WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.020 What exactly is science? And it sounds like such 00:00:03.020 --> 00:00:05.160 a basic question, right? Yeah, something we all 00:00:05.160 --> 00:00:08.480 think we know. Exactly. But when you actually 00:00:08.480 --> 00:00:11.279 try to pin it down, you find philosophers have 00:00:11.279 --> 00:00:15.039 been puzzling over this for, well, ages. And 00:00:15.039 --> 00:00:17.440 the traditional definitions, they often seem 00:00:17.440 --> 00:00:19.760 to fall a bit short, don't they? They really 00:00:19.760 --> 00:00:23.339 do. It's surprisingly slippery. So today, we're 00:00:23.339 --> 00:00:26.390 taking a deep dive into a really thought -provoking 00:00:26.390 --> 00:00:28.910 perspective on this. We're looking at Lee McIntyre's 00:00:28.910 --> 00:00:31.609 book, The Scientific Attitude. Defending science 00:00:31.609 --> 00:00:33.969 from denial, fraud, and pseudoscience. Yeah, 00:00:34.130 --> 00:00:36.350 and specifically Gary Ackerman's review of it. 00:00:36.409 --> 00:00:38.750 Right, which gives us a great lens. Absolutely. 00:00:39.210 --> 00:00:42.270 And our mission here, really, is to unpack McIntyre's 00:00:42.270 --> 00:00:45.310 approach. It's quite fresh. How so? Well, he 00:00:45.310 --> 00:00:47.399 shifts the focus. Instead of just listing you 00:00:47.399 --> 00:00:50.079 know, strict methods. Like the scientific method 00:00:50.079 --> 00:00:52.799 we learned in school. Kind of, yeah. Instead 00:00:52.799 --> 00:00:55.299 of that, he encourages us to think about science 00:00:55.299 --> 00:00:57.979 as more of a fundamental mindset. An attitude. 00:00:58.179 --> 00:01:00.820 An attitude. Okay. And this change, it seems 00:01:00.820 --> 00:01:03.380 subtle, but it actually makes scientific thinking 00:01:03.380 --> 00:01:06.480 feel, well, much more accessible. Accessible 00:01:06.480 --> 00:01:09.799 how? It reveals why it's so important for navigating, 00:01:09.799 --> 00:01:12.019 you know, this world just full of information. 00:01:12.120 --> 00:01:14.480 And let's face it, a lot of misinformation, too. 00:01:14.519 --> 00:01:17.299 So we'll look at why this scientific attitude 00:01:17.299 --> 00:01:19.439 is vital for pretty much everyone, whether you're 00:01:19.439 --> 00:01:22.120 deep in research or just, you know, trying to 00:01:22.120 --> 00:01:24.659 make better decisions day to day. OK, let's get 00:01:24.659 --> 00:01:28.000 into that challenge then. Defining science. Philosophers 00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:30.840 often call it the demarcation problem. That's 00:01:30.840 --> 00:01:34.159 the one. Yeah. How do you draw that clear line? 00:01:34.599 --> 00:01:38.079 This is science. This isn't. And McIntyre's book, 00:01:38.340 --> 00:01:41.040 Ackerman points this out, really highlights these 00:01:41.040 --> 00:01:43.939 struggles. Things like pinning down one single 00:01:43.939 --> 00:01:46.480 scientific method. Right. Because methods vary 00:01:46.480 --> 00:01:49.439 so much across different sciences. Physics versus 00:01:49.439 --> 00:01:52.459 biology versus social science. Exactly. Or even 00:01:52.459 --> 00:01:55.079 debates around ideas like falsification. Popper's 00:01:55.079 --> 00:01:58.000 idea, yeah. Yeah. That a claim has to be potentially 00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:00.700 provable false. But even that runs into issues 00:02:00.700 --> 00:02:02.379 when you try to apply it universally, doesn't 00:02:02.379 --> 00:02:04.459 it? It does. It's proven really difficult to 00:02:04.459 --> 00:02:06.900 get to the absolute root of of science using 00:02:06.900 --> 00:02:09.139 these traditional approaches. So this really 00:02:09.139 --> 00:02:11.620 important human thing trying to understand the 00:02:11.620 --> 00:02:14.479 world. Yeah, this relentless pursuit. It seems 00:02:14.479 --> 00:02:17.840 to defy a simple definition based on method alone. 