Uh good day everyone. Welcome to
Critical Faculty. I'm your host Hannie
Salem and today I'm um honored again to
have Dave Fina on my channel. Uh good
day Dave. How are you?
>> Good. How are you doing?
>> Very good. Excellent. Um well I wanted
to really you're probably the best
person to talk to to about these sort of
things because um we live in a current
situation where everybody's afraid of
certain traps and everybody's afraid to
say the wrong thing because they might
upset certain group of people. But ever
since I've known you, you called a spade
a spade and you didn't care about who
you're going to upset. Reality is
reality. Uh so
what what do you do with people? I mean
this is my the the the entry here and
the first question to you is there are
people who are chemically um conjured to
um to uh prioritize um comfort over
knowledge and truth.
And some do it wi without um being
deliberate about it. It's it's literally
it's the person you're speaking with.
And some do it as a craft, as part of a
a game and a persona and a character
because we live in a world where if you
are um kind of normal or kind of in tune
with reality that is kind of mundane and
boring. We want people who can channel
aliens and we want people who can feel
and see your auras and and uh light
spectrum and frequency. Mhm. Yeah.
>> How do you deal with these two types of
people?
>> Sure. Yeah. I mean, I do want to kind of
differentiate like I'm not like going
around the neighborhood knocking on
everyone's door and saying, "Do you
believe in ghosts?" And if they say yes,
I go, "Haha, [\h__\h] idiot." Like, no.
I'm like, the the people the normal
people that I'm combative with are just
people who come to my channel and give
me a bunch of [\h__\h] So, if you come to
my yard, I'll I'll yell at you. But uh
no, obviously far and away I am
targeting uh people who spread uh
disinformation about science that is
specifically harmful. Um and so yeah,
obvious the most harmful tends to be in
the medical realm, but then there's a
lot of different uh a lot of different
offshoots. But um yeah, the the these
are people who profit off of making the
world worse. you know, they're poisoning
public perception of science and uh
doing measurable harm. So, you know,
people, you know, obviously I I upset a
lot of people with my content, but it's
like, look, they're they're they're
spewing off uh all this crap, and you're
mad at me for also exercising my right
to free speech. Like, no, I'm they're
they're there are not enough of me
speaking up in this way to counter this
immense wave. I mean, science denial and
and you know, pseudoscientific beliefs
are at a record high. It's just so many
previously fringe positions are now
mainstream uh vaccine hesitancy and
antivax mentality is just it's so
widespread to the point where you can't
say like, you know, oh, COVID vaccine
saved, you know, millions of lives or
whatever. There's just so many people
that are just instantly triggered by
that kind of no, I heard from Brett
Weinstein or I just saw this guy on Joe
Rogan, blah blah blah. It's like, yeah,
they're all lying to you, man. Every
blah blah blah, whoever the hell you
want to bring up on whatever podcast you
saw, they're lying to you. Um, so I'm
going to provide the facts and I don't
care who I piss off in doing so. That's
it, you know.
>> No, fair enough. Do you think that
comforting position is is is literally a
short-term approach? I mean your
hardline approach is might be kind of
shocking. However, do you think
obviously on the long term when
somebody's convictions is is aligned
with reality. There might be a shock to
start with. There might be a shock to
the system. But in the long term it is
better for humans to to to see things
the way they are even if it means they
have to um approach them in a slightly
different way.
>> Yeah. The uh these false narratives
serve the very few. Truth serves the
many. Always. That's always going to be
the case. If you're distorting reality
for personal gain, that's that's a
financial or political calculated thing
that benefits you and those around you
and not the masses. Right? Antivaccine
uh uh propaganda benefits those who
pedal it at at the detriment of the
global population. Right? We're seeing
children dying again from
vaccinereventable diseases. We're going
to lose measles eradication status.
We're going backwards in time. We're
becoming we're de we're we're regressing
in as a society. Um so yeah, I mean and
and
these narratives people latch on to
these narratives because they are sold a
uh you know underdog Luke Skywalker
versus the Death Star thing,
anti-establishment, I'm the hero against
the big bad whatever fill in the blank.
And that's very alluring. every single
anti-science narrative has that u you
know it has that dressing to it. But I
think that if you can help people
understand how they've been duped and it
only takes one or two times, right? If I
show you who Andrew Wakefield really is
or if I show you this morning I I I
released one on this guy Aaron Siri who
is RFK's lawyer and he's just a giant
piece of [\h__\h] and it's so trivial to you
know he he'll say you know no uh
vaccines are tested against saline
placebo. It takes five seconds to Google
it and get a nice list of all the facts.
It just So when you're shown that like,
oh, he's lying and and and and oh,
lawyers are lying. Like remember like
lawyers can be lying pieces of [\h__\h]
Like remember when we used to all have
lawyer jokes and stuff like that? Like
it just once people are people that are
I do get a lot of emails and a lot of
comments that are like look man like I
fell into this pod podcast alternate
reality pipeline and I bought all of
this crap and you help me get out of it.
You show you just show people that here
are very specific lies they're telling
and here's why they're telling them.
Here's the financial or political
incentive to be telling them. Once that
happens or a little bit of a you know
flip of the switch people start to be a
little more critical. they start to be a
little more skeptical of whoever the
hell is on whatever podcast and yeah
start to realize exactly what's going on
in in this in in that area of the media.
That's what it is.
>> I've watched a kind of a debate or a
discussion um with you and another
gentleman and couple of um old goofballs
uh who supposed to be experts and
doctors and
>> honestly Dave I I could not I mean I
like science. I read a lot about science
and these guys supposed to be experts in
their fields and they're the discourse
it it seemed like you're talking to a
couple of people who never had any
education in their life.
>> Yeah, it was shocking. Yeah. So, you're
talking about me and Dan Wilson versus
Pier Cory and Steve Kersh. Um I was
pleasantly surprised. I'm not going to
lie. Uh I thought that would be harder
than it was. Um it was not difficult to
humiliate them. Um yeah, I mean as soon
as Pierre Cory I mean honestly as soon
as Pierre Corey in after in my first
prompt admitted that he was waging a war
against literally all vaccines I was
like okay well that's makes you an
idiot. Um and then once we started
talking about we were pressing him on
offering a specific causitive agent and
he was just listing off you know uh you
know mercury okay mercury what thyosol
what is he didn't even know what it is
he didn't know that it was a
preservative he doesn't know the
structure of it like adgivants and
alumin like he like we knew more I mean
Dan is a is a scientist and you know I'm
a science communicator so I I I'm I I
know a lot about science but a doctor
should know more than
about this stuff, you know, and uh and
he doesn't and it's like, oh my god. And
I mean, Steve Kers is a buffoon. He's
never he has no qualifications of any
kind.
