 Okay, so this first question in my usual style is going to be a bit vague, but even more vague than usual. I've been trying to formulate this idea and I still don't know what word, what term to put to it, but one term I've heard thrown around a little bit that I'm a little if you on is the term scientism. And the way I'm hearing this term scientism used sometimes is as a critique of what I'm going to call faux science, the listen to the science people on this issue or that. And obviously as as a person who's a believer in the value of science and the value of the scientific method and the value of reason to me science and that sense of scientism is awesome. But the idea of listen to the science which really means listen to the authorities which really means listen to a narrow scope of the anointed authorities which really means listen to the politicians and the ideologues and not the scientists. I do have some thoughts on this and what's the right terminology to use what's the right way of framing this. Sure. I mean look I think scientism is an anti-concept and a package deal. It's a bad term and I would never use it. It's packaging real scientific knowledge and real scientific expertise and you know this hatred of elites, this hatred of expertise is absurd and ridiculous. Now granted elites and experts have betrayed us, have stabbed us in the back as an American people in our anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-capitalism. So I understand where it's coming from. But whatever culture replaces the existing culture, whatever we get to something better, we're going to have experts and elites, I hope, who are good at what they do understand because not everybody can be a philosopher, not everybody can be a scientist, not everybody can be an epidemiologist, not everybody can be you know a physicist. Some people that's their expertise and those of us who are not are going to rely on them to an extent. Now scientism is supposedly this idea of viewing science as a religion. But does anybody really view science as a religion? Well no but science by definition is the opposite of religion. Science if it's really science it's about facts and evidence and experimentation and testing and so on. So science is science. Science doesn't tell you necessarily what to do, it tells you what is. So the package deal is the good which is science, a respect for science, a respect for fact, a respect for evidence, a respect for knowledge and this idea that you have to accept the should that the experts claim comes out of that science. But you don't have to accept but you don't have to accept that and indeed that should is not science. That should is morality, it's political science, it's politics, it's whatever it happens to be, it's not science. So the mixture of the two of this religious attitude towards you know right now this idea that we have to do what Fauci tells us. No you don't but you know what you're an idiot if you don't listen to Fauci, if you don't at least take into account what he's saying, you might disagree with him, you might listen to other experts but he is a scientist, he has worked in a field 30 something years, he has some knowledge, unfortunately he's in a political position that's sad, I'd rather there not be these political positions but it you know and but you don't, science is anything Fauci says is the word of God but that's not science so it shouldn't be called scientism. That's authoritarianism, that's respectful authorities, not respectful authorities but blind obedience to authorities. So it's mixture of the positive science and the negatives of blind authoritarianism or blind adherence or blind following of somebody and that mixture is a package deal and it's the purpose of the package deal is not to obliterate blind obedience, the purpose of the package deal is to obliterate science. Yeah exactly and I would layer in another aspect to this too because I completely agree with all that, the other aspect is the idea of people who are say in media who are not necessarily scientists who are starting with their own preconceived notions and saying that scientists agree with my idea so they're essentially, it's sort of like priests saying you know I speak for God, you know what I mean, I speak for science. That's the part that seems to me even more insidious is the not scientists who are telling you to listen to science by which they mean listen to them. Yeah but I don't know because you need those journalists right, I mean part of the, you need the journalists to translate the science into language that we can understand and to apply it or show its relevance to our lives. So I don't think they, yes they are journalists are using this to bring about a particular agenda right, a social agenda, philosophical agenda and that's a problem but the solution is not to call them scientism, the solution is to call them for what they really, what they are, propaganda, socialists, whatever you want to call them. But don't muddy the term science and notice that this primarily comes from the right from people who don't believe in evolution. Yeah. From people who don't believe in science, who are skeptical about science and look not believing in evolution at this point is close to flat authors right, I mean there's enough evidence now that it's, it's not just a theory. It's not, well I mean it's, I mean it is a theory but it's not just a theory. With you know tons of evidence right, it's a theory that's been proven. So it's for the right to accuse people of being scientism, of scientism given their religiosity is ridiculous and the term does not refer again to the religious nature of the those who adhere to science. It undermines the whole concept of science itself right. Yeah I'm still stuck looking for a term for I guess what I would regard as charlatanism but you're right I don't like the term. Not bad science, call it charlatan, charlatans, call it people using science for political agenda, call it wrong, call it false but don't mix it into a new term first of all we don't need it but a new term that actually undermines the good which is science. Science is a good, doesn't mean all