00:02:18.080 --> 00:02:20.759 It really does. It's like trying to define, I 00:02:20.759 --> 00:02:23.860 don't know. art just by the type of paint used, 00:02:24.400 --> 00:02:28.319 it misses the bigger picture. OK. And that difficulty 00:02:28.319 --> 00:02:31.560 really sets the stage perfectly for McIntyre's 00:02:31.560 --> 00:02:33.860 solution, his shift in focus. Right, the shift 00:02:33.860 --> 00:02:36.979 to attitudes away from just methods. Exactly. 00:02:37.099 --> 00:02:39.060 Now I can imagine some people hearing attitude 00:02:39.060 --> 00:02:44.099 and thinking, hmm, isn't that a bit vague, less 00:02:44.099 --> 00:02:46.439 rigorous than a checklist of methods? Yeah, a 00:02:46.439 --> 00:02:48.879 bit ineffable, perhaps. Yeah, precisely. How 00:02:48.879 --> 00:02:51.710 does he counter that? because attitude can feel 00:02:51.710 --> 00:02:54.129 subjective. That's a really fair point, and it's 00:02:54.129 --> 00:02:55.969 where his argument gets interesting for those 00:02:55.969 --> 00:02:58.370 of us who, you know, really value science and 00:02:58.370 --> 00:03:00.550 evidence. Which is crucial now more than ever. 00:03:00.789 --> 00:03:03.030 Absolutely. Especially when we're tackling these 00:03:03.030 --> 00:03:05.669 huge complex problems, scientific, technological, 00:03:06.030 --> 00:03:09.750 social, political. For us, this shift is actually 00:03:09.750 --> 00:03:12.129 an improvement because framing science around 00:03:12.129 --> 00:03:14.710 an attitude makes it, well, much more approachable. 00:03:15.030 --> 00:03:17.360 How so? It makes it less intimidating. Exactly. 00:03:17.460 --> 00:03:20.400 It takes it out of just the lab coat stereotype. 00:03:20.460 --> 00:03:22.560 It becomes a way of thinking, a way of engaging 00:03:22.560 --> 00:03:25.659 with reality that anyone can actually cultivate. 00:03:25.979 --> 00:03:28.039 I see. So it's about democratizing that way of 00:03:28.039 --> 00:03:30.860 thinking. In a sense, yes. And that accessibility 00:03:30.860 --> 00:03:34.060 is what we desperately need right now. It helps 00:03:34.060 --> 00:03:37.219 demystify science, invites more people into that 00:03:37.219 --> 00:03:39.960 process of critical thinking. OK. So if it is 00:03:39.960 --> 00:03:42.639 an attitude, what does it actually look like? 00:03:42.879 --> 00:03:45.039 That's the core of it. Does McIntyre spell it 00:03:45.039 --> 00:03:47.659 out? Oh, he does, very clearly. There's a quote 00:03:47.659 --> 00:03:49.460 from the book that really nails it. Let's hear 00:03:49.460 --> 00:03:52.360 it. He says, to do science, we must be willing 00:03:52.360 --> 00:03:54.800 to embrace a mindset that our prior beliefs, 00:03:55.159 --> 00:03:58.020 ideologies, and wishes do not matter in deciding 00:03:58.020 --> 00:04:00.300 what can pass the test for comparison to evidence. 00:04:00.479 --> 00:04:03.419 Wow. Okay, do not matter. That's strong. It is 00:04:03.419 --> 00:04:06.819 strong. Setting aside prior beliefs, ideologies, 00:04:07.639 --> 00:04:10.509 even wishes. That sounds incredibly hard in practice. 