>> But um
>> yeah, Pierre really really humiliated
himself in that exchange.
>> Oh, it was horrible. I mean, look, we're
used to quacks throughout history. I
mean, this is, you know, there are
always people who are wearing that sort
of holding a sign saying that the the
end is nigh. that is sort of in every
generation who've had these few people
but for the first time I'm seeing these
people are in leadership position that
Kennedy I mean this was supposed to be
the the god the head of health in the in
the biggest country in the world and the
way he's bounced information had
absolutely no control or any
>> scientific background whatsoever is
quite baffling to outsiders who live
outside of the United States what is
happening It's baffling for us, too. No,
I mean, it's very fitting for the Trump
administration, right? The theme of the
Trump administration is say whatever the
[\h__\h] you want, right? Doesn't that just
the majority of what any member of the
administration says isn't true. Um,
obviously mainly Trump, you know, Trump
first and foremost, but uh it's true
that I mean, science denial in the
government is not brand new. I mean,
you've had Republicans denying climate
change for decades, but that's just sort
of like if you asked a Republican
senator, they would say that, "Oh, I
don't believe in climate change."
something like that. We for it has never
been the case that medical
misinformation has been pumped out of
official state uh channels in this
volume and in the like just CDC is
compromised like CDC is now uh offering
false information. And the craziest
thing about it is that you have all of
these people uh the right the ju just
the the the masses that are privy to
these kinds of narratives that would
always forever go well no CDC FDA like
they're in bed with big pharma and you
it's the government and the government
is corrupt and you can't blah blah blah
blah. The moment Bobby gets in there and
just starts lying out of his dumb face
every single day, they're like, "Well,
CDC said the blah blah." Like, when did
you start trusting the government now?
You're like, have some consistency. Now
that you're supposed to not listen to
head of HHS, you suddenly do like what
is this now? You know, like how are you
so devoted to being always wrong about
about everything? Um, but it just speaks
to like the cult of personality and the
way that Bobby has been able to ins
snare so many millions of people with
this rhetoric. I'm fighting against the
big bad blah blah. No, you are that.
That's what you are. You make money. I
mean, it's just it's Yeah. I mean, it's
it's astounding. It's
>> it's becoming very polarized. Like it's
team red, team blue, it's Barcelona,
Real Madrid, it's Messi, Ronaldo. So we
live in a very strange world at the
moment where we can't just even
appreciate things without the the the
extreme comparison and belonging to a
certain uh sect or a club where the the
the other is demonized without even
hearing them out and look at the looking
at the evidence.
>> It is incredible to see that. Why has
this become so I mean the at the moment
if you're a right wing or a left wing
obviously if you are somewhere in the
middle you're completely squeezed and
overlooked you've got to belong to a
team red or team blue otherwise you
you'd be looked at as a as a weirdo.
>> Yeah. Well okay so a couple things.
Number one uh the right is very aware of
that and that's why they choose very
specific culture war topics to try to
polarize centrists to the right. Uh
trans people is the one that they use to
do that. Right. They're just like
liberals think men can have babies. Blah
blah blah. Oh, that's so silly. I guess
I'm a Republican now. Um, but to be
clear with Red Blue, like I'm not I'm
not a Democrat. I don't I don't support
the Democratic Party. Uh, I despise the
Democratic Party. I think Democrat
Democratic Party is a [\h__\h] party. I
think the Republican party is [\h__\h]
apocalyptic. So, it's like it's not like
I'm pro-re like they're the worst ever.
And then the Democrats are also bad, you
know? So, it's just um I I I think it's
I think what happened is that um ever
since Fox News really got going, right?
The Republicans perfected the art of
Democrats are always wrong. Always.
Anything any Democrat says is wrong
automatically. And here's the here's the
narrative that we're going to spew on
Fox News to convince you that Democrats
are always wrong. Even about the most
obvious common sensical any they're just
they're always wrong. Every sitting
Democratic president is the worst
president in history. Obama was the
worst president in history. Biden was
the worst president. It's just an
absolute caricature of of political
discourse. Um I think that you see that
on the left as well, but it's because
Republicans are genuinely just the worst
ever. Um but the difference is I I I
think that there are fewer people I mean
there there are people that are like are
like diehard blue. Um and I think that
they forgive a lot in the Democratic
party. I was disillusioned by the
Democrats a long time ago. I mean may
probably in the during the Obama
administration, but um yeah, so the
difference with somebody like me is I'll
[\h__\h] all over the Democrats as well
while acknowledging that the Republicans
are trying to destroy the human species.
Um so yeah,
>> so
which is I think the the the sensible
position to take. You know, there is no
bias here. You show me show me what's
your allegation and I'll assess it and
I'll make my mind based on what you're
telling me. I don't care if you're blue
or right blue or red or yellow. I don't
care. I care only for does this
information matches with reality.
>> Yeah.
>> But I'm going to move to to something
even more controversial at the moment
because we understand the politics
behind things and it's a game and
there's money involved and influence and
stuff like that. I can understand that
it's this game has been played that Game
of Thrones has been played for for
centuries.
>> Um, however, now we're going to the
skeptics community, you know, where
where the atheist or the agnostics or
those people who are who are saying I'm
not going to believe without evidence
and then we move into uh the the cancel
culture where if somebody with then it's
like Richard Hawkins now. So ob
obviously Richard Hawkins has he's a
biologist, he's a zoologologist. He has
a point of view to make on the gender
sex type of situation. Um and um and and
he's not saying that these people should
not be dealt with with with respect.
He's not saying that at all. Um um
however, certain people I think famously
the one he's putting him under the
limelight, the one friendly atheist, I
think he's known into um the atheistic
community in the United States. He's got
Richard Dawkins under the radar now.
Whatever he says, it's it's under
scrutiny at the moment. Why do you think
this is happening from the sky
community?
