Word count:29550
deconstructing the myth of science part two. Now we're gonna get real serious. I've got dozens of killer points for you here, we're gonna be discussing what is science and how it really works and all of the limitations that are common to science, but go denied and unrecognized and unacknowledged by our culture and society. We have a lot of material to cover, let me just reiterate once more, that my teachings are non ideological. What I'm teaching here is not a belief system, I'm making specific individual points, which correspond with insights about the nature of reality and human knowledge and science that you can have for yourself, you can either have these insights, or not have them. You can form beliefs. But that's not the same thing as having the insights. So the only purpose of this communication is to show you the possibility for the insights that you have not yet had. That's the value of this work that we do. Right? It's not enough just to listen to me, you have to actually contemplate the things that I say very deeply. And you have to independently derive these insights for yourself, in the same way that if I was teaching you mathematics, it wouldn't be sufficient for you just to believe me that five times five is 25, you have to actually go and derive that for yourself. And check whether that is in fact, the case. If all that you're doing is you're learning mathematics, through blind memorization, without actually going through any of the derivations of the truths of mathematics, then you're misunderstanding the spirit of mathematics. Likewise, if all this you're doing is you're listening to me talking, and you're not thinking about the stuff for yourself and having these insights, you're not doing this work properly. So just be careful about that. You will never understand the things that I talk about, without deep and long contemplation. That's just a baseline for all of our work. Now, I was going to leave the objections section to part four of this series. But some of the objections because I know you guys have so many objections. And honestly, they're warranted, you should be skeptical of the things that I'm telling you. Because I'm telling you radical things, which challenge the basically everything you've been taught about science and human knowledge, and about reality. So yeah, of course, you're going to be skeptical. Sure, there's no problem with being skeptical about my teachings, just be skeptical. But also keep an open mind and realize that we're covering very tricky territory here, where your mind can easily trick you into misunderstanding the things that are being said. So I'm going to cover a few of the objections, not all of them. But I'm going to cover a few of the objections here, right off the bat, to get us warmed up. And then we'll get into the main points. Now. The reason I'm having to cover these objections so early is because of how your mind works, you see, you still don't get the significance of what I'm about to say is that your mind is the gatekeeper. Your mind is the pupil through which all knowledge and information and truth arrives into your skull and into your consciousness, through your mind. Anything that your mind wants to filter out or deny it will easily do so without any hesitation or even your awareness. Are you getting this? So as we're talking here, and remember, ultimately, we're what we're trying to do. Our ultimate objective is to help to jailbreak your mind to deconstruct your entire mind and then alongside with it, all of reality. To get to the truth, as it turns out, your mind is the thing that is preventing you from getting to the truth. So that's why we have to deconstruct your mind. Now your mind is composed of many different facets. Science is one of them, that we need to deconstruct there's a lot of other stuff we have to deconstruct in addition to science, but here we're focusing on science. See The problem though, is that like I said, you know, in that metaphor of jailbreaking your mind like your phone when you're trying to jailbreak your phone, it has anti jailbreaking software operating at a very low level in the kernel of the operating system, which is going to prevent you from ever getting close to jailbreaking it. Every move you take, your mind will take a countermove that's going to be more intelligent than the moves you make in order to prevent you from jailbreaking your mind, which is the only reason you haven't jailbroken your mind up to this point in your life. And if you had, you probably wouldn't be listening to me anymore, because you wouldn't need it. So just by the fact that you're listening to me already, there's a selection bias, which means that you're not aware of the anti jailbreaking mechanisms which are operating in your mind, therefore, I have to be aware of them for you, and I have to preempt them for you. And your mind is so sensitive and so fragile, fragile, that any wrong word that I say, on this touchy subject, for example, if you're a materialist, or you're a realist, or you're a rationalist, or you're an Objectivist, any, any word that I say that rubs you the wrong way rubs your ego the wrong way, immediately, your mind will shut down, all your mind has to do is just get offended, or just go off. That's bullshit, and then click the off button on this video on this recording. And that's it. That's it, you've locked yourself off from the truth forever. That's how easy it is for your mind to shut down. And the kind of information that is going to really seriously challenge your worldview. You see, so I want you to stay very cognizant of that. Watch for any word that I say that rubs you the wrong way and observe that reactivity within you and that desire to click the off button. Observe that and wonder whether that's a healthy reaction or not. For somebody who's interested, supposedly as you in pursuing the truth, in really understanding reality. Because if you're not really interested in understanding reality at a deep level, then why are you even watching this, go watch some cat videos, there's a cat video right over here, you can just click on that. And that will be perfect for your level of intellect and interest. In reality, go watch some of those cat videos. They're great. But if you're gonna stick around here, be very cognizant and mindful of the gatekeeper function, and the anti jailbreaking software that is running inside of your mind as I'm speaking. Okay, so enough of that. Let's get to the objections. The first one is, but Leo. So what you're doing here is you're undermining science. And this is dangerous because you're opening Pandora's box to all sorts of pseudoscience and crack pottery and quackery and new age, you know, gobbledygook and nonsense. Well, what I'm doing here is I'm questioning science. And we you say that that's dangerous when you say that questioning science is dangerous. Do you see the problem with that? That in and of itself is dangerous. In fact, I would say that's the greater danger. Yes, of course, there is a danger that the ego mind can abuse these teachings very easily. That's always been the case with anything that I teach, and especially this subject, and you're right, you know, the creationists and the Flat Earthers, and the climate change deniers, and the COVID, virus deniers, all this sorts of stuff, and the anti vaxxers and whatever, conspiracy nut cases are out there? Yes, they will take these very valid points that I'm making against science, and they will use them for their own devilish egoic purposes. Of course, they will. But that does not invalidate the points that I make. Just because the points that I make are inconvenient for you. Doesn't make them untrue. Please see that distinction. It's always the case that advanced truths and teachings can be misused by the ego mind. But the pursuit of truth and ultimately, science cannot be done out of fear. It has to be done out of a positive motivation to understand reality as it actually is. Or as close to that as we can get. See, we can't be worried that well, I shouldn't you know, we should investigate this part of nature or that part of nature or this part of science. We shouldn't question this or that thing, because it's sacred. In a sense, your argument here is that science is too sacred to question. I mean, religious people have been using this defense for Milan onea against any criticisms of religion, when you criticize the Catholic Church for its abuses, that the priests have their various kinds of sexual scandals and so forth. What is the common defense of Catholics against any of these criticisms? The defense is always something like but, but Catholicism is sacred. And after all, I mean, what do you want me to do? You know, leave my church, I still have to keep going church. And so they they hand wave away the criticisms? Because in their mind, it's dangerous to question Catholicism, it's dangerous to question its authority, because as soon as you find one little flaw, of course, your mind knows what that means. If we find a little flaw within Catholicism, then that means there can be more flaws. Makes you start to doubt your faith in Catholicism. And if we make you start to doubt, a little bit in Islam, that little crack can rip apart into a giant fissure. Well, it works exactly the same way with science. So the reason people are so defensive about science is because of course, as soon as a little doubt, is sewn in there, as soon as your mind starts to really consider the things that I say, then yeah, that little crack will eventually turn into a fissure and rip apart the entire enterprise of science. That's what I told you about at the very beginning. The things I teach are, are threatening to the ego mind threatening to your sense of reality, threatening to your worldview. And this always happens with whistleblowers, consider someone like Edward Snowden, he comes out, you know, he reveals some secret information about NSA, wiretapping and spying that the government has illegally been doing on the American public. And and what are people thankful for this? No, at least not the people in the government. Most of the people in the government consider him a traitor for doing so. Because, of course, under the justification that it's dangerous, it's dangerous for Edward Snowden to come out there and reveal classified information. That's dangerous. We can't allow that. Well, yeah, but is it true? Well, it doesn't matter if it's true. It's dangerous. Yeah. But is it true? No, but it's dangerous. It's dangerous. Forget about whether it's true, it's too dangerous. You see, this always happens when you criticize any kind of institution. And science is no different. So that covers that. The next objection is, but Leo, the great thing about science is that it evolves and betters itself, that is the nature and spirit of