00:04:10.870 --> 00:04:12.889 We're all biased, aren't we? We are, deeply, 00:04:13.069 --> 00:04:14.969 and that's why it's such a powerful concept. 00:04:15.270 --> 00:04:17.230 So what does that really mean, day -to -day? 00:04:17.329 --> 00:04:20.290 How does that manifest? Well, what McIntyre is 00:04:20.290 --> 00:04:22.889 getting at is this idea of intellectual humility. 00:04:23.910 --> 00:04:27.009 Radical honesty, almost. Okay. It's the willingness, 00:04:27.410 --> 00:04:29.670 the act of willingness, mind you, to change your 00:04:29.670 --> 00:04:31.850 mind, to change your conclusions, and even your 00:04:31.850 --> 00:04:34.269 actions, when the evidence demands it. Regardless 00:04:34.269 --> 00:04:36.110 of where you started. Regardless of where you 00:04:36.110 --> 00:04:38.430 started, what you believed before, what you wanted 00:04:38.430 --> 00:04:41.089 to be true, it's about letting the evidence lead. 00:04:41.410 --> 00:04:43.509 Period. That's your ego, not your comfort zone. 00:04:43.870 --> 00:04:47.129 Precisely. Prioritizing truth over ego. Which, 00:04:47.209 --> 00:04:50.389 yeah, is a huge challenge for all of us. Scientists 00:04:50.389 --> 00:04:53.430 included. OK, so this framework, this scientific 00:04:53.430 --> 00:04:56.829 attitude, how does it actually play out in the 00:04:56.829 --> 00:04:59.110 real world with all its messiness? Can we see 00:04:59.110 --> 00:05:01.910 examples? Yes, definitely. And McIntyre uses 00:05:01.910 --> 00:05:04.490 this framework to analyze real cases, which makes 00:05:04.490 --> 00:05:06.970 it really concrete. OK, give us an example of 00:05:06.970 --> 00:05:09.569 success. Right. On the positive side, think about 00:05:09.569 --> 00:05:12.670 the modernization of medicine. OK. For centuries, 00:05:12.990 --> 00:05:15.569 medical practice was often based on, well, tradition. 00:05:15.930 --> 00:05:18.629 Anecdote. Sometimes pure superstition. Leashes 00:05:18.629 --> 00:05:21.930 and things. Things like that, yeah. Doctors used 00:05:21.930 --> 00:05:23.970 treatments based on what they thought worked, 00:05:24.209 --> 00:05:26.750 or what Galen said centuries ago, without really 00:05:26.750 --> 00:05:29.930 testing systematically. But then practitioners 00:05:29.930 --> 00:05:32.509 started adopting the scientific attitude. They 00:05:32.509 --> 00:05:35.310 started grounding decisions in empirical evidence. 00:05:35.949 --> 00:05:39.449 Doing trials. Comparing results. Exactly. And 00:05:39.449 --> 00:05:42.300 crucially, being willing to say, huh. This old 00:05:42.300 --> 00:05:44.800 way doesn't actually work as well as this new 00:05:44.800 --> 00:05:47.800 way the evidence points to. So letting go of 00:05:47.800 --> 00:05:50.399 dogma. Letting go of dogma, embracing the data. 00:05:50.899 --> 00:05:53.459 That shift dramatically improved health care. 00:05:53.540 --> 00:05:56.000 It was driven by that attitude. That makes sense. 00:05:56.379 --> 00:05:58.000 So what about the flip side? Where does it go 00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:00.819 wrong when that attitude is missing? Well, that's 00:06:00.819 --> 00:06:02.699 where you get the cautionary tales, the real 00:06:02.699 --> 00:06:05.500 disasters, frankly. Like what? McIntyre talks 00:06:05.500 --> 00:06:08.160 about the cold fusion fiasco in the late 80s. 00:06:08.279 --> 00:06:11.040 Oh, I remember that. Big headlines. Huge headlines. 00:06:11.740 --> 00:06:14.160 Scientists claimed nuclear fusion at room temperature. 