>> Yeah. No, there's clearly a divide. I
mean, uh, you know, and and just it's
really alarming to see. Yeah, you got to
take Krauss out of your intro, man,
because that guy sucks.
>> I know. I'm waiting to hear a bit more
because a lot of people started to tell
me few things about him. I haven't had
him for two years now. Yeah. I mean,
beyond the the sexual allegation stuff,
like that's the base level, but I'm not
even talking about that. I'm talking
about just in in the midst of an
administration where Trump is slashing
budgets for science. Trump and and Bobby
Kennedy are destroying the American
scientific community.
>> It's in shambles. Uh people are leaving.
Bright uh individuals from other
countries are not coming here to do
their doctorates and posttos and stuff.
um budgets are cut sometime in as much
as in half. Um he they're ruining the
American scientific community. And then
Krauss puts out a book called war on the
war on science. And what is it about?
Oh, trans people and DEI and all. So
[\h__\h] you. Like [\h__\h] you. What is this
[\h__\h] The war on science is the war
being waged against the scientific
community by the American government.
That's the war on science. Not that you
don't like whatever that you don't like
wokeness, whatever that means to you. So
Krauss is in that camp. Dawkins is in
that camp. Jerry Coin is in that camp.
Be Goian is in that camp. Anyone who
contributed to that piece of [\h__\h] book
is in that camp. And they can no longer
be taken seriously as intellectuals.
Dawkins I have respect for. He had made
some great contributions to science
communication in the in you know in the
80s and 90s and and um had influential
books that that helped people deconvert.
And you know nobody can take that away
from him. You know that's a valuable
cont contribution. But he's tanking his
reputation in his in his twilight years
here by fixating I mean the Islamophobia
first of all and then this the trans
[\h__\h] just to note we got to get past
this as a as a civilization. Trans
people exist. Deal with it. Okay. Like
we can have mature conversations about
what to do about the sports and the
bathroom and all. Fine. We'll talk about
that. But just the the absolute refusal
to accept uh transness as an identity,
as a biological reality, and what it
means without jumping to these dumb
straw men of uh oh, what is a woman and
like you all the you think you can men
can have babies and stuff. They're just
there is zero like they're the most
brick wall brain dead community. They
refuse to have a genuine conversation
about the biology of transness. It's
just it's crazy. I've tried I did like
three or four videos on it. Uh Matt
Walsh sent his army of uh incelss to
attack me. Um and I made a few more and
I've kind of put it to bed because it's
just like there's zero talking to these
people. They don't listen. They don't
interact in good faith. They don't
actually respond to anything I say about
it. And it's just like look, all right,
I did my four or so videos on that, you
know, that's that's about that's all I
can do. I'm on to other topics now, you
know.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, you you you deal with it
as okay, the this is a reality. This is
the human reality at the moment. It
actually existed for a long time. It's
not just new. It just they obviously
>> there's always been trans people just
like there's always been gay people, you
know, just like human sexuality and
gender identity and all these things.
They're not binary. They're not uh
simple. They're not everything fits into
the nice little box that people want. Uh
biological organisms are complicated.
all these different phenotypes uh uh uh
present in myriad ways along various
spectra and that's all there is to it.
Um
>> and just deal with the point too the
gamuts are all almost the same they're
the same until they differentiate at
some point. So you you start from and
the the male female anyway it's it's
kind of a novelty in evolution because
we know we we survive for billions of
years or
uh living organism uh without any
differentiation between sexes that
that's a that's a new thing in in in
biology that emerged probably six or 700
million years ago.
>> Sure.
>> Yeah. Not all extant organisms are
dioishious. There's plenty of monoishes.
I mean humans are to be clear. Uh it's
not like I'm saying oh there's no male
female. Of course there is and and and
uh and and clearly you know the
criticism of of identifying uh sex and
sexuality and gender identity upon
spectra they are biodal distributions
right maleness and femaleness. There's
there there are two phenotypes that are
very predominant. Um but that doesn't
change the fact that they you know it's
this where can it can you see my finger?
It's uh you know it's two things like
that right there are two states that are
that are dramatically predominant but
there are many other identities that do
exist therefore it's not binary binary
code is not mostly zeros and ones but
sometimes a 1/2 and a pi and a negative
one and it but no
>> binary means zero and one that's it
that's all there is for binary code
right that's what a binary means
>> yeah even we know now that even if you
have the genes for certain um
attribution to to you know the gene
expression and the epigenetics plays a a
huge role where somebody's
predisposition to violence can lead them
to be a criminal or a firefighter or a
soldier in his the army of his country
you know so it can actually take
different turns and it can express
itself in different ways so it's not set
st it's almost like uh I don't want to
bring quantum mechanics in it but you
know there is a kind of a superp
position and then they can take
different routes from that point when
all probabilities and possibility
>> embionic Embryionic development is a
very complicated process. You can have
certain chromosomes. You can have
certain genes. It depends whether
they're expressed, right? You can have
you can have XY uh chromosomes and and
express female genitals. You can have XX
sex chromosomes and express male
genitals, right? That so you have
conflicting uh uh characteristics uh in
terms of one sex and the other. Um and
you know these are it doesn't matter you
it doesn't matter how frequent it is,
right? These are these are biological
realities that disprove a binary and uh
that's it.
>> When do we stop sticking our big noses
into people's bedrooms? I mean uh the
the the story of u Alan Turing is quite
inspiring. You know the the guy who
single-handedly probably did better than
uh many heterosexuals in the world and
uh did fantastic work with the Enigma
did you know the Turing machine. He's
done so much yet he was pretty much the
his destiny was was decided by his
sexuality. When do we sort of say not my
problem whatever you do in your bedroom
is yours? Well, so that's the irony is
that I feel like, you know, we we've
gone through this with the homosexual
community. Around the 1970s, 1980s was
when they first began to be uh
recognized and start to scramble for
their rights to the point where I when I
I'm 42 years old, so I grew up in the
'9s, and I witnessed the change within
the '9s. Like when I was a kid, you
could still use gay as a pjorative and
and gay people were harassed and kids
were afraid to come out um in school.