science. So you criticizing science is pointless, because science is already bettering itself. It doesn't need you. This is just absurdly contradictory, hypocritical and ridiculous. This objection, I get to this objection, so much from different people whenever I try to try to critique science. But what you have to realize is that science doesn't just automatically improve itself. Science only improves itself, when people like you and me are willing to change our minds about how science works. You see, and if we're not, if you and I are going to be stuck, and be defending science as it is, then science will not evolve, and it will not better itself. We will be obstacles to its evolution. So consider the following crazy. I know this is a crazy idea that this talk right here, this whole series is the evolution of science, but only if you are willing to contemplate the things that I say for yourself and get them and then so other people are also able to do the same thing. And then when we all see the limitations that were pointed out by somebody who spent a lot of time thinking about it, then science will evolve. Otherwise, it won't. You see? So while you're objecting that science evolves all the time. Ironically, it's that which is shutting down the evolution of science. Can you see that? If every time somebody comes up with a critique of science, you shut him down. how science is going to evolve? And do you really think that science is going to evolve in a sort of a happy go lucky manner where everyone's going to be happy about its evolution? Or do you think think that, in reality, what's going to happen is that people who are stuck on the old paradigms of science are going to be frustrated, and are going to be angry and upset about it, and will not want it to evolve. Or do you think everyone's just going to be eager to change their entire worldview all of a sudden, When has that ever been true in human history, for any institution, or any group of people, that they were just eager to evolve? Know, the ego minds, natural tendency is to be stubborn, and to refuse any change revolution. And its way is this is true, collectively, for institutions. And it's true individually for us. And you've, you've experienced this in your own life, how other people refuse to change, refuse to evolve, including yourself. And you've seen it in institutions to. And science, of course, it's no different. So this right here is the evolution of science if you're able to comprehend what's being said. And of course, you have to also consider that the evolution of science is not going to take you to a place that you already anticipate, the next stage of science is going to be something new, something you're uncomfortable with something that isn't obvious, something that people haven't thought of before, because if they already thought of it, and they're already comfortable with it, then it's not new, it's already part of science. So you have to really contemplate what it means for science to evolve. It's not just this easy, smooth process. It's a contentious process more like a war or a battle than it is just some effortless evolution. This is the process. All these people in the comment sections that you read, who are denying anything that I say here, as legitimate, that is the very resistance that is put up by science against the evolution of science. Now, of course, they're going to deny that because they're going to deny any legitimacy to what I say. And I'm gonna say that what I say has nothing to do with the evolution of science, of course, but that's always said about anybody who tries to advance science. They're always denies denied on the grounds that what they're proposing, is it true science. But that, of course, is the whole the whole epistemic issue here that we talked about, in part one who gets to decide between what is and isn't valid science, that's the whole problem. We don't really know what is and isn't valid science. The next objection is billy-o. Science doesn't claim to pursue truth, it's just a way of making our life better. This is a very sneaky, very intellectually dishonest critique, or objection to my critiques. And I noticed that a lot. You see, ideally, most scientists actually are interested in the truth. But what happens is that when someone like me social level, serious critiques about science is an ability to reach the truth. Eventually, these people are backed into a corner and they have to make a sort of a, what I call the programmatic retreat. They need to formulate science as a pragmatic activity strictly a pragmatic activity which is divorced from any truth seeking. Science is unconcerned with truth. And in fact, all that science is concerned with is just the manipulation of reality and improving our ability to survive as a species through technology. At first glance, this seems like a legitimate defense. Actually, it's not it's a grossly prep problematic defense. Let me point this out to you. So let's talk a little bit about pragmatism. That's actually a very important point. What is pragmatism pragmatism is a is a sort of a school of thought, within the philosophy of science that arose may be actually in the like 1880s and 90s, with with the pragmatic philosopher, some American pragmatic philosophers like Pierce, he basically started it, but but then it evolved. And then like Richard Rorty was a philosopher of science who, who really kind of popularized this notion of science as pragmatism, this sort of idea that, well, philosophy has been interested in the deep questions of reality about like, is there a God and what is the ultimate truth and such questions? But ultimately, you know, we did science and we discovered that these questions are impossible to answer. They're just even meaningless questions. No serious scientist should be interested in these questions. All that science is interested in is just going into the laboratory doing its laboratory work producing some Technical results, and then doing some, you know, technology based upon that. And that's really all that that sciences and in a sense truth here is then reduced down to a much more mundane notion, not some lofty metaphysical, you know, ultimate truth. But just truth is simply whatever works. That's the pragmatic formulation. And this has become very popular amongst scientist, it's a very effective defense against any critiques of science, because one of the most powerful critiques of science is the fact that it's, it's not true. And it doesn't get you to the ultimate truth. And so of course, the easiest way to defend against that is to just cut off the possibility of ultimate truth and to say that such a thing doesn't even exist. Well, that's not true. So but let me address this more substantively in a way that you can understand. Alright, so it's really problematic to equate the manipulation of reality, with truth. And that's essentially what pragmatism does. If I can manipulate reality using some sort of mental scheme, in a sense, pragmatism says, that's what makes the scheme true. But of course, this is patently absurd, if you think about it for even a few moments with some examples. Just because something is useful, doesn't mean that it's true. In fact, there are many instances in life where the most useful techniques and methods are false. And it's precisely their falsehood that makes them so true, which is why people lie. Why do people lie so much? Why do you lie so much? Why are people so dishonest? And I've always been throughout history, why? Why do politicians lie? Why do business people lie? Why do you use Carl sell car salesmen lie? Because it's very useful. It's very useful for manipulating people. And for getting the kind of results that you want within society. It's very useful for survival, but it doesn't make it true. You see. Now you say, well, Leo, but scientists are generally an honest sort of people, they don't lie outright, the way that used car salesmen do. And I would agree with that. And most scientists, I don't, I wouldn't say that they're outright liars. They're just not conscious of the things that they're doing, and the beliefs they're holding, and the limitations of their worldview. So I'm not calling them liars. But I'm just trying to use that as a point to illustrate that just because something is useful doesn't automatically make it true. These are two distinct and independent variables. For example, Newtonian mechanics, is extremely useful. I can use Newtonian mechanics to calculate the trajectory of a projectile very accurately. And I can use this information in this model to kill my enemies if I'm threatened by my enemies. And I might really start to believe that Newtonian mechanics is true, because it allows me to kill my enemies and to predict these projectiles that I'm shooting at them. And after all, what I care about is my own survival and my tribes survival, right. But of course, modern science recognizes that Newtonian mechanics isn't true. It's still useful, very useful, but it isn't true. How about atomic theory, the sort of standard model of atomic theory that was taught to you and in elementary school in high school, you know, with little balls in the nucleus with little ball electron orbiting around, I mean, this entire model, as useful as it is, you can use that model to successfully do certain chemical reactions and predict certain kinds of phenomena, electrical phenomenon, magnetic phenomena, whatever, chemical phenomena. But modern science again, has recognized that this model isn't true. Yet, it's still taught in high schools all around the world. Consider a primitive tribe of people living in the Amazon. They have a very radically different, what you would call an unscientific worldview, full of animistic beliefs and deities and voodoo and witchcraft and all sorts of weird stuff like that. That they practice, you would say all of that, that they believe is false. Right? That's what you want to say. But if you want to be a pragmatist, here's the hypocrisy of pragmatism. See if you're gonna adopt the pragmatic sense of science than I get to use pragmatism to defend any crazy belief system and worldview as long as it's useful. So, if we take you and we drop you into the middle of the Amazon sea with your current scientific worldview, materialistic worldview, rationalist worldview, you will not be able to survive in the Amazon for longer than a few weeks, you'll die. So how useful is your worldview in the Amazon, not very useful. But these tribal people have been living in that jungle for centuries, and millennia very successfully. And they are going to be able to run circles around you in that jungle, they will be able to hunt and to feed themselves and to find water, and to find herbal medicines and treat their their diseases and build shelters and all sorts of stuff. But all of this