00:06:14.800 --> 00:06:18.259 But they seemed to abandon the rigorous demands 00:06:18.259 --> 00:06:21.120 of evidence, couldn't replicate reliably, didn't 00:06:21.120 --> 00:06:23.639 hold up to scrutiny. And the result? Ruined careers. 00:06:24.319 --> 00:06:26.660 Damaged credibility. A lot of wasted effort. 00:06:27.019 --> 00:06:29.680 They let the wish, perhaps, override the evidence. 00:06:29.980 --> 00:06:31.879 OK. What else? Then there's the Andrew Wakefield 00:06:31.879 --> 00:06:35.149 case. the retracted vaccine articles. A really 00:06:35.149 --> 00:06:38.069 damaging one. Extremely damaging. I mean, that's 00:06:38.069 --> 00:06:40.350 a situation where evidence seems to have been 00:06:40.350 --> 00:06:43.670 not just ignored, but actively distorted. Maybe 00:06:43.670 --> 00:06:46.509 even some argue fabricated. To fit a conclusion 00:06:46.509 --> 00:06:48.550 he already had. It certainly looks that way. 00:06:48.839 --> 00:06:51.920 And the result was, and still is, devastating 00:06:51.920 --> 00:06:54.959 public health consequences. Vaccine hesitancy 00:06:54.959 --> 00:06:57.139 fueled by that. It's still fighting that battle 00:06:57.139 --> 00:06:59.759 today. We are. And in both these cases, cold 00:06:59.759 --> 00:07:02.180 fusion, Wakefield -McIntyre's framework helps 00:07:02.180 --> 00:07:04.860 explain why things went wrong. It was the absence 00:07:04.860 --> 00:07:07.480 of that core scientific attitude, that willingness 00:07:07.480 --> 00:07:10.509 to bow to evidence. When that's missing. Things 00:07:10.509 --> 00:07:12.910 go off the rails. Predictably so, according to 00:07:12.910 --> 00:07:16.089 this view. It's chilling, actually, how well 00:07:16.089 --> 00:07:18.810 the framework fits these failures. Yeah. But 00:07:18.810 --> 00:07:21.730 OK, back to that potential criticism. If it's 00:07:21.730 --> 00:07:23.629 just an attitude, isn't it still subjective? 00:07:23.769 --> 00:07:25.730 How do we stop anyone from just saying, oh, I 00:07:25.730 --> 00:07:28.470 have the scientific attitude while pushing? You 00:07:28.470 --> 00:07:30.810 know, nonsense. Right, the pseudo -scientist 00:07:30.810 --> 00:07:33.670 claiming openness. That's a key question. And 00:07:33.670 --> 00:07:35.750 McIntyre addresses it. It's not just a personal 00:07:35.750 --> 00:07:38.750 attitude floating free. OK. He emphasizes two 00:07:38.750 --> 00:07:41.250 other critical parts. First, the community of 00:07:41.250 --> 00:07:43.629 scientists. We review that kind of thing. Exactly. 00:07:43.910 --> 00:07:46.170 The practices, the scrutiny, the replication 00:07:46.170 --> 00:07:47.990 attempts, the arguments within the community, 00:07:48.110 --> 00:07:50.910 that whole social structure acts as a vital check 00:07:50.910 --> 00:07:53.329 and balance. It's not just one person's subjective 00:07:53.329 --> 00:07:55.670 feeling. Got it. And the second part. He talks 00:07:55.670 --> 00:07:59.220 about warrant. The idea that evidence, or even 00:07:59.220 --> 00:08:02.980 a new idea, has to deserve serious consideration. 00:08:03.600 --> 00:08:05.439 Meaning, it can't just be anything. It needs 00:08:05.439 --> 00:08:07.860 some basic level of credibility, some logical 00:08:07.860 --> 00:08:10.180 coherence, some preliminary evidence, maybe, 00:08:10.480 --> 00:08:12.959 to even warrant the scientific community spending 00:08:12.959 --> 00:08:16.120 time on it. Ah, so it filters out the really 00:08:16.120 --> 00:08:19.740 outlandish claims that lack any grounding. Precisely. 