And then by the time I was like kind of
graduating high school, the shift had
sort of started to happen where like no,
we don't make fun of gay people and you
can come out and you can be gay in
school and stuff like that. And that was
30 years ago and it's progressed to the
point now where you know they have uh
you know gay marriage and a lot more
rights and even Republicans, it's not
it's very frowned upon to be a to be a
homophobe. Um, it's not in vogue even
for the Republican party. So, we've
witnessed this 40-year transformation
for the homosexual community. Um, and I
just want to scream into the air that
again for trans people. How do you not
get it that it's that thing again? Just
for trans people. Now, you have to now
realize this is a thing. It's not an
aberration. It's not a sickness. It's
not a disease. It's not the devil. It's
a way that humans are and they exist and
just [\h__\h] deal with it. Okay? And
whatever you want to, oh, should we be
allowed to have gay people in the army?
And should we be able to blah blah blah?
Okay, fine. We can talk about all that
crap, but first is the first thing where
you accept that there is this other kind
there are, you know, sexuality is on a
spectrum and this is completely natural
and people are this way, right? That
comes first. And we're never going to
talk about the social stuff until people
accept the biological reality of of
gender identity just as we did for for
sexuality. That's it.
>> It it seems like we have to tell to to
keep learning the same lessons over and
over. We're not learning from but I'm
very glad that you you you know now the
meaning of of life because you've
reached that magical number of 42 and
you know you know
>> Yeah.
>> 42 is the meaning of of life. Um it is
quite distressing because we we're
obviously uh we want to progress there
there are many challenges coming our way
as human species you know there are so
many things coming from terms of weather
in terms of population in terms there's
so like a bigger fish to fry and I feel
these people are holding us back by
making us focus on elementary basic
ideas that we always constantly have to
revisit to explain to the world that
vaccines work and worked in the past and
saved millions of children from bolio
and and and and other um viruses that
used to be the end you know I think back
in back in the day if you have a a child
with disability uh you could actually
sort of bury them alive when they were
uh infants and so and that that's the
end of the story and we advance to
>> yeah that is it's eliminated almost and
there are people who want us want us to
go back all the way because vaccines uh
apparently could cause autism.
>> Yeah. And I mean, and it's much worse
than all that, right? It's one thing to
have an an uneducated, willfully
ignorant populace and all of the all of
the social ramifications of that, but
the the layer above that is that this
public votes administrations into office
that then do measurable harm with with
legislation. So that that group of
people that you're describing is why
Trump's in power, who can then appoint
Bobby Kennedy to a head of HHS who can
then make actual changes, right?
Widespread changes and start to take
take vaccines away from people, which he
said he wasn't going to do, but he is
doing that by removing vaccines from the
from the uh the ASIP panel's um list. Um
they become unavailable to low-income
families uh because they're not
recommended, right? So they're not going
to be covered. Uh, so yeah, it's it's
it's it's a it's a two-tier problem,
right? We're fighting people that are in
legitimate positions of power while
trying to educate people who are the
type to vote them into power because
they think that they're on their on our
side, you know, or trying to, you know,
trying to they're say, right, Bobby
cares about health. He cares about
getting everybody healthy and with the
beef tallow fries and the doing his
push-ups with Kid Rock and stuff. It's
just like, it's such a joke. Like, how
do you not see that this guy does not
give a [\h__\h] about anyone but himself and
his finders fees for his bogus uh
lawsuits and all this crap? Um, it's a
total [\h__\h] show.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Look, I'm going to be in
August. I'm going to be 54. Um, and um I
remember to obtaining knowledge back in
the day. Yeah. We're talking the 70s
here. um you know, you walk for for a
bit to to find the right book and
hopefully it's not borrowed by somebody
and you got to wait for a couple of
weeks to to have access to that book and
information was at a premium then and
the right information if you can spot
the right book and in and in and
everything and and we it will take
months to grab any sort of information
or or accumulate knowledge about a
certain case. Um and then knowledge was
was was in the hands of the few and
everybody else sort of kind of worked
with it. We live in a world right now
where knowledge is about two seconds
away
>> and you can crossverify. I can I can
have five different AIs open ask the
same question. Obviously it's it's it's
a craft how to use AI, you know, because
you you can't be stupid. You got to you
got to ver crossverify. you're going to
you're going to check you got to check
the different answers. You're going to
uh try to challenge it um with a
contrary evidence and stuff like that.
>> But we're talking about a world where
you can obtain knowledge while sipping
on a cup of hot chocolate uh in your
pajama at 11 p.m. and NES is playing in
the background.
>> Yeah.
>> And despite all of that, there is so
much confusion about what is true.
>> Yeah. So I mean having the entirety of
human knowledge at your fingertips
uh only works if it's not being drowned
out by a much larger body of false
information larger by one to two orders
of magnitude of false information. Um
and that's by design, right? We those
who want to deceive the public, you
can't hide the facts anymore. So you
just have to bombard them with lies and
you got to make them convincing. You
need a story around it. You need a hero.
You need a villain. And you need a Yeah.
So that's that's what we're seeing on
every on every popular podcast, right?
And and we're watching all of the
podcasts get polarized in that
direction. You know, Rogan was first,
but then you have all of these podcasts.
As they get more popular, they
inevitably start veering in that
direction towards platforming these
people. And part part of it is audience
capture. I think at first it's probably
audience capture because these
narratives are tantalizing. And so they
are reward th those podcast hosts are
rewarded by platforming those people who
tell these tantalizing stories. Um but
then inevitably I think there's probably
dark money get getting in the getting in
the mix too. Um you know Lex Friedman,
Diary of a CEO, these kind like I think
there's fishy stuff going on there
moneywise. Um but uh it really is a
problem. I I actually went on uh do you
know the Danny Jones podcast?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I went on there and like I
was at le first I was kind of like do I
really want to do this? I don't know if
I want to do this. And then he was like
no we're going to have a conversation
like okay I'm going to like kind of
invade the podcast bro space. Um and and
I thought it was a decent conversation.
U he's a bit naive but I I don't think
that it would like I I it was a good
faith conversation. I felt you know what
I mean? I felt that he was genuinely
trying to be like let's hear what this
guy has to say. you know, um his his his
uh his viewership not so much. They were
not uh not digging it. So, it was a
little bit of an experiment. You know,
what what can happen if I say a bunch of
true things to people who listen to lies
all the time um because they're not
coming to my channel. You know what I
mean? I have to invade their space to to
say these things. Um so, yeah. I don't
know. I mean I I don't think I maybe
moved the needle too much but uh it was
an experiment trying stuff. So
>> yeah, I think there there's another
inherent problem as well in that in the
the the the voice of reason. The voice
of reason is inherently kind of neutral.