will be done under an animistic worldview. They will not be done under a materialist worldview, they will believe in spirits and deities that help them to do all those things. You see. So if you're going to use a pragmatic defense, I get to use the pragmatic defense to and I get to say that all of their beliefs and their worldview is completely true, because it's useful. And hey, as long as useful, it's true, right? That's your logic, not my logic. I didn't argue that you argue that. So watch with your double standards here. And also what's patently absurd about this defense of science, the pragmatic defense is that you would never, ever grant this kind of leeway to religion. So if I was a religious fundamentalist, let's say an Evangelical, and I was telling you about God and angels in heaven, and all these, you know, wacky religious beliefs that I hold, view as a scientifically minded person, you would say, Yeah, but but those things are true. And maybe he would make some points, he would say, like, the Earth isn't actually 5000 years old, it's billions of years old. And he would say, there's no evidence for angels. And you would say, there's no evidence for God and blah, blah, blah, right. And eventually, maybe I would be backed into a corner. And I would say, Well, you know, maybe, you know, you're right. I haven't I haven't seen an angel myself. And you're right. I haven't seen God myself. So yeah, maybe, maybe, maybe it isn't true. But But. And here's the pragmatic defense. It's useful. It's useful. And you, you know, that religious people make this this point, when they're backed into a corner. They say that, but But religion, even if it's not true, it's a, it's like a, it's a binding mythology that binds our nation or our tribe together, it helps to shape the morality of our people and our children. It helps me to raise good children and make people happy. And in fact, if you do scientific experiments, and they have done clinical experiments like this, studies, and so forth, where they have found that actually, the happiest people are oftentimes the most religious people in the world, not the atheists and not the rationalists, the religious people. So if you're gonna say that the pragmatic defense is legitimate, than I get to say that all religious dogma and belief is true on the grounds that it makes people happier, and it's useful for them in their lives. Agreed. Are you agreeing to that? Of course not. Of course not. You're gonna say no, that's bullshit. And you're right to say that it is bullshit. Because truth is not the same thing as survival. Truth is not the same thing as manipulation. Truth is not the same thing as happiness. And science is not the same thing as pragmatism. Science is much deeper than merely the pragmatists claim. And in fact, no serious intellectual or scientist considers science to merely be a pragmatic scheme for manipulating reality, which isn't really true. That is not how you hold signs is that and that is not why serious scientists pursue serious science. When a serious scientist is pursuing serious science. He really believes in his heart, that he's finding something out about the nature of the universe, something deep, something profound, something true, not merely a scheme to manipulate some numbers, not merely a new technology, but something deep that has been understood. Every great scientist, whether it was Einstein or Newton or liveness, or I mean, you name them these Scientists we're after something much deeper than merely pragmatism. This sort of pragmatism is really a modern invention of last 100 years. And in a sense, science has been corrupted by this pragmatic notion, because what it's done is it's completely stripped science of its deeper metaphysical aspirations, which have always been there, and are still there for most serious scientists. Now, there are many scientists who just are like monkeys doing lab work. They're technicians, they're not deep thinkers about the nature of reality for these people. If all you're interested in just is doing some, some standard basic science using basic lab work, or whatever, then yeah, for you, science has no deeper dimension. But that is not really how you hold science. You see, even if you're not a professional scientist, even if you're just an ordinary person, for example, when science tells you that the that the earth is 4 billion years old, and that dinosaurs used to roam the Earth, because we have fossils, and that the earth is orbiting around the sun. And that the you know, and that that we are located inside of a larger galaxy called the Milky Way, which came from some big bang that was, you know, 14 billion years ago or whatever, this, this whole model that you hold, you don't merely hold this model telling yourself well, yeah, it's a sort of a convenient fiction that I invented in order to make sense of, you know, some, some in order to help me to manipulate reality better. No, the way you hold that is as truth. You want to say that's true. You actually believe that that's what's real. This is actually what is generally driving your sense of sense making See, you're not just using science merely to manipulate some variables within reality and to build some technology. Sure, science, of course, does that. But science serves a much deeper cultural function. For us, as a society, science creates a narrative to explain our origins, where we came from, and where we're going, and why things are happening. Without this, you wouldn't know anything, nothing would make any sense to you nothing would have meaning for you. See, when you look up at the stars at night, you don't just consider them as you know, those little lights in the sky as just little variables of light quantities and numbers that you're going to manipulate. And that's it. No, no, you look at the stars and you wonder, and you say, Wow, that's amazing. Those are actually suns that are bigger than our sun that are, you know, millions of light years away, or whatever, and they're shining down. And it's and there might be planets over there. And there might be aliens on those planets, and God knows what else is out there. And it gives you a sense of all. That's probably what inspired you to become a professional scientist, if you ever became when it's something like that. You really care about understanding reality. And you think that whatever science you're doing, if it's successful, truthful science, you think that you're actually understanding something deep and profound about reality. And you're right about that intuition. That is the spirit of science. But the problem is that these models that you're coming up with are not identical with truth. And we'll be talking more about that as we as we go. Right? And see, in ordinary language, we have a notion called Truth. And we don't just call in ordinary language, truth, those things which are convenient and practical. A lot of things are convenient, practical, doesn't make them true. And you want even as a scientist, you want to preserve the notion of truth, because you want to say that, well, this science is true, and that science is false. Not on the basis of this one is more utilitarian and practical, whereas that one is not. Or this one allows me to manipulate reality better, but that one does not matter. You want to say that, regardless of how well I can manipulate reality. With my models and theories, there's truth, independent of all that. And the truth stands on its own, the way that reality actually is. You see, and also consider that there might be many aspects of science or truth that have no practical consequences whatsoever. Nowhere in the universe is that written that to have the truth that, that will allow you to then manipulate reality however you want, and to live a cushy, comfortable life and to whatever other pragmatic, you know, considerations there are. It might be the case that the truth is completely impractical. And you're gonna have to deal with that. How do you know that the truth is a practical thing? Who told you who did you ask that you ask God, and he told you all truth in the universe is practical, is absurd. This idea that truth must be practical is a completely unscientific dogma that many scientifically minded people hold. That's one of the dogmas of science. So, in a sense, what pragmatism devolves into is devilry. Now I use the word devilry. Not in a literal sense, but sort of in a metaphorical, deeper, allegorical sense. See my episode? What is the devil where I explain what Tillery is? All that devil really means devilry really means is that it means that if you if you equate the truth with your own personal survival, or the survival of your species, which a lot of people do when they talk about science, that turns into devilry, because what that means is that now all of a sudden, you open the door for lying, deception, manipulation, as long as it can be manipulated and lied, and you can succeed with it. That is, then that becomes your definition of truth. And then anything goes, see this is sort of the Donald Trump conception of truth for Donald Trump. Truth is, whatever makes him successful, and prosperous, and allows him to survive. That's his definition of truth, which is why he's the devil. Again, I'm not saying this with moral condemnation, I'm just telling you, the mechanics of the ego mind. And that when the ego mind equates Sir, its own survival with the truth, which commonly does, because most ego minds don't care about the truth, other than its own survival, then that's when that's when the ego goes crazy. And that's when all hell breaks loose. Because now, you're free to lie, you're free to cheat, you're free to manipulate, you're free to say anything that comes your way, you're free to fake documents, cheat on your taxes, cheat on your wife, whatever, as because for you, it doesn't matter what's true, it matters, what allows you to survive. And a lot of times falsehood and deception is what allows you to survive within human society. And then lastly, the final ultimate blow to pragmatism is, of course, that absolute truth exists. There is such a thing as absolute truth, and you can access it with your consciousness. But the problem is that you can't access it with modern science. What is the Absolute Truth? Well, I can't get into that here. If you want to know what truth is. It's a deep topic, go check out my episode called what is truth where I explain what truth is, although, of course, absolute truth cannot be explained. So one of the biggest problems of science is that the symbolic methods that it uses are incapable of actually grasping absolute truth. Therefore, what science does is science then is sort of forced to either admit that it's limited, and that it can't access the Absolute Truth using its methods, or at least its current methods, or science has