00:08:19.870 --> 00:08:22.430 It helps differentiate real scientific inquiry 00:08:22.430 --> 00:08:25.829 from, say, denialism or conspiracy theories that 00:08:25.829 --> 00:08:28.470 might mimic the language of openness, but lack 00:08:28.470 --> 00:08:31.649 that fundamental warrant. Their ideas often just 00:08:31.649 --> 00:08:34.070 don't hold up to basic scrutiny. That makes sense. 00:08:34.169 --> 00:08:36.710 It's attitude plus community plus warrant. It's 00:08:36.710 --> 00:08:39.590 sort of a three -legged stool, yeah. Now, the 00:08:39.590 --> 00:08:41.570 review by Ackerman also mentioned something else 00:08:41.570 --> 00:08:43.909 that's often overlooked, the role of theory. 00:08:44.830 --> 00:08:48.580 Why is theory so important here? Ah, yes. Theories 00:08:48.580 --> 00:08:51.940 are fundamental. They're not just guesses. They're 00:08:51.940 --> 00:08:54.860 the frameworks we use to explain why the world 00:08:54.860 --> 00:08:57.120 works the way it does. They shape what we look 00:08:57.120 --> 00:08:59.879 for. Exactly. They guide the questions we ask, 00:08:59.980 --> 00:09:02.899 the observations we make. Without a theory, data 00:09:02.899 --> 00:09:05.159 is often just... Noise, you wouldn't know how 00:09:05.159 --> 00:09:07.919 to interpret it. So theories provide the why. 00:09:08.100 --> 00:09:10.259 They have to provide explanations, yes. That's 00:09:10.259 --> 00:09:12.379 a key part of what makes a theory scientific. 00:09:12.820 --> 00:09:15.419 But here's the connection to the attitude. The 00:09:15.419 --> 00:09:17.980 scientific attitude demands that even our most 00:09:17.980 --> 00:09:20.120 cherished theories are still held provisionally. 00:09:20.679 --> 00:09:23.179 They must be open to revision or even rejection 00:09:23.179 --> 00:09:26.639 if enough contrary evidence piles up. So no theory 00:09:26.639 --> 00:09:29.460 is sacred. In science, no theory should be sacred. 00:09:29.740 --> 00:09:32.100 The danger isn't having theories. We need them. 00:09:32.399 --> 00:09:34.419 The danger is becoming so attached to a theory 00:09:34.419 --> 00:09:36.960 that you start ignoring or explaining away evidence 00:09:36.960 --> 00:09:38.740 that doesn't fit. Building that fortress, as 00:09:38.740 --> 00:09:41.879 you said. Exactly. Instead of following the evidence, 00:09:42.039 --> 00:09:44.340 it's that constant back and forth between theory 00:09:44.340 --> 00:09:47.179 and evidence, driven by the willingness to change 00:09:47.179 --> 00:09:49.840 the attitude that pushes science forward. OK, 00:09:49.919 --> 00:09:52.279 this is all fascinating for understanding science 00:09:52.279 --> 00:09:54.639 itself. Yeah. But what does it mean for, you 00:09:54.639 --> 00:09:57.740 know, the rest of us? outside the lab. How does 00:09:57.740 --> 00:09:59.700 this apply? Well, that's maybe the most powerful 00:09:59.700 --> 00:10:03.179 part of McIntyre's idea. It has huge relevance 00:10:03.179 --> 00:10:06.720 beyond formal science. How so? The review uses 00:10:06.720 --> 00:10:09.419 education as a great example. Think about it. 00:10:09.759 --> 00:10:13.399 Data and evidence -based practice are huge buzzwords 00:10:13.399 --> 00:10:16.700 in education now, right? Everywhere. But, as 00:10:16.700 --> 00:10:18.940 Ackerman points out, many educators come from 00:10:18.940 --> 00:10:20.659 intellectual backgrounds that aren't traditionally 00:10:20.659 --> 00:10:23.620 scientific. Humanity is arts. Right. So they 00:10:23.620 --> 00:10:25.940 might struggle with how evidence should genuinely 00:10:25.940 --> 00:10:28.080 change what they do in the classroom. It's not 00:10:28.080 --> 00:10:30.179 always clear how to weigh it or how much to let 00:10:30.179 --> 00:10:32.799 it override, say, intuition or tradition. They 00:10:32.799 --> 00:10:34.379 might hear about a new method, it sounds good, 00:10:34.399 --> 00:10:37.179 maybe it's popular. Right. Or it feels right. 