>> Uh it's detached
and a lot of people might find that kind
of boring. Um you know it needs to come
with a persona. keeps needs to come with
a
confusing pe Jordan Peterson so people
can scratch their heads and and rage uh
you know at him and and that causes
engaa engagements.
>> Yeah. I mean the thing is that you you
can tell a story with a villain and
everything and and like that but it just
has to be true. I think that maybe part
of the reason that I have a very popular
channel and that my debunks get a lot of
views is I I think I am able to tap into
those kinds of narratives. I'm just
telling the truth. RFK is a monster.
These people are monsters and I'm
explaining how they're monsters with
factual information and I and I infuse
humor where I can. I try to, you know,
be I I'm a bit of a wordsmith. I suppose
I I would I would pat myself on the back
with that claim and and just kind of
make it as entertaining as possible, you
know, to try to compete with these
pseudoarchchaeology aliens made the this
and the blah. It's like, yeah, how like
how is like a a university lecture going
to compete with that [\h__\h] You can't.
So, I'm doing my best to make it uh
entertaining without sacrificing an
ounce of integrity. Um, and I think I do
a pretty good job. I think that's what
part of why the numbers are as they are.
Although
>> I can't believe the the Aaron Siri one
this morning just like the Peter McCulla
one I did not too long ago. Very bad
numbers. I don't really know
>> why it just feels so throttled. I think
I got maybe 60 70 60k views I think
today.
>> Usually on a debunk I can get 150k on
the first day. And
>> so I don't know. It's weird.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's it's I'm doing a
podcast in Arabic at the moment because
I you know the the other side of me the
the the Dr. Jekal um on Tik Tok I was
telling you about the Tik Tok where you
get a lot of engagement. So I'm doing um
a a series of almost mimicking the Bill
Bryson's short history of nearly
everything. So I'm starting from the big
bang all the way to current affairs
>> but I am putting the scientific nar
narrative in in a story with a with a an
Egyptian female. She's fantastic as
well. I talk the hard science. She
humanizes the information into a story
and it seems that and that's why I think
religions are so powerful is because of
the story of the narrative and a lot of
the scientists I think Carl Sean broke
um into that where shows cosmos shows
the story of the of the universe. Neil
deGrasse Tyson with a with a stand-up
comedian and her his star talks. uh uh
do you think we need more of that sort
of science approach where it's not just
equations, it's actually there is a
story, an interesting one behind it?
>> I think we need whatever works. I think
if a narrative works, it works and you
do that. Um I mean I think it's going to
tend to be the case that narrative works
and helps. um we're all we all want you
know it it's you know when you're in
school and you're learning organic
chemistry or calculus or whatever it is
there's maybe a hint of a story um but
really you're just kind of learning
practical information but you there's a
purpose there or you're trying to get
your degree and u go on to whatever you
want to do uh with your career um so
absent of those incentives right the
general public is not trying to get an A
or get a degree or get a job they're
just if you're trying to convince
somebody, hey, you need to know this.
Um, yeah, whatever strategy is available
to you that seems to work. I I I just
think that there needs to be more
science communicators, and I want them
to all throw everything against the wall
and see what sticks. Maybe somebody's
going to have something really dry and
and fact-based and and it'll work for
them because they have, I don't know,
something special about them that makes
it work for them. um or in a particular
country in a particular language
whatever a particular culture responds
well to that you know maybe China I
don't know like just uh I don't care
like just everybody we need
you know a hundred times more career
science communicators working on this
problem and I I don't I have no interest
in telling any of them what to do or to
try. I want them to just do whatever
they want and see what works and if it
works then keep doing that.
>> No, I kind of tend to agree. I think
you're right. Different styles might
attract different audiences anyway by
the we don't know what people are
attracted to. So everybody's trying
everything even if there is a group of
people will will be attracted to that
narrative then it works and it drives
the point that uh the universe is
intelligible.
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah. Now in in in terms of the reality
and this is now takes it takes it up a
notch now away from all these buffoons
that sort of enrage me on daily basis
but we want to you use your brilliant
brain now to to think with me about a
couple of things here that is been bit
of a challenging not to me but to a lot
of physicists and um and people are sort
of really into that stuff in a moment of
truth when you're completely by yourself
not you know in front of cameras and you
think okay we go deep into with the
Matrioska uh doll and you keep opening
the doll and there's a smaller smaller
smaller you reach the the the make of
everything of the two quarks and and an
electron
uh and even in some disciplines like uh
string theory uh these are not even um
uh elementary or uh fundamental. These
are the excitation of the spread of the
uh strings that causes particles to sort
of excite and they cause excitation in
the fields to mimic that particle when
observed. Um
but you go when you go at a smaller and
a smaller level stuff and matter as we
know it kind of disappear
and it becomes mathematical equations of
some sort.
>> What does that mean? like are we
on the on the fringe of uh I don't want
to say simulation
uh which is it's plausible there's
nothing wrong about it but what's in the
background if if then if if the if the
fundamental reality isn't real in the
terms of the what we know what real is
tangible
>> well it's not tangible because what is
it to touch things I mean uh it would be
naive to presume that that uh a sense
that we use in the macroscopic world has
any meaning uh in on the most
fundamental scale. I mean I think that
yeah I mean the universe is
fundamentally mathematical. There are
mathematical relationships that govern
the fundamental constituents of the
universe. I just look at it as that's
how the universe works, right? I mean,
it's just the the like that the universe
exists. Why wouldn't it be the simplest
lowest energy state that it could be and
that is one of comprehensiveness, right?
It would be bizarre for it to just be
different in wherever you are in the
universe and different laws and
different constants and things like
that. Um, yeah, I mean, fundamentally,
it's like I certainly can't disprove
simulation theory. Um, and I can't he I
can't even disprove the concept of a
deity, right? I mean, this is the, you
know, look how crazy the universe is is
what, you know, Steven Meyer's doing
right now and all his dumb movies and
and uh whatever propaganda he's trying
to do. Um, and it's just for me there's
there's and probably for all of the
future of humanity, however long we last
and whatever else we figure out, there's
probably always going to be this tiny
kernel uh way in in the recesses of
just, you know, why does anything exist?