scientists are good, it means science is a good unequivocally a good and therefore anything that's, there is no scientism other than the greatness of science and people misuse it as Marx did calling it, calling it scientific socialism that's a misuse of the term science but that doesn't undermine science it's their misuse call them out on the fact that they're misusing it. You shouldn't take science on faith but you know most of us most of us don't have the knowledge of all the details that go into particular scientific theories. I mean you know I know that quantum is behaving a certain way I kind of have done the math but I haven't run the experiments myself I don't know that those experiments are actually I mean firsthand are actually real but you know what I kind of trust the scientists that I know enough that I believe them it's not validated like it was if I'd run the experiments so you know don't trust the scientists on faith sure but don't expect to really have firsthand knowledge of everything in science that you claim to agree with I mean how many of you how many of us really understand Newton's laws of motion even though we all agree with Newton's laws of motion I don't know anybody or as I said before you know Darwin's evolution I mean really really really know all the evidence and run down and can prove it. I've never been to space the earth could be flat right just kidding. No let me tell you I've somebody who's being honest somebody who's actually as somebody who's actually traveled around the world flown around the world I can tell you it's round no edges no flat I flew I flew to the edge of the earth and so yeah just point to your point you we obviously can't experience all all of the world and all the things that I mean of all the people out there I believe scientists more than pretty much anybody else now that doesn't mean I agree exactly and I certainly don't agree with their prescriptions it's just mean for what should be done and one has to be careful in terms of what one calls science but and science is being corrupted and is being corrupted and is becoming more corrupt as time goes on by philosophy so one becomes more skeptical about what the scientists are saying but that that does not excuse creating this new anti-concept called scientism which is meant to undermine the good all right thanks Jim Matt. Well Jim I wanted to validate kind of your question I have half of my questions are kind of of that same vein because that's that kind of feeling is something that's been irking me for you know the past year and I love what I've the science because I think it really gets at truth and and objectivity and the capability to increase production and so many of the you know marvelous things that that are exist in the world today but are not just you know natural events or weren't there in the past so one of those it's kind of related to that I think is you know like when it comes to not understanding quantum theory or or specific things but believing it I'm reading opar right now I'm like halfway through it and I definitely do not understand a lot like I get some things from it but I'm very far from saying oh I totally get this but I still believe it even when I don't understand but I don't think of myself as somebody who has faith in things so you know it's not faith and I also don't just because I don't want to just say oh it's from an authority that I trust so I believe it but it kind of is that but I consider it to be because he's an expert in the field instead of himself to studying it and there's things in mathematics that I don't understand so and you know and hard science so I'm not a philosopher so just along those lines of I want I do believe I don't truly know it for myself I don't feel like I'm second-handed but you know I somewhat do just defer to the expert on that. Yeah I mean we certainly have to I mean if you go to the doctor and he gives you a diagnosis you can check it up online which you should you should verify it you should see that it makes sense to you but you can't replace a doctor I mean you can get a second opinion or third opinion but the end of the day some expert is going to tell you what you have and if you need surgery some expert is going to perform the surgery you're not going to do it to yourself you know thank god that you're not right because you couldn't so I love experts I love the division of labor society I love the division of labor so part of the question is how do you validate an expert and how do you come to trust how do you come to not have faith in but believe an expert and and partially it has to do with his credentials you know his training and things like that and partially it has to do with particularly when it comes to philosophy it has to do with the things you do understand the things you can validate in your life did they make sense did they integrate and then do the things you don't quite understand did they integrate with the things you do understand or are they in conflict with them right if they're in conflict with them then don't believe them until you resolve the conflict but I kind of call this the the smell test yeah but it's in philosophy it's deeper than the smell test because you have to actually go through the integration so you're reading opum and you're saying I kind of get this stuff from epistemology I don't completely get it but everything else he says makes sense to me and I do think I get it and it seems to integrate with the epistemology stuff I'll have to come back to it later to really get into it but and I'm going to accept it now because it integrates with everything else and it fits it doesn't create conflict if it creates conflict you have to resolve it and at whatever level of depth you want to go into something it can't be contradictory I mean they if you remember Ran defines logic as the art of non-contradictory identification so if it's logical it means it didn't contradict existing knowledge it didn't contradict existing conclusions and if it did and it might you have to resolve the contradiction that's on you that's what reason requires demands right that you follow logic so um but there's