to deny the absolute truth is even a thing. And that's usually what happens is that usually a scientifically minded person gets so drawn into the pragmatism of science, and everyday survival of technology, that they completely forget about truth, and then to the point where they even deny that it even exists. Because to admit that there is an absolute truth outside of the methods of conventional science, this is a huge problem for science, you see. Because, again, and this is one more, you know, problem with pragmatism is that for us as a culture, for science to have the authority that it has, we can't just say that science is practical. We have to hold science as the ultimate truth. That's part of the mythology of science is that it's not merely practical. It's not merely a collection of schemes we use to manipulate reality that will change in the future and have nothing to do with the way reality actually is. No, we hold it as actually true. We hold it as actually true. but it isn't. And that's something you can discover for yourself. But the only way you can discover it is by, again, deconstructing science. You see, this is why we're working on this. Because you can't access absolute truth without first deconstructing science. And you can't deconstruct science, so long as you're stuck on all these different objections that you have. For example, if you're stuck in pragmatism, you're never going to deconstruct science, and you're never going to discover the ultimate truth. Because pragmatism says it doesn't exist. But that's just a dogmatic assumption. You don't actually know that it doesn't exist. In fact, in truth, science derives all of its value and function from the fact that it corresponds, if it does, if it's good science, it corresponds to the absolute truth in some way. The Absolute Truth is basically everything. This very moment in this room that I'm sitting in, that you're sitting in, this is absolute truth. Science, basically, is the study of absolute truth. You might put it that way. Without absolute truth, there couldn't be any science. So that's that. Next objection. But Leo, how can science work? If it isn't true? This is a this is a very common objection. very understandable objection. At. And this is perhaps the biggest illusion of science is that it working so well makes everybody give science a pass on his truthfulness? Because you just assume that if it works, well, it must be true. Well, that's how science fools you. That's how it sneaks under the radar. See, because as long as something works for you, as long as I can make a gadget using it, then you're going to think that well, what more is there, I got everything I want out of science. But you see, truth isn't about what you want. Truth is truth. It's independent of whether it works for you, whether it's practical for you. So the reason science can work is like I said, with some of those other examples like those, you know, primitive people living in the Amazon, their worldview works for them, too. There is an infinite number of worldviews, and even an infinite number of sciences that you can invent, that will work in different ways. They don't all work the same. They have their pros and cons and trade offs. Every scientific model, in theory has certain pros and cons, it will work in some areas, it'll have limits and not work in other areas. And then it's a matter of for you to determine, you know, what works for you, what kind of what kind of work do you need it to do, and so forth. But just because some mental scheme works like you can come up with a mental scheme to explain something about the functioning of nature. But that mental scheme is not the same thing as nature itself. And there can be many alternative mental schemes to describe or to explain, or even to predict the phenomena of nature. So your mental scheme isn't true. It's just loosely corresponding with a few elements of nature. This is what trips people so much. Remember, we talked about the underdetermination problem in part one? Well, so the underdetermination problem comes in here is that, of course, due to the under determination problem, we have our models and theories, but all of them are basically underdetermined. That means you could have multiple models and theories for exactly the same set of data points. Right, in fact, you can have an infinite number. It's similar to culture. You know, you culture also creates a sort of illusion, if you grew up in a closed culture, in a closed society, you're going to feel like all of the customs and norms and ways of operating of that culture that you grew up in your your sort of your motherland culture, you're going to feel like that's the only way that reality could work. Because it works. And it's useful and it's functional. And you're gonna hold those as, like, absolute truths. But then when you travel to some foreign, radically different culture, like you go to Japan, or Australia, or China or India, Indonesia, you know, into the Amazon, you're going to discover radically different cultures with radically different norms and customs and worldviews, which also work. Some of them work even better than yours did. And some of them work a lot worse than yours. Not all cultures are the same. Again, there's pros and cons to different cultures. But it all depends. It depends on the environment you're talking about and depends on what you need your culture to do. You know, there's different demands placed upon culture based on the environment and the people and The level of technology and development of the the people that the culture is helping to facilitate and all of this, right. But you can clearly see when you travel around the world a lot that there can be hundreds, even 1000s of different cultures. And that not one, no one culture is the best. It's all about trade offs and pros and cons. And sometimes there's multiple ways of doing something. See, this is obvious with culture, this is less obvious with science. But I assure you, it works the same way with science. There is not one science, you can have hundreds 1000s even more different kinds of models for exactly the same phenomena within science. sort of imagine if, if if reality is a cake. And science is slicing the cake in one particular direction. Other epistemic schemes and worldviews and even other forms of science can slice the cake in different pieces in different directions. So there's not a single way to slice the cake, there's an infinite number of ways of slicing the cake, and how you slice the cake determines on what you need for your survival. Since humans need technology, to manipulate material reality, so it's very useful for humans, we tend to slice the cake in a way that allows us to do that we will slice the cake in a way that facilitates our manipulation of material reality. And in this way, we fool ourselves into thinking that first of all material that reality is material, it's not. Secondly, that and, and secondly, that our way of slicing the cake is the truth. And the only way it could be and that there are no alternatives, and that this is the best alternative. And of course, that's false. The only reason you think that is because you haven't explored other epistemic paradigms beyond science, or other sciences even. You see, there's no such thing as a singular science, science changes the science of today is not the science of 500 years ago is not the science of 1000 years ago. All of the models of science have changed, but science was still practical. 500 years ago, is still practical 1000 years ago. Now, of course, as as our models become more sophisticated, we become better at manipulating reality. But that doesn't solve the problem of truth. Another objection is that BillyOh? Science is simply observation. That's all that science is. No, it's not, not at all. You see, the trick is that all observational data can be ignored and denied and contested. That's the whole problem. For example, if I tell you that I saw a ghost that's observational data, I saw a ghost. Are you going to admit that ghosts exist? Of course not. You're gonna deny my data. You're gonna say, Oh, that was just hallucination. You're imagining stuff is just wishful thinking, you can't be trusted. obser your observations don't count. Okay, so my observations don't count. But how come yours? Do you see, the way that you define observation? The notion of observation is a completely relative notion, you and scientists, as a community define observation according to their certain standards. Now, you might say, well, Leo, one person seeing a ghost isn't enough. We need scientist to actually measure the ghost, we need a bunch of scientists to see the ghost and then we will admit the observation as legitimate. But see, again, there's nothing objective about that method. That's a subjective, relative method that you invented. That's a certain standard that you set. But that doesn't mean that the ghost needs to pass that. That rigorous standard. See the standards you set. Nature doesn't have to clear your standards, you have to adopt your standards to nature, not nature to your standards. This is a common problem that many scientifically minded people don't understand. And I mean, ghosts, are set to be observed by 1000s, hundreds of 1000s of people even. But see, you're going to deny all that data, you can say, well, they're all deluded. Exactly. And you're going to always say that about anything that you don't want to admit into your paradigm of, of nature or reality. You see, they say, well, Leo, surely if they've seen ghosts than they should be, we'll take pictures of it. Well, maybe. But see, if I show you a picture of a ghost, are you gonna believe that? Of course not. You're gonna say that's a fake picture. And you'll say, well, Galileo, because those people can't be trusted. You know, anyone can fake a ghost on Photoshop these days. So of course, that doesn't constitute legitimate evidence. Well, that but then how do you prove a ghost? How do I prove a ghost to you? By the way, I'm not saying that ghosts are real. I've never seen one. I'm just using this as an example because I know it triggers you guys. You scientists. I'm just trying to get you like to really question what would it take? How much evidence would it take for you to actually admit that ghosts exist? See, you'd never consider this question because you just assume ghosts don't exist? That's begging the question, of course. But consider for a moment that ghosts do exist, but the fact that your mind is too close to understand this phenomenon called ghosts, see, part of the problems that you assume all of reality is material. Therefore, when you, when you hear about ghosts, you assume that well, so the ghosts must be material, so I should be able to take a photograph of it, or I should be able to like, grab it, grab it