Why is the universe this way? You know,
it's it's yeah, it's bordering on
philosophical question, but um
simulations and deities and all these
things, they do not solve that problem
for me. uh they're not they're not
convincing or attractive explanations
for anything because you are just
kicking the can down the road. Right?
The question of why does any why does
anything exist is not solved by a
simulator or a deity because you've made
the problem worse. You have a much more
complicated entity or reality to now
explain the existence of that. So, I I
don't uh you know, the we're entering
the realm of like what can certainly not
be empirically disproven, but which is
just kind of pointless to entertain. I
mean, you can get stoned and have a fun
conversation about it. And I'm not going
to like go with a pitchfork against
anybody who believes in that kind of
deity or simulation theory or anything
like that, but I just personally don't
subscribe to them because they don't
they don't they're not meaningful to me,
right? They don't answer any questions.
They don't make anything simpler. They
don't even really explain anything if
you really get down to it. What what the
the realm of the simulator? How where
did that where did your deity come from?
I mean, it's just it just doesn't it's
not
>> it pushes the question one one extra
level that needs an explanation or it
own but uh just for your information
about a week ago Neil Degrass Sy issued
a video where he thinks science might
have put their fingers on the why there
is something rather nothing. I might
send it to you on your mail email and
it's to do with the the symmetry
breaking. There are multiple symmetry
breaking that led to sort of the reality
we live in symmetry of time you know the
hour of time and why there is a billion
u you know electron and and a billion
and one and that residual um um uh
number is what constitute of all the
matters we live in at the moment. But
they've actually found why this happens
in the one of the uh accelerators.
>> You mean the the matter antimatter
asymmetry?
>> Yeah. CP CP symmetry violation. Yeah.
Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean the those who want to have
this conversation can always take it to
a deeper level, right? You're talking
about, well, where did the particles
come from? Where, you know, where did
the initial singularity come from? I
mean, it it's I just think that that's
it's you will always be able to do that.
No matter what we figure out about
physics, you will always be able to kind
of go because it's just the nature of
reality. You're never going to get to
just a firm foundation and then uh okay,
we've solved it all. I don't think it'll
happen. Uh even if it's physically
possible, I don't think humans will do
it. Um I mean depending first of all on
how long we survive which could be
another billion years, it could be 20
years. I don't know what's going to
happen but um but it but but I I've made
my peace with that. You know what I
mean? It's like let it isn't it
astounding enough that we can understand
what happened 10^ the 36 seconds after
the initial singularity and explain the
evolution of the universe with with
pretty firm uh empirical basis uh and
understand. I mean, just think about
going back a few even just a a few
centuries ago, three, 400 years ago.
People had no idea what stars are and
planets. They had no idea. It's just
some [\h__\h] in the sky, you know? It's
like now we know what stars are, how
they form, and plan how the evolution of
planetary systems and and and that
there's planets around other stars and,
you know, we can yearn to go there and
and maybe there's a tiny teeny tiny
outside chance that we'll actually
physically go to other system. or we
won't but um you know depend
>> of all of all the thoughts you had
knowledge is is the ability to quantify
your your ignorance which is we kind of
own at the moment we people go oh no we
don't know 95%
well it's they're two things
>> ex
makes me so mad it's like yeah it's
there it doesn't matter how much dark
matter there is it's one entity once we
figure it out you it's not like we're
chipping away a hundth of a percent at a
time it's a it's an empirical question
that will be answered I honestly I think
we'll be alive for that. I think we'll
be alive to see to figure out what
>> Oh, that would be great. God, that would
be great. I mean, we lived around the
hex bos and and you know people, you
know, they call the god particle and and
again this is one thing that actually
makes me so angry.
>> Me too. The whimsy physicists. Yeah.
>> Chromosome Adam metacord Eve. Uh the the
brain in the heart and I have to to to
battle with the people the Muslim people
with the Quran. It's like, "Oh, we told
you in the Quran there is a brain in the
we think with our hearts." I was like,
"There's a scientific paper says there's
a brain in the heart." Like, [\h__\h] no,
that's not what it says.
>> Yeah.
>> Stop reading the title.
>> Yeah. Hearts do not think. I'm sorry.
But yeah, it's just like all of the
fervor of uh dark matter so dumb blah
blah. It's like if they called it
non-barionic matter, you wouldn't give a
[\h__\h] about it. You would never be
talking about it. you'd never say. Um
it's just yeah it that that doesn't
bother me. But far be it for me to tell
physicists how to how to physics um it
would just be a light suggestion like
can you guys just like dial down the I
know it's fun but dial down the whimsy a
little bit. Um it's just it it does
measurable harm to public perception of
science.
>> Yeah. Yeah. the the the story about the
god particle the hex boson and uh how it
was influenced by the publisher because
it was actually called the godamn
uh particle but it was publisher said oh
that's not going to sell that's not
going to fly let's make it the god
particle
>> yeah totally
>> so that's how how it works but um
>> um ju just advancing into the the the
scientific realm a little bit more and
what we can discover in the future
obviously we're chasing kind of the more
question we're going to answer, it's
going to open new questions. That looks
likely is going to be the case and I'm
enjoying that actually. I don't mind. A
lot of people are unsettled by the best
three words in any language I've ever
known. I don't know.
>> Which is the one that triggers, okay, so
let's know. Let's let's work on trying
to get to know. And that's exciting for
me. A lot of people are afraid of not
knowing.
