Are scientists welfare queens in lab coats?

Please join my mailing list here 👉 https://briankeating.com/list to win a meteorite 💥 Are tech billionaires and politicians waging a war on science? Why is there a growing distrust in science? And has theoretical physics been intentionally sidelined to limit major breakthroughs? Here today to discuss the rise of anti-science are Avi Loeb and Eric Weinstein! Avi Loeb is a leading astrophysicist, professor at Harvard University, director of the Galileo Project, and founding director of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative. Known as the alien hunter, he became famous for his bold and sometimes controversial theories about UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence. Eric Weinstein is an investor, financial executive and host of The Portal. Though not an academic physicist, he proposed a unified theory of physics in 2013. He and his brother Bret Weinstein coined the term Intellectual Dark Web to refer to an informal group of pundits. Eric is a vocal critic of modern academic hierarchies and advocates for advances in scientific theory over an emphasis on experimental results. Additional resources: ➡️ Resources: 🛸 Galileo Project: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/galileo 🎙️ The Portal with Eric Weinstein: https://ericweinstein.org/ ➡️ Follow me on your fav platforms: ✖️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating 🔔 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 📝 Join my mailing list: https://briankeating.com/list ✍️ Check out my blog: https://briankeating.com/cosmic-musings/ 🎙️ Follow my podcast: https://briankeating.com/podcast — Into the Impossible with Brian Keating is a podcast dedicated to all those who want to explore the universe within and beyond the known. Make sure to follow/subscribe so you never miss an episode! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Now, more than ever, we need someone on our side. But Rob Whitman? Whitman's votes drove up costs, cut Medicaid, and risked 350,000 Virginians' health care to pay for tax breaks for himself and his donors. He's not on our side. Shannon Taylor will fight corruption, cut taxes, and bring down costs. This November, vote for Shannon Taylor. She's for us. Paid for by HMP, the HouseMajorityPac.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

• 0:31Speaker 01

  You sound horrible.

• 0:32Speaker 02

  Oh, I feel worse. This flu is not playing around.

• 0:35Speaker 03

  Dad, you promised you'd be in my band. And it's showtime.

• 0:40Speaker 04

  Then it's Dayquil Intense Flu time. For fast and powerful relief of your flu symptoms, try Dayquil Intense Flu.

• 0:46Speaker 03

  Hit it. Yeah.

• 0:48Speaker 04

  Dayquil Intense Flu, the fast-acting daytime coughing, aching, aching, aching fever power through your flu medicine. Use is directed. Keep out of reach of children.

• 0:58Speaker 05

  Just before we begin today's episode with the inimitable Shelley Wright, my colleague here at UC San Diego, I want to share a couple of reflections that I had from my conversation last week's podcast with Avi Loeb and my friend Eric Weinstein. And it's kind of remarkable for me because Eric was one of the first guests I had on the podcast when it started in earnest in 2020 during the plan pandemic, however you want to call it. And he's been a frequent guest, or he was a frequent guest for the subsequent three years that followed. And then something changed. Something happened either in our relationship or in our ability to get together and record a podcast, even though we got together many times for other occasions,

• 1:43Speaker 05

  including multiple trips to Italy and many dinners in Los Angeles at very delightful kosher restaurants throughout that fair city before it was subsequently scorched this past year. And something had changed. And it wasn't exactly clear what had happened in the last two years since I had him on for a dedicated episode. And that was actually a two-part episode. You can find that in the back catalog with. Now, one part with Daniel Green, another professor colleague of mine here at UC San Diego, and then a solo episode of Eric and myself, covering many topics. And it was about a year into the Ukraine invasion by Putin, and it was about a year before the election in the

• 2:27Speaker 05

  US. And so we covered a lot of things, but it was many, many, many years coming between the episodes. And since that time, I had had the opportunity myself to go on several prominent podcasts, including Joe Rogan later on in 2023, actually, episode 2023 of the Joe Rogan Experience, easy to remember, and subsequently with all sorts of folks like Andrew Huberman, and as well as with Stephen Bartlett and Jordan Peterson, any other conversations that I was able to have. And Eric, in some sense, was my podcast guru in many ways before going on with Lex Friedman in 2021. That interview, you know, was sort of prompted, not directly connected to Eric,