by the ankles, and drag it into a laboratory and dissect it. But maybe Ghosts don't work that way. See, maybe ghost is a sort of phenomenon that you can't approach with your material, gross material methods. But then, of course, you say, well, but I can't approach it with my gross material methods, then it isn't true. Again, begging the question. Because the question here is, are your methods themselves sufficient to account for all the phenomena of the universe? Which of course, we mentioned in part one? They are not, you don't know that? See? You of course they will Lea. But this is a cop out. Because see, you're saying that ghosts exist, but then you're not giving us any method for proving that they actually exist? No, there are many methods to potentially prove that they exist. First of all, seeing one yourself. But see even that you're not going to admit as legitimate evidence. But of course, if you did see a ghost yourself. Please understand that if you actually saw a real ghost yourself, you would, you would count that as legit evidence. You just don't count it from others. And hey, I get you. You're skeptical. I understand. We shouldn't just believe people who say that they saw ghosts. We want some, you know, hard, tangible evidence. But all I'm trying to prove with this point is that what you call observation is completely relative. There is no such objective standard for what counts as observation. And this applies not just to ghosts, but to UFOs. To Bigfoot, to remote viewing to psychedelics to telekinesis, to mystical experiences. People have been talking about mystical experiences for 1000s of years. For example, do you as a scientist admit the validity of mystical experiences? Of course not. You think they're all nonsense? Why? Because of your methodological biases? How about psychedelics? Do you admit the validity of psychedelics? Do you admit that psychedelics can give you profound insights about the nature of science and reality? No, of course not. You completely dismiss that? Why? Because the scientific establishment that you're a part of has brainwashed you into believing that that is the case. Have you actually tried to psychedelic yourself now? Probably not. And if you did, maybe you were like a teenager or something he didn't seriously understand what you experienced. See, there are hundreds of 1000s of, of UFO sightings, even many credible ones. So you say well, Leo, but you know, people who talk about ghosts, those people they're not credible. They're just bullshit artists and fraudsters. Oh, yeah. Well, what about your foes? I mean, you'll also say the same thing about UFOs just say, Oh, they're they're also all bullshit artists and and whatever. They're just doing it for money. But then, how do you explain when a credible person comes forward with a UFO story, like somebody from the US Air Force, or the Navy? We have plenty of examples like that. Reports. Government reports, even from from various governments around you know, around the world, we even have video footage, see, Ed, but the problem was, see the problem with video footage of UFOs is that any video footage of UFO that you see, you're going to denies Israel, its validity, no matter how real it looks. Even if it Israel, you're going to deny it. Why not? Because what you say is real in your mind, what counts as real is simply that which validates your existing worldview. In a sense, nothing outside of your limited worldview is considered real by you. Unless it's like thrown into your face. Like if, if you're sleeping tonight and a UFO abduction, you and Ainley rapes you, then they'll change your mind about UFOs. But until that happens to you, you're going to consider it unreal. I mean, that's just how your mind works. So all of this just goes to say that observation is not as simple as you think it is. Because your mind, like I said before, has an infinite capacity to deny observation, you will always find a way to rationalize why some observation isn't a legitimate observation, if that observation doesn't fit the confines of your worldview. Next objection, but Leo, show me some evidence that contradicts science. I mean, you're here telling us that science has all these flaws and errors in it. Sure. Surely you should have some evidence of where exactly science is wrong. I will give you a list of over a dozen areas in which science is factually demonstrably wrong about nature. In part three, but you have to understand the issue here. The issue is not that I cannot provide you with this list, I can, it's easy to provide this list. The problem is that you will not believe the list. That's why we're, we're building up to it. We need time to make all these points and you need time to contemplate all these methodological points. Because the problem is that as anytime this list is presented to you, anytime some error within science is presented, it's going to be denied. At least any error that is significantly outside of the current paradigm of science, you see, if there are errors within the paradigm, those will be easily admitted, with some peer review and stuff like that. But there are two types of errors within science, internal paradigm errors, which are fine, because they don't challenge the paradigm. And then there are errors that actually challenge the whole paradigm challenge the foundation of your worldview, those errors are virtually always denied. Because you assume your worldview is true. Everyone does. Not just scientists, everyone. That's just the nature of the mind. Right? So the problem is not me giving you evidence, the problem is what you consider as evidence. That's the problem. There's a meta problem here. You see, you're still thinking about all of this on the plane of ordinary conventional material science. And I'm telling you that there's a higher plain that you're not even aware of yet. There's a meta level to this. What you count as evidence, and as proof is the very problem that defines the paradigm. That is the thing that needs to be changed and expanded, then you'll be able to see more of the evidence and more of the problems. Otherwise, you're locked into a little bubble outside of what you cannot see. That's how the mind works. We're talking about the mechanics of the mind here is very tricky stuff. Next objection, but Leo, isn't this just post modernism? If you're making this objection, I almost guarantee that you don't understand what post modernism is, you're just parroting the word. Because you've heard it from somebody like Jordan Peterson or some other right winger, reactionary, who themselves doesn't understand what post modernism is. Please understand that Jordan Peterson does not understand post modernism, even though he criticizes it, which is exactly why I criticize it. But anyways, regardless of that, what I'm teaching here and talking about is not post modernism, it's way beyond post modernism. I have my own critiques of post modernism, critiques of post modernism from above, but the critique that you're making is of post modernism from below the Jordan Peterson critique of post modernism is the critique of it from below, you're critiquing it without understanding what you're critiquing. post modernism is actually a complicated, an important intellectual philosophical development. In the Western intellectual tradition, you should really study what it really amounts to, and what its lessons are. Now, of course, there are excesses and problems with post modernism, I'm not saying it's all perfect. And it still devolves into ideology for most people. But the actual developers of post modernism, they were on to some very profound truths about the nature of language and relativity, which are virtually not understood by anybody in human society, or even scientists. There are very important developments and insights about relativity there and language from post modernism that you need to take very seriously. But basically, the biggest problem with post modernism is that it doesn't go far enough. post modernism doesn't deconstruct itself. That's its biggest problem. So, so what I'm teaching here is not post modernism. These are independent points that I developed, many of them myself, after 1000s of hours of personal independent contemplation. Of course, I've also read post modernist works, and I do borrow some ideas from them here and there. But largely, I derive most of these independently for myself, through just my own contemplation and thinking about these things. So just be careful parroting these words, calling somebody a postmodernist, as if that this is like a smear these days similar to calling somebody as socialist or communist without understanding what socialism even is, so just be careful with that. You could call what I'm teaching you post post modernism. But even it's really even beyond post post modernism, if you get what I'm saying. And then the last point I wanted to make here is that oh, yeah, it's, it's this. I mean, if you're gonna criticize me as a post modernist, then I get to criticize you as a modernist. Because I mean, you're not a post post modernist. You don't even know what post modernism is. If you don't know what post modernism is, that means you're a modernist, or even a pre modernist. And that's worse than a post modernists who see this as the problem. It's not like you're criticizing post modernism for a position of neutrality. No, of course not. Your cuz your, your, your position is modernism. Most, most hard material scientists are modernists in a sense. And this is this is even dumber than post modernism. So watch out. Okay. And I think this is the last objection here, a lot of objections. But Leo, you use science yourself, therefore, you're a hypocrite. This is a very stupid objection. I'm sorry to say. It's the same objection, as people say like, if you criticize America for the Iraq War, which I did, I was an early critic of the Iraq War. Even back when I was like, in high school, the Iraq war never made any fucking sense to me, I thought it was idiotic. And so, so I was always shocked. Even when I was like a teenager, I was shocked that someone could be against a war. And that makes them anti American. Like, it's absurd. This sort of this this dumb, right wing idea of patriotism, where to be patriotic means that you support everything that your country does, even if it's evil, and wrong and devilish and, and, you know, kills millions of people, whatever it is, it's right, simply because, you know, we're Americans or something like this. I mean, you see, this is this is your, the same thing happens with science, people who are dogmatic defenders of science, will call me a hypocrite for questioning science. But of course, this is how we improve science. In the same way, when I question American foreign policy, or whatever, or the evils of the government, I'm not anti