>> Yeah, that's crazy to me. I mean, people
who are afraid of not knowing just don't
know anything because if you ever
learned or knew anything, you would
understand that there's a frontier of
human knowledge. And no matter how far
you push it, it's there, right? So, here
are things we don't know. Okay, we
figured them out. Now, here's another
like it's just come on, man. Just uh
just deal with it. There are things that
we don't know. But here's also the
problem is that anybody who's who's put
off by that, when did you sit down and
learn all the [\h__\h] that we already know
anyway? You don't know anything. You
don't know. you don't know high school
level biology or physics or any of this
stuff. So stop worrying about the
frontier. That's the pro. I feel like
the the general public has this
fascination with the frontier of any
scientific field. But the problem is the
progress that we made in the 20th
century in every single science is so
profound that the frontier of any
scientific field is totally in
disccernible and unintelligible to the
common person. So when the average
person wants to learn about quantum
mechanics and they don't understand
Newton's laws, I'm just like, what are
you doing? like learn the basic [\h__\h] and
then I mean you know let's be honest
you're never you're not going to get
there but you could maybe if you really
want to you know and you actually apply
yourself and you know you could begin to
learn about this stuff but um yeah
>> they will only learn they will only
learn enough about science to tell you
that is not possible and somebody must
have done it because it's you know the
the what's his name Linsky and the um
you know we put the equations in the
computer say oh there's no way that a
cell would have self-emerged and because
the number is close to impossible
out of his ass.
>> Who is that? I know Lensky as the the
LTE.
Yeah, Demsky.
>> Yeah, I'm going to do some stuff on
Demsky now because um I don't know if
you've seen but Meyer is on this like
crusade. He's doing a big push this
year. He's been doing all these
appearances and he just put out a a
movie like a in theaters. It's in
theaters right now and it it's the same
[\h__\h] Like look how complicated this is.
>> It's crazy, right? DNA is a code. Codes
come from the from a mind, right? It's
the same [\h__\h] It's so infantile, but
he's really And then uh they're clearly
like paying people on Twitter to uh to
like retweet a like you you'll see like
50 in a row just like reposting the same
video from DI. It's just like a new cell
video. It's just a new video of of a a
modern ukareotic cell and it's like look
at how crazy this is. So God, right?
It's just like
>> I think it's capitalizing
>> capitalizing on on what is happening in
the United States at the moment because
there is that that sort of environment
where he actually get some damage. So
he's clever that he's a bit unhinged.
I've watched a couple of things for him
about him before and he's like a bit bit
of a weird like he's unhinged. But what
about James Tour? Did he disappear from
the scene?
>> No, he's in that movie and he's doing
these appearances. I have I have kind of
a I I've some some stuff has compiled
for me to do reaction videos to. Uh
Meyer and Tour and Lennox did this one
that got a lot of views that I have to
react to and then just Meyer doing some
other stuff and it's all the the Demsky
specified information crap. They've kind
of they've kind of stopped doing
irreducible complexity. At least they
don't not the way that they had been
doing it with Beehe, but it's still just
this like their favorite one is the uh
the the the protein that walks along uh
the fiber in the in the it's just like
look, it's a thing that's like walking.
So God is it's like god damn it, man.
You guys are still
>> Yeah. The the water problem the the
hydraulysis um that they're not stable.
Amino acid is not stable.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah. So that was Tour's uh
that was Tour's uh paper. Uh yeah, I I
had fun with that one. I did a nice
video
that clay can act as a catalyst and
stabilizer at the same time.
>> Sure. But it's much much worse than
that, right? Because he did this whole
paper where he's he's pretending that a
polyeptide is just like a straight chain
just like this, right? And he's like,
well, the probability of one hydraying
times. They [\h__\h] fold, you [\h__\h]
They adopt these shapes where they're
protected. Uh it's just like I mean
there are proteins that can survive in
boiling water. So you're trying to tell
me that I mean come on man. It's
>> they think quite linearly like they they
think linear. They think it's like a
it's a conveyor belt of process and you
know you you convey the information to
the next. They don't understand how uh
complex of a network things are and how
multiple facets can come from different
places and assemble and deassemble and
and it and happens over and you you
don't count the number of failed um uh
trials. There are so many that probably
we never got to see the sun but they're
so linear in terms of thinking because
they're starting with a conclusion.
That's where the problem is. They have a
conclusion they want to reach and this
is where science fails. If you enter a
science lab and you have a conclusion in
mind that you're trying to prove you
failed science.
>> Sure. Yeah. And they know that the and
the dangerous part with them is that
they they are they they know the science
that they're offiscating like they're
deliberately distorting the science. I
mean to the degree where at the DI
regularly like doctoring data tables. Uh
Casey Luskin did this with the whole I I
covered it a few months ago. I don't
remember exactly when it was, but um
they're trying to overturn the whole 98%
genetic similarity between humans and
chimps. And so the way they do it is
they just lie about a bunch of data and
they just obiscate, you know, there are
different ways to compare genomes and
they pretend
and then they literally trim data tables
like, okay, this this data uh debunks
what we're saying, so get rid of that.
And then they get caught and then a
bunch of videos get made like mine and a
few other you know Erica uh and uh Dan
you know some some other science
communicators we all kind of dogpile be
like look at what these jerks are doing
and then they just I don't I I feel like
at this point they are pretending I
don't exist. They used to kind of like
make damage control pieces but then that
would just make me hit them harder. So I
think they stopped doing it and in fact
I did I haven't commented on DI in a
while but it's time to come back to them
because they're
>> putting out all the this big wave of
propaganda. So, it's time to take them
down and again,
>> we'll explore just one last theme and
I'll be on the hour, which is u I know
you you don't like to um waffle for too
long like me. Um
we did not evolve to learn what's true.
We evolved to to survive to to to
continue living and um transfer our
genes to the next generation. You know,
we start aging from the age of 20. the
cell starts to you know once your sperm
is transferred to an ova and it becomes
a zygote you know it's almost like your
job is done but we seems to be like the
the cell the living cell is a temporary
challenge of the inevitable of entropy
um so it's a it's a assembling of
information for temporary um uh period
of time and then it will dissipate again
and it will reassemble and will take a
different configuration throughout its
its history. So from that point of view,
if we truly are here to just to survive
and live and enjoy life and we're not
geared um uh to to know what is what is
really true, some would argue, but maybe
that was in the past. We are now in a
situation where knowledge and
epistemology and understanding what is
true it's aiding if not to life at least
to the quality of life which has
actually became more more of a paramount
because kind of life is secured to a
degree to a lot of us it's now uh it's
transferred to the quality of life how
do we how we are going to live this life
and for this sort of parameter you need
to know what is true to make life even
better
>> so do you agree or disagree with okay
well we're not here to learn the truth.