• 3:10Speaker 05

  but prompted in some ways due to the connections that Eric and I had been able to facilitate together. Obviously, Eric knew Lex long before I did, but we became friends and we have a nice relationship as well. And in the past two years, since Eric was on, the world has changed so much in both subtle and seismic ways. In the realm of science, however, one can really argue that very little has changed, at least in the ways that seem to matter most to people like Eric and Abbie Loeb, myself. And that's why this discussion with Eric and Abbie was less an interview and of a reckoning, a reckoning with the state of physics, the nature of scientific institutions, including peer review, where Eric and I have had sharp disagreements, and the unsettling

• 3:53Speaker 05

  question of whether or not progress itself has been deliberately stalled or impeded by the very institutions that are supposed to uphold it, institutions such as the CDC, the NIH, etc. Actually, thanks to Eric, through Eric and through his connections, I was able to meet Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who's the proposed head of the NIH in the Trump administration. That wouldn't have happened without Eric and getting to know him. And Jay's become a very dear friend and trusted confidant. And as you know, Eric has long argued that theoretical physics has been, as he put it, in their interviews, "soft sunsetted." That is, its trajectory has been subtly but decisively redirected away from the breakthroughs that once defined what physics is all about. And this is not

• 4:35Speaker 05

  the hard type of suppression of a Galileo or Bruno facing an inquisition and fiery demise, but something in my sense altogether more insidious. The slow bureaucratic asphyxiation of ideas that really do threaten the status quo. We have seemed to reach this all, at least in theoretical physics and experimental physics. Projects like the Cernan Observatory are making incredible leaps and strides, and I'll be updating you on that shortly. We've just established the first light data from the Large Aperture 20-Foot-Diameter Telescope in Chile on an 18,000-foot mountaintop that we basically built for the express purposes of exploring the early universe. It's quite magical. Our sister telescopes to the south, the Vera Rubin Observatory is coming online with an amazing new camera, and many other

• 5:20Speaker 05

  projects as well. So in experimental and observational science, nothing could be further from the truth than to say that there's been a lack of progress. And sometimes Eric focuses mainly on the theoretical rather than the experimental or observational triumphs that have occurred in the last 50 years. But nevertheless, his thesis is compelling and it resonates with many, a deep sense of unease that the golden age of theoretical physics, which began in the early 20th century and lasted over 100 years, or maybe maybe slightly less than 100 years, some cut-off point at 1984 is the discussion of the anomaly cancellation in string theory, sort of as according to Eric, marks sort of the end. I don't actually agree with that. I think there is tremendous accomplishments in theoretical physics still

• 6:02Speaker 05

  going on, but you cannot help to admit that the 20th century, which saw the discovery of general relativity, special relativity, quantum mechanics, the standard model of particle physics, the standard model of cosmology, the unraveling of the atom, the exploration of the solar system and beyond. But in those decades, something has really shifted. The questions have remained, and the low-hanging fruit has been stagnated. So why is that?

• 6:30Speaker 05

  Have all the low hanging fruits been truly picked? Is stagnation really our destiny? Or is it simply that we reached the limits of the human mind's intellectual capacity? That the fundamental nature of reality is more intractable than we imagined is certainly something we have to contemplate. And it may be that our AI overlords come to our rescue and launch us into a new age, a new golden age, a second revolution among many fronts. I'm using AI all the time in my research and it's been transformative. But is it going to lead to the breakthroughs that provide new physical insights into the laws of nature, provide grand unified theories, theories of everything? It's not at all clear that that's possible, as I've commented many times on many podcasts

• 7:15Speaker 05

  with many of our great guests, from Jan LaKoon to Terry Sandowski and many other experts in artificial intelligence. I'm dubious about that. So is there another psychological component that's at play? An academic ecosystem that we could improve upon, allowing us rather to foster the next Einstein before academia weeds him out in a tapestry of DEI and required classes on how best to hate America, as many institutions do. And Eric, of course, is not one to mince words in his targets during this conversation that we had that I write about in my Monday Magic mailing list. I hope you all subscribe to it. Just go to briankeating.com/list and sign up there.