government, I'm not anti American, I'm actually I'm pro American, when I do that, because I want America to be better. Does it make me a hypocrite? Likewise, a similar kind of foolish critique is made by capitalists against socialism, like what a socialist says that, hey, there are problems within capitalism, the capitalist stands up and says, shut up, sit down, you're being a hypocrite, because you, as a socialist yourself, are participating in the capitalist system, you have a job, you have a boss, you, you, you pay your taxes to the government, which what you know, you, you know, if you want, you know, if you want to, if you want to be a socialist, why don't you just, you know, take 90% of your paycheck and mail it to Uncle Sam. That's what socialism is, right? But this this criticism is, is absurdly naive and ignorant. Because, of course, the Socialist is entangled with the system of capitalism, that's the socialist critique, the Socialist has no option. You see, it's not like the socialist can leave capitalism isn't like the socialist can stop paying his taxes. And even if the socialist, you know, to support his government, you would think like, you know, if a socialist wanted to protest the government, he might, a capitalist government, he might stop paying his taxes, but of course, that he gets locked in jail. So that's not going to really work. The socialists goal is to reform the system to improve it. And it doesn't help to send Uncle Sam 90% of your paycheck. First of all, because you need that paycheck, and a capital society to feed yourself and your family. Second of all, because just because one person or two people send 90% of their paycheck to Uncle Sam, this doesn't change the system. What we need is a systemic change of the system. According to the socialist, again, I'm not arguing for socialism here. I'm just using this as an example of the absurdity of this critique that I'm a hypocrite for criticizing science. I'm not a hypocrite, I can use science. I'm not saying that we will never do more science. That's not my point. My point is that there are corruptions within science that need to be reformed. That doesn't mean I can't use technology now, because I said that he was like your Leo, you should stop using YouTube now because YouTube is run on fiber optic cables that were made by science and you're criticizing science, so no more YouTube for you. Okay, well, when your government comes to take your guns away and oppress you, I will tell you the same thing I will say. You can't criticize the government, when socialist take over the government and they oppress you, in the way that you might imagine this sort of communist revolution. When this happens, I'll say, Ah, you can't criticize the government. Because you're anti American now. Because whatever the Orban does is true by definition, you can't criticize it, you're being a hypocrite, ah, you're part of communist America, you can't criticize it, you can't rebel against it, because you're, you're a hypocrite if you do. So, you see how absurd that is? All right. So we've settled those objections. Now, let's move on to some serious points. So there are many problems within science that I've given labels to these are my labels. The first one, I call the problem of anomalies, how to deal with anomalies. So here's how this one works. You see, the way science works is that you have a theory, the theory tries to explain some set of data. But there's always new data that is being created by new scientists, and researchers. So let's say we have a theory like general relativity, of Einstein. And then some researcher comes forward and says, Hey, I found some data, which contradicts Einstein's theory of general relativity, what's going to happen? In practice, what's going to happen is that the scientific community will look at that guy and say, Ah, your, your instruments were probably just wrong, you probably just did bad data. It wasn't replicated by anybody else. So that's just justice, some noise. And in this in the system, it doesn't really invalidate general relativity. Okay. Then a few years later, a second guy comes forward second researcher a different one, and says, I got new data that says that general relativity is wrong. And scientists look at that. And they say, well, that's just more noise. Your instruments were just wrong, you didn't do the experiment correctly. We're gonna ignore you. And this keeps happening and happening and happening as new researchers come forward with more data. The question is, at what point do enough researchers come forward with enough data that you say, Okay, wait a minute, maybe there's actually a problem here. Maybe this isn't just noise. Maybe this is actually evidence to the fact that the theory itself is limited and needs to be expanded or entirely changed. This is the problem of anomalies. The problem here is that there is no objective criteria by which you can adjudicate these anomalies. It's very easy to dismiss even legitimate anomalies that disprove a theory as merely noise. And this is, in fact a common tactic that is used by otherwise very intelligent people and scientists. Is that because there is no standard? You don't? I mean, how do you know when something is noise? And when it isn't? You don't know. That's the whole problem. That's why science needs to be done. But it's very easy to use this excuse that something is just noise. And then it can be dismissed or ignored. Because, you know, part of the myth of science is this assumption that science is just as clean, simple discovery of facts and data. It isn't, for example, even to calculate something like the speed of light, most of us would, you know, layman would think that all the speed of light is just a constant that we all know, right? Like it was written in our textbook that it's like 100,000, something feet per second, or whatever, I don't know, I don't remember what it is, anyways. But that number, if you actually look into how that number is generated, that is a gross average, this average actually changes with eras and decades, this number is changed and tweaked. Because the reality is that calculating the speed of light is a highly precise technical and noise, noisy experiment, you never get the same exact result, with the same exact instruments in the same exact places all around the world. So you need hundreds of laboratories all around the world generating hundreds of different data points, then those are averaged, you know, somehow averaged together to generate some sort of consensus number. That is sort of a ballpark. In the end, it's not some precise number that was found in the universe somewhere. It all depends on the precision of our instruments, which changes with time and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And in fact, there's actually arguments that can be made that the speed of light is technically not constant, we just assume that it's constant. But how would we know that it's constant? Well, we can't really know because our instruments are too noisy, to really give us a constant readout of the speed of light. So if our instruments were perfectly accurate, we might be able to actually tell that the speed of light is actually not perfectly constant. But that that's just one of the hidden assumptions of science. So so this anomaly problem is actually a much bigger problem than most people realize. It's a huge relativizing After to how scientific theories are developed, and then challenged, and then up ended, and changed. The next point, the next problem is what I call the recontextualization problem. I've addressed this in an earlier episode of mine called Understanding recontextualization. Go check that out if you want a really deep explanation of what recontextualization is with many examples. But here, I'll just give you a quick summary in a single quick example. So usually, we assume that facts are just a static, objective truth that you find out in the world. Of course, this is not the case. Facts only make sense within a context. So really, there's two types of qualities of mind, you could have a mind which is, we could say not context aware. And you can have a mind which is context aware. So a mind that is not context aware is a mind that thinks that facts exist and make sense, independently, have meaning independently without a context, a context aware mind is a more cognitively developed advanced mind, which understands that there's no such thing as a fact, outside of its context. So therefore, context becomes crucial. And to and then this, of course, then leads to the problem of recontextualization, which means that you can have a certain set of facts within a certain context, that didn't give you a certain sense of meaning, and understanding of a situation. But then the context can be changed or expanded, such that the original facts even though they don't change at all, their meaning becomes exactly the opposite of what it used to be, simply by changing context. Most people and most scientists are not seriously aware of this problem, and do not take this problem seriously. But let me show you how this works with a very clear, simple little example. So here, I'm going to show you a picture. This is a picture of a child with a boot on his face, we might say those are the facts of the situation. This is a picture of child abuse, right? Sure seems that way at first. But then we changed the context by zooming out just a little bit. And here you can see that oh, what looked at first, like child abuse is actually the child punching himself in the face effectively. And the scene has basically changed its meaning by 180 degrees, just a little bit of a change of context. So this is the recontextualization problem. The problem is that any scientific fact, can always be radically recontextualized in the future, by zooming out, or discovering some other variable, outside of the original context that the fact was interpreted in, to give it a totally different meaning. These recontextualization can be minor, but they can also be very major, you can have a recontextualization that's so radical, that it completely reverses the meaning of a thing. Black becomes white, white becomes black. Good becomes evil, evil becomes good. Real becomes unreal. lies become truth, and truth becomes lies. This is what recontextualization makes possible. This is a very serious, epistemic sticking point for science, because any scientific fact, or theory or model can be radically recontextualize in the future. In fact, I guarantee it will be just a matter of time. The next problem is a big one. Is this actually a category of problems, not just one? This is the entanglement problem, the entanglement problem, there are multiple sub problems within the entanglement problem. So let me explain. The entangled problem basically means that