00:10:37.360 --> 00:10:40.080 But maybe they don't rigorously test if it actually 00:10:40.080 --> 00:10:41.860 works better than what they were doing before. 00:10:42.179 --> 00:10:44.399 Or they aren't truly willing to ditch it if the 00:10:44.399 --> 00:10:46.399 data says it's not effective for their students. 00:10:46.639 --> 00:10:49.080 So the attitude isn't always there, even if the 00:10:49.080 --> 00:10:51.740 language of evidence is. That's the idea. It's 00:10:51.740 --> 00:10:54.059 not necessarily a lack of value for evidence, 00:10:54.159 --> 00:10:56.620 but maybe a lack of clarity on how to let it 00:10:56.620 --> 00:10:59.080 genuinely guide decisions, especially when it 00:10:59.080 --> 00:11:01.399 clashes with prior beliefs or established ways. 00:11:01.620 --> 00:11:04.700 I see. And McIntyre's focus on the attitude provides, 00:11:04.820 --> 00:11:07.940 as the review says, a much more approachable 00:11:07.940 --> 00:11:11.820 entry for people in fields like education or 00:11:11.820 --> 00:11:14.379 really any field to think about how they use 00:11:14.379 --> 00:11:16.940 evidence. It makes it less about complex statistics 00:11:16.940 --> 00:11:20.399 and more about a mindset of inquiry and flexibility. 00:11:20.580 --> 00:11:23.370 Precisely. It helps us all understand and maybe 00:11:23.370 --> 00:11:26.049 even emulate that core scientific way of thinking, 00:11:26.389 --> 00:11:28.590 whether we're designing a lesson plan, evaluating 00:11:28.590 --> 00:11:31.269 a news report, or making a personal health choice. 00:11:31.409 --> 00:11:33.529 That really broadens the scope. It's not just 00:11:33.529 --> 00:11:36.669 for scientists. It's a way of thinking for everyone 00:11:36.669 --> 00:11:39.110 dealing with information. That's the core message, 00:11:39.110 --> 00:11:43.169 I think. So to recap briefly, McIntyre's scientific 00:11:43.169 --> 00:11:47.549 attitude shifts the focus from just methods to 00:11:47.549 --> 00:11:51.039 a fundamental mindset. A mindset that prioritizes 00:11:51.039 --> 00:11:54.320 evidence over what we believe, wish, or assume. 00:11:55.320 --> 00:11:57.919 That core willingness to change our minds based 00:11:57.919 --> 00:12:00.559 on what the world actually tells us through evidence. 00:12:00.899 --> 00:12:03.139 Powerful stuff. Indeed. And maybe that leads 00:12:03.139 --> 00:12:04.899 to a final thought for you listening out there. 00:12:05.019 --> 00:12:07.899 Go for it. If this scientific attitude really 00:12:07.899 --> 00:12:10.000 demands that we're ready to change our conclusions 00:12:10.000 --> 00:12:12.620 when evidence points that way, think about it. 00:12:13.100 --> 00:12:16.000 What cherished belief, what widely accepted idea, 00:12:16.080 --> 00:12:17.720 maybe in your field or just in your own life, 00:12:18.580 --> 00:12:21.980 what might you need to reexamine if new, compelling 00:12:21.980 --> 00:12:24.840 evidence came along? How could actually embracing 00:12:24.840 --> 00:12:27.419 this mindset, this willingness to be wrong, essentially, 00:12:27.600 --> 00:12:29.419 how could that change how you approach information, 00:12:29.480 --> 00:12:31.679 how you make decisions day to day? A challenging 00:12:31.679 --> 00:12:33.240 question to end on. Something to mull over.