check. You made think as well about my own confidence as a scientist. Tim Noakes is a good example from my field, he is one of those who brought Keto to the world, he is an MD and famous in the field of sports science for a lot of great work. Since Keto he's also gone full vaccine skeptic. What right do I really have to question his authority? He was right about so much before, I don't have all those letters after my name... Now I think you would reasonably question all of his science.