because reality is one singular thing, you can't separate it neatly into parts. And this leads to all sorts of entanglement problems. So for example, the measuring instrument that a scientist uses to study nature is entangled with the data that it produces. So for example, if you're using a telescope to observe the moon how the moon looks to you through that telescope is entangled with the mechanics of the telescope. If there is a crash Back in the lens of the telescope, you will see a crack on the surface of the moon. And you might mistake that as a feature of the moon, when in fact, it is a projection of the instrument that you used that was entangled with your data, we tend to assume that data can just be independent of the instrument that is measuring it. This is untrue. And by measuring instrument, we're not just talking about microscopes and telescopes and radars and X rays, and whatever else, we're also talking about human eyes, ears, the entire human nervous system, that also counts as a measuring instrument. Okay? The measuring instrument can be living, or it can be inanimate, it doesn't matter. Any data that is generated is going to be entangled with that measuring instrument. So we tend to assume that the moon is just the moon, it's just it's up there, and it just looks the way that it looks. No, no, the moon only looks that way, because of the eyes that we're using in the brain that we're using to interpret that into. See it, if you have an ant on the on the ground looking at the moon, he's gonna see something totally different, because his neurology has a different entanglement with the data that is being generated. See, this, this creates a very big problem for science. Another entailment problem is that the scientific method is entangled with the results and the data and the conclusions that are produced by the method. There's no such thing as a scientific result, without a specific method that is used to generate that result. If you have a different method, you're gonna get a different result. The question then becomes which methods generate which kinds of results and which results are valid? And this leads us to all the problems we talked about in part one. Right. So there is no facts, and there is no conclusions without proper methods. And all methods are always under question. And there's always the question of what are the limits of the method, there is no infinite method, every method is limited, and finite. Sub methods are better than others. That's very problematic. Figuring all that out. Another entanglement problem is that, like we said, in part one, individual statements of fact, of scientific fact, are entangled with the entire scientific framework for evaluating that fact. This is the point that client was making in that long quote that I read to you. So what this means is that a statement that you would ordinarily, this is part of the myth of science, within the myth of science, there's this idea that we can have an objective scientific statement, such as I don't know, snow is white. And that snow is just white. That's just true. And this is independent of the scientific framework, it's just true that snow is white. No, it's not to determine whether snow is actually white. And that that that is a true statement. To determine that you need to bring in the entire scientific apparatus, your entire worldview, to interpret and test with validity that statement. See, because you need to Inter, you need to break down every word in that statement, you need to evaluate what it actually means that so your language is entangled also with the statement. And because if there, if there are problems within your scientific framework, then the statement will come out, not true. Or false statements will come out true, depending on your framework. And the frameworks can be different. There's no single scientific framework, there's an infinite number of different ones. And they're always constantly evolving. A further entanglement problem is that the scientist is entangled with his experiment. There's this again, part of the myth of science is this idea that, well, the scientist is just a subjective guy, who, you know, he comes into the laboratory in the morning does his experiments, then he comes home at night. And the science can be just a neutral observer of nature. But of course, this is not how it works, because the scientist is part of nature. Science is part of nature. So the scientist and his mind is entangled with the experiment that he's doing. This is very important to understand. Many scientists are in denial about this. Because in science, there's this ideal of separating oneself and one's personal biases from one's experiment, such that there's a sort of neutrality, but this is pseudo neutrality. It's not a real neutrality, because the scientists ego mind is always running the show, the scientists ego mind and his paradigms and his frameworks, and even his personal ideas and prejudices and worldviews and his religious inclinations, whatever he has his spiritual inclinations or lack thereof, all of that is influencing how the science how the scientist does the experiment, it influences which experiments he does. It's not just how you do the experiment is which experiment you even have a desire to do. Given your prejudices, and and even your upbringing, you're going to want to do different experiments, and you're gonna want to do them in different ways. And you're gonna have different ideas about what constitutes a valid experiment and what doesn't. This is huge. All of the scientists, executive decisions affect how these experiments are done. His personal beliefs, you cannot separate the scientist from the experiment, you can try. And I'm not saying it's not useful to try, I mean, it's useful to try to be neutral. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you can completely sever these two things. When you do that, that leads you to deny biases, and to pretend like you're neutral when you're actually not. For example, if you were raised as a scientist, in a very, let's say, you were raised in a very religious environment, as a kid, you were sent to Catholic school where the nuns beat you, and treated you horribly as a child. And you were traumatized by this and you really didn't like it. You didn't like all the superstition of Catholicism and whatever. And then when you grew up, and you know, you went to university, you outgrew all that you became an atheist, you became rational, hyper rational. And then you adopted this worldview, and you said, You know what? All that superstitious stuff is all nonsense. I'm devoting my life to rationalism from this point on. And now you tell yourself, this is now I'm doing science. And now I'm neutral about how I do science. You're not neutral? Actually, what you're doing is you've adopted this bias of hyper rationalism. And that has been a reaction against how you were treated when you were raised. And this now influences how you see the world and what kind of experiments you do and how you interpret the results of those experiments. See, it's very significant. Don't underestimate how big of a corrupting influence this is. Remember, your ego mind is running the whole show your ego mind as they are prior to science. Your ego mind has more power than science. Your ego mind invented science as part of its function to making sense of reality. I can't go fully into all that here. I'm just pointing this a little bit out to you. All right. The next entanglement is that reason, and emotions are entangled. Again, there's this idea within science or even in the in the popular culture, the myth of science is that science is purely reason and logic and emotions have nothing to do with science, they're completely separate. This is utter horseshit. Of course, this is not true. reason and emotion are entangled. In fact, your life is mostly run by emotion. This idea that facts don't care about your feelings is complete horseshit, in fact, that that whole idea came from emotions. It didn't, it didn't come from facts. The fact is that reason and emotion are intertwined. And that in fact, it's emotions that run your reason, not reason that runs your emotions. If you're a highly rational person, actually, you're doing that from a position of emotion attachment, not of true neutrality. That's, that's the hypocrisy of what you're doing. That's the nonsense of what you're doing. To be hyper rational is actually very irrational. Because the only reason you're hyper rational because you're attached to it on some deeper subconscious, emotional level. See, you're emotionally reacting against emotions. You don't feel your emotions, you're disconnected from your emotions. This makes you this doesn't improve your science, this actually makes your science worse. Next, Next entanglement is that of course, science is entangled with perception with consciousness. If your perception and consciousness and nervous systems changed, all of science will change. Science is completely contingent on perception, consciousness and your nervous system. And you can never disentangle those two. Science is also entangled with survival. Scientists like to pretend that survival is is not something that science is interested in science is interested in just the raw abstract truths of nature. But in point of fact, individual scientists themselves are strongly influenced by survival needs and agendas, and so are scientific institutions. We'll talk about that a little bit more here in a lot of depth as we get into the topic of culture here in a minute. Hold on for that. But really, survival is such a huge function. It's not just a physical survival of your body. I'm talking about survival of your ego mind primarily even more so than your body. Um, but if you really want a chance survival to understand this point, I can't, I don't have time to get into here, you need to go watch my two part series called Understanding survival part one and part two, which will explain a little bit of that. And then you'll be able to see how science and survival are entangled, then there's the entanglement of science and culture, these two are entangled, such that you can't separate these two either. And we'll be talking about this in a lot more detail. Because culture is hugely significant for science. So basically, the myth of science that scientists just find the truth, and that cultural stuff is kind of like non scientific. This is not the case at all. There's a there's a deep connection between science and culture. And in fact, culture corrupts science very, very easily. We'll talk about that in a minute. So all of these entanglements and more are very serious problems. They're ill irresolvable problems, you can't just hand wave them away, they can't be ignored. And ultimately, what this leads to is the realization that