• 7:57Speaker 05

  If you have a .edu email address and you live in the US, I will send you a meteorite. We heard him mention Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Lenny Suskin. These are all people that for one reason or another, Eric believes have a lot to answer for, for shaping the public perception while offering little of substance and incentivizing a risk aversion over a revolution. And so as always with him, there was a brutal honesty, but also deep frustration, I think. And it may be wholly justified. Now, Avi Loeb, on the other hand, is refreshing in that he's a pragmatist. He took a different approach. He's one of the few voices in academia who's actively pursuing ideas, utilizing his privilege of having tenure and in fact, being completely free academically to pursue objects flying

• 8:42Speaker 05

  through our solar system like Oumuamua, other anomalies, and the larger question of whether or not extraterrestrial intelligence is already interacting with us on Earth. And that's this episode of Into the Impossible with Shelley Wright. You'll hear me talk about Avi and I talked about Shelley with Avi. So it's a nice symbiosis to follow this somewhat lengthy audio essay is my want, but we always put a timestamp so you can skip ahead if you don't want to listen to this. Get to the good stuff with Shelley. But Eric sees institutional rot as a near fatal condition. Avi, perhaps I do as well, seems to believe that the patient is science itself and that patient is still capable of a dramatic recovery, given the right treatment. But what struck me

• 9:25Speaker 05

  most about the conversation was not the disagreements, nor even the specific critiques of string theory, quantum gravity, Anthony Fauci, the bureaucratic machinery of academia. It was the question of credibility. Science as an institution once held an unassailable authority. It was the domain of rigorous inquiry, of falsifiability, of theories tested against the cold reality of the cosmos. But today, trust in science has been eroded, not only by external political forces, but by its own internal contradictions. The pandemic made these explicit. Science was no longer a process, it became a brand, an ideological cudgel wielded with absolute certainty, even the face of its own uncertainties. And even harkening back to my friend Jay Bhattacharya, he was threatened and in fact, the victim

• 10:08Speaker 05

  of a conspiracy between Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins to obtain what they called a devastating takedown in public of him. Jay Bhattacharya, a fringe epidemiologist. Well, now the tables have turned and of course, he's not an vindictive person and I look forward to him running the NIH, hopefully swiftly and soon, and providing for transformative changes to our healthcare system and to the delivery of health to the public. And so that public who should be always skeptical of institutions and demand not fealty, not obedience, but rather understanding. And we are our own worst enemies because the less that we communicate with you, the less we make it seem that the ivory tower walls

• 10:50Speaker 05

  are actually paper and nature, easily penetrated, that the emergence of figures like those of Eric Weinstein and many time past guests and upcoming future guests, it being Hessenfelder, Garrett Leesey, Stephen Wolfram. Many others that aren't part of the orthodoxy, each of whom who has in his or her way positioned themselves as dissenters from the mainstream. This speaks to a Titanic shift in the public's perception and interaction with science. So the question is whether or not the schism is repairable. Eric seems to believe that the damage is near total, that the institutions of science have become so self referential, so solipsistic, so ristaverse that the only solution is to burn it all down and start over. We were ninjas in scientific lab coat

• 11:33Speaker 05

  dress. We gave you technology and what is your effing problem? We should be paid, according to Eric, far beyond the level of a hedge fund manager, from whom I don't know and from where Eric does not say. Avi, by contrast, sees a path forward through data, through public engagement, through a new kind of curiosity driven science that doesn't begin with the answer already in hand. What about me? I find myself wondering whether the conversation we had the first, at least in two years with Eric, was itself a kind of intellectual soft sunset. A moment of reckoning, yes, but also a reflection of a deeper inertia, one that will persist long after the microphones have been turned off. And perhaps the true test of science is not whether we can produce another breakthrough on the scale of relativity,

• 12:16Speaker 05

  but whether or not we even have the will to try and dare to do these great things again. I remain hopeful, but I am also, for the first time in a long while, deeply uncertain. And with that rather depressing note, I bring you a much more optimistic conversation with my good friend and respected colleague Shelley Wright, who's seeking answers, seeking someone at the other line of an extraterrestrial phone call. Enjoy.