Our brains are have not evolved to learn
the truth versus no maybe in the past it
wasn't very important. It was more
important to live in groups and survive
in groups and um believe in things and
um false negatives even though they're
not true but they're aiding to survival
which was the most important. Now we
live in a reality where understanding
reality and and and um structuring our
life around what is true it's aiding to
the quality of life which has become
more paramount um uh than the old olden
days.
>> Yeah. I mean it's obviously the case
today. I would argue that it was more or
less always true even you know living on
the savannah. Um, I mean you there are
there are certain relics like I mean you
could say like the reason that we kind
of see faces where they aren't is
because there was some evolutionary
advantage, right? It's better to see too
many faces and be wrong most of the
time, but that one time you did see the
tiger in the bush and then you ran away
and you whatever it So like there's like
that's kind of in support of what you're
saying. But on the other hand, right, if
you're going to throw a spear, right,
you got to be able to figure out, you
know, have an intuitive understanding of
the laws of physics to get it to arc the
way you want and land on the target. So
you're it's always been the case that
our ability to understand our
surroundings has aided us in in in
constructing uh shelters and and finding
food and and and cataloging our
understanding of which food is going to
kill us and which you know just there
there are a handful of counterex
examples that are kind of relics of of
evolutionary psychology but for the most
part I think it's always been the case
but then now of course um much more so
that we're not really um beholden into
natural selection in the same way that
we once were and we're not in the food
chain, right? We're just kind of uh
trying to figure out how to, as you
said, improve the quality of life. And
of course, this is very tethered to our
ability to probe um the nature of the
universe uh on the deepest most
fundamental level. You know, we figure
out fundamental particles and then we
use them to to create new technology,
new materials, new methods of energy and
transportation and things and
>> and uh yeah.
Well, I mean, writers do get blocks and
as a content creator who's been around
for for close to decade now and with
with thousands of videos and debates and
conversations, do you sometimes
want just have a cheeseburger, watch a
silly movie and say, "Fuck it."
>> Well, yeah, of course.
>> Yeah. I love a good burger and I love a
good movie. Yeah. I mean I I I do work
more than anyone I have ever met, but I
do occasionally take breaks and uh yeah,
I mean I eat meals and I do all that
kind of stuff too. I have kids,
>> but I mean like take a take break take a
break for for a couple of weeks and say
or or even reach the point where
>> couple weeks I could I don't think I
could do that.
>> But could you I mean I have done that
before and if where I question do am I
really making a change? Do do I have to
or do I just live my life and just let
it go or you know sometimes I get these
sort of
>> uh doubts in my mind.
>> Well, okay. I mean, a couple of things.
Uh number one, this is my income. Uh and
we're a single income family, so I do
not have the luxury of of not doing
this. Um I I I have to do this, but I
also do feel that this is how I can
contribute to uh society the most. So it
I do feel fortunate that the thing that
I think is that I am having the most
impact is also the thing that I figured
out to be lucrative for me. So I'm
thankful for that. Um there are other
things that I want to do more. I've been
trying to get back to music and other
art forms for for years now. And I I
think I will be able to do that this
year a little bit, but but yeah, I mean
if I could flip a switch and make the
same amount of money and just jump over
and make music all the time. Yeah, I'd
love to do that. Um
>> well that that's why you need to Tik Tok
is I mean I'm I'm getting Derek from
Myth Vision because he's now so we're
gonna go on Tik Tok and yesterday I had
um Aaron Adair probably know the
physicist and uh Jonathan MS Pierce who
we talked about who did did uh has um
science ended philosophy uh you know so
I had a philosopher and a scientist and
we were were in Tik Tok. So yeah, it'll
be quite interesting for you to explore
that especially if you're going to
venture into music. This is the platform
definitely for it.
>> Should I be doing Tik Tok? I don't know.
I don't know how the Tik Tok works. I
don't want to do Tik Tok. But
>> no, it's becoming when a lots of people
have the connotation there's a lot of
things going on in terms of physics and
like proper chats. But the problem the
the difference is the interaction from
the audience is completely YouTube is
becoming the the the silent viewers uh
type of platform. Uh you know you get
some comments here and there but for
actually contributing
um um interactions Tik Tok is is
becoming the uh forget the silly stuff
but there are actually some very very
good proper conversation going on. So
yeah we had philosophy science one and
it was pretty good. I know I know that
there's a way for me to reach a new
audience and grow my YouTube viewership
through Tik Tok. I just every time I try
to do it, I fail spectacularly and I
just I'm I just go back. Ah, whatever.
I'm too old. I don't want to do it. I'm
just going to But uh I don't know. Maybe
I can crack the code at some point. I I
feel like I could do kind of like short
debunking. Just find some idiot saying
something stupid on TikTok. The thing is
I don't even know like I know that
there's a way to like play a thing and
then talk in front of it and go haha
this is I I literally don't even know
how to do that like I don't know how to
use to like I of course I can learn it
and
>> yeah well well in in one of the future
conversations I I will include you once
and see if you know like within a within
a panel so that way you don't feel alone
so maybe I'll have uh Derek from Myth
Vision and a couple of other people
Aaron Ra or something and then it will
look like once you get used the only
thing that I had to get used to very
very quickly is people send you gifts
>> all life and the gifts are freaking
silly. So you can you be talk talking
about Baruk spinosa and suddenly
somebody fixes um an elephant trunk on
your face
and you feel a bit silly for a moment
but you know thank you very much for for
the few dollars you know
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. As long as I'm getting paid,
>> you can.
>> Yeah.
>> Interesting.
>> Fantastic.
>> It's something.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I'll talk to you offline
about as well. It's it's definitely um
it has changed and the interaction is
fantastic because you have the panel and
you can talk about something for an hour
or or an hour and a half with the the
panel experts and then you can let
people come in one at a time and pose a
question relevant to the topic. So you
get to have a feel you know this you're
20 years old you're 19 years old you're
21 years old this is the the future um I
feel that this the generation that is
going to make impact in the next couple
of dec decades are on Tik Tok at the
moment
>> interesting I gota yeah it's inevitable
I have to try one more time
>> I was resistant the very beginning but
look thank you so much for everything
you do you're one of my my favorite
people you're very levelheaded You don't
you don't squid the little things unless
you're faced by a line uh wanker.
You explode. Uh but thank you very much
for everything you do, Dave.
>> Sure. Thanks for having me.