certainly a sense in which I you know I don't know fully all the the entire object of epistemology and and it's and and I'm glad you know I only got to a certain point of epistemology she could have gone deeper and probably would have if she'd have another 10 years right she was studying mathematics that you know before she died because she thought that had relevance into kind of some of the questions she was still asking about epistemology and wanted to go deeper so it this that deep deep topics here that we're not going to know we're never going to know but what you do know do you does it fit and and here integration is so crucial and then is there anything in your experience a contradiction concrete or through integration sorry go ahead yeah and then over time I think you make it yours by constantly going back to those issues you might not particularly in philosophy that you don't fully understand and and we we you know Leonard calls it the spiral of knowledge right going back to them and bringing your new experiences to them and saying okay is it still non-contradictory is my knowledge still a whole is my knowledge of other parts of the philosophy still consistent with with this so um but yes you you you cannot know everything right you know in a first-handed absolute sense you've reality is too rich and too diverse and too there's too much there that's part of the division of labor and we should embrace that the mental power to use uh if i may use this idea of building credibility that if uh if somebody introduces me to something that they say well this is science and uh this is very well understood if it's something i don't understand i'm going to suspend my any disbelief i'm going to go look at this the sources get as much as i can and see how credible this person seemed how much does like what you're on was saying how much does it comport with what i already know what what science already seems well established if they're consistent with uh with everything then i'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and that's what the that's how experts earn credibility with me matt yeah so i think i can accept it and let it go without being faith by if it integrates with uh what i already know if it's non-contradictory and um i mean if you have reason to trust this authority right and i believe it could be if i were to investigate it i believe it could be proven out then it's not revelation or reliance on authority even if i don't actually go do that investigation i think if i pass those three those three tests i can just leave it at that that's right that's right i mean think about studying a new topic in school your assumption is the teacher has no reason to mislead you the topic's probably true but she might be misleading you right like on global warming or something and and later if you find evidence that she was misleading you then you would reevaluate maybe everything she taught you right um but even then some of it is probably true and some of it's false and you'd have to figure it out but at the time you're sitting there she's the authority you you're accepting i wouldn't say it's by faith i you you're trusting her certain level of belief once you discover contradiction everything's open and you you have to re-evaluate everything just like if you discover oh no this doctor turns out he's selling uh snake oil on the side you're not going to return to him you're not going to trust his diagnosis of you in the future i suspect that that is part of what matt may be getting out here and i'm sorry i got cut out my video loss but um is i get beaten over the head all the time by people who are like who are you you're not a scientist you're not credentialed i'm like you're right but point two resources uh but they're trying to invalidate me just because i don't have uh some credential and i don't think that's valid and i don't accept that as an argument well it depends i know a lot of people who are amateur um scientists who have no clue and and and the credentials matter so i'm not one who ignores credentials i think credentials matter they don't matter for everything i know lots of people credentialed who are complete complete nonsense but credentials do matter it means you've focused and you've developed a certain expertise in a field you might again you might turn out to be wrong about everything but they're not irrelevant to the question of whether i'll listen to you or not all right what we need today what i call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason by the intellect not by feelings wishes women's or mystic revelations any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the spare cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist all right before we go on reminder please like the show we've got 163 live listeners right now 30 likes that should be at least 100 i figure at least 100 of you actually like the show maybe they're like 60 of the matthews out there who hate it but but at least the people who like it you know i want to see i want to see a thumbs up there you go start liking it i want to see that go to 100 all it takes is a click of a click of a thing whether you're looking at this and you know the likes matter it's not an issue of my ego it's an issue of the algorithm the more you like something the more the algorithm likes it so you know and if you don't like the show give it a thumbs down let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes but if you like it don't just sit there help get the show promoted of course you should also share and you can support the show at your own book show dot com slash support on patreon or subscribe star or locals and and show you support for all for for the work for the value hopefully you're receiving from this and and of course don't forget if you're not a subscriber even if you even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like matthew to defend marx then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up you'll know what shows are on when they're on you're good notified right so yes like share subscribe support like share subscribe support there you go easy do one know all of those please