all scientific claims are in fact perspectival, relative biased, and partial due to these entanglements. These entanglements, Forbid science from being objective, or absolute, or neutral. There is no such thing as neutral, because your mind is completely entangled with science and with reality and culture and survival and perception and consciousness and everything else. If your mind is so entangled with reality, as I say, then how is it possible to do objective science? Of course, the answer is, it's not. But most scientists are now about this, they think they can somehow just sweep this entitlement problem under the rug. Now, of course, there's going to be a counter critique of Microsoft here. And objection that comes up here is but Leo, you got this idea of entanglement from quantum mechanics and entanglement is, you know, you're misusing this idea. You're being a Deepak Chopra here, because you're talking about entanglement and you're misusing quantum mechanics. And quantum mechanics is talking about micro level phenomenon. You're talking about macro, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. This stupid objection, this objection is so fucking stupid. But okay, so But let's, let's address it. So first of all, when I say entanglement, I'm talking about a much broader problem than just quantum mechanics. There is a form of entanglement specific to quantum mechanics, which is very micro level and very technical. Even if that even if all of quantum mechanics turned out to be false, it would not have any bearing on my discussions here of entanglement. Entanglement is much much of a deeper problem than even what quantum mechanics understands. Ultimately, entanglement is a feature a deep feature of reality, because reality is one. So if everything is one, you can't really separate things into parts, and therefore everything is entangled everything else. That's ultimately what entanglement means. This has nothing to really ultimately do with quantum mechanics, quantum mechanics is just a single instance of a larger issue that stems from the oneness of reality. But again, I can't even explain I don't have time to explain why reality is one. You just have to trust me on that for now. But, but I know that that still won't convince many of you rationalists and skeptics and materialists. So anyways, I've prepared some ammunition here against you from from some scientists. So I have a quote here from an interview with Leonard Susskind. LEONARD SUSSKIND is one of the foremost modern theoretical physicists in string theory, relativity, quantum mechanics. So if you don't trust this guy, then I don't know who you can trust. He's a he's high quality guy. So anyway, so this is an interview. I'm taking this quote from an interview with Lex Friedman and Leonard Susskind. So the interviewer here, Lex Friedman, he asks Susskind the following question. This is in the context of them talking about quantum mechanics and entanglement. He says, quote, you are observing stuff right now, on the conscious level. Do you think there are echoes of that kind of entanglement on the macro scale? Susskind response? Yes, absolutely. For sure. We are quantum mechanically entangled with everything in this room. If we weren't, well, we wouldn't be observing it. On the other hand, you can ask me, am I really comfortable with it? And I'm uncomfortable with it in the same way that I can never get comfortable with five dimensions, my brain isn't wired for it, and quote. So there you go. From the man himself, Leonard Susskind. So here he's obviously saying that there is a macroscale component to this entanglement, which is him recognizing what I'm saying. But still not fully recognizing it. So when he says that he's uncomfortable with it, it's actually there. very illuminating, because what it shows you is that his his mind, and this is correct. The dualistic mind is incapable of fully grappling with the, with the radical implications of oneness, which is what entanglement really is all that entanglement means is just oneness ultimately. But theoretical physicists have a long way to go to fully understand what that means. But if that wasn't enough for you have some more ammunition and some more quotes. So here I have a quote from Werner Heisenberg, you trust him as a reputable source. Werner Heisenberg, he says, quote, we have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our methods of questioning. And quote, I have another quote from the great physicist David Boehm, do you trust him? He says, quote, both observer and observed are merging and interpenetrating aspects of one whole reality, which is indivisible and on analyzable. And, quote, I have more. I have a quote for Max Plock. Do you trust Max Planck? Is he reputable enough for you? You see, you're forcing me to make appeals to authority. I don't want to I would rather have you just contemplate the points that I make without any appeal to authority. But because you're a scientist, and you're scientifically minded, your whole game is appeals to authority. I mean, that's what science is. It's all appeals to authority. So I'm playing your game, by your rules for your fav for your sake. Right. So Max Planck says, quote, science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature, and therefore part of the mystery that we're trying to solve. And a quote, I have one more by John Archibald Wheeler, who's a very significant theoretical physicist. He popularized the notion of black holes. And he worked on information theory. And he says, quote, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes, no questions and the registering of equipment evoked responses, in short, all things physical are information theoretic, and origin. And this is a participatory universe. And, quote, a participatory universe. That's what I'm talking about. You are the universe trying to understand itself. That creates entanglement. And the last quote I have for you here is from a philosopher, Morris Merleau. Ponty, and he says, quote, the body mind is an open circuit completed by the world. I like that one. So there you go, I hope that settles the entailment issue once and for all. entailment is real. And it's a problem. And it's a huge relativizing factor for all data and facts. Think of it this way. A scientist wants to approach nature. A materialist thinks he can approach nature in the following fashion, as though he was in a laboratory dissecting a frog. He's just standing there neutrally observing, observing the the frog, you know, cutting its guts open and and studying it, and seems to work. But when you try to start to understand reality, at a deeper level, you realize, reality is not like dissecting a frog. Reality is I actually like dissecting yourself. You can no longer just stand there. As a neutral observer, now you're entangled with the thing that you're studying. Now, every cut that you make in your body, you feel when you are pulling your own guts out, it's painful, it's dirty, it's nasty, it's emotional. There's suffering involved. It's a survival problem. It's not merely that you're a neutral observer anymore. And the problem is, how do you stay neutral? How do you objectively observe yourself when you are cutting your own self open and pulling your own guts out? See, so, in practice, what most scientists do is they carefully avoid what I call the self reflection problem. They do science in such a manner where science never fully gets to see its own circularity and never looks itself in the mirror. So most scientists are in the business of doing science sort of externally in the world out there, but they never connect the dots such that they realize that their own mind is connected with the science that they're doing. If they did, that's when they would start to get into this loop of self reflect reflectivity, which then will lead them down this rabbit hole of deconstruction which ultimately will destroy all of science and all of reality if you get to the very bottom of this I have this sort of vortex. So part of the myth of science is the idea that you can do science objectively and neutrally that science is a neutral, impartial perspective. It's not, it's highly partial. Every aspect of scientific method is partial. If you say science is rational, that's partial, that's biased, you're gonna get certain results based on that rational scheme that you've invented, and you project it upon nature. You're forcing nature to fit into the rational Spock's, so it'll appear rationalist to you, because that's the box, you've put it in. Likewise, if you're a materialist, and you look at nature, through the materialist lens, all you're gonna see is materialism. That doesn't mean that nature is material, it just means that that's how you look at it. That's what you project onto it. And you reject everything outside of that little box that you look at through. See any kind of method that you invent any kind of rules for science, any kind of standard, any kind of norms, all of them are going to be finite, and all of them are going to limit your view of reality. And we're going to create bias. This is inevitable, absolutely inevitable. And this, this right here is a mortal blow to science as an objective enterprise. It's impossible for science to ever be an objective enterprise. If you think it is, you're participating in the myth of science. And that's exactly what we're trying to deconstruct. Science is not objective. Science is not neutral. Science has very serious and specific methodological biases. And you might say, well, Leo, so what? Not so what, it's hugely significant, because that means any methodological biases you have will cut off portions of reality, you're going to be blind to them. Those portions will be true and real, but you won't be able to see them because of the lens that you've chosen to see reality through. You got that. Okay, next point. Now, I have a thought experiment, for those of you who argue that metaphysics and epistemology and philosophy is irrelevant to science, this thought experiment, if you really contemplate it for a while, this is the final nail in the coffin of the idea that philosophy and science are supposed to be separate. And independent. Here's the thought experiment. Imagine that you're in a really high quality VR simulation Majan you were born into it. Matrix style. This simulation is amazing. It has objects, and it has a whole world flourishing world like a video game world, with people and animals and trees and stuff to study and examine. And so you're still fascinated by this virtual world that you're living in, of course, you don't know that it's virtual, you're living in it. And you decide to become a scientist within this virtual world and to study this virtual world. Okay, so you devote your entire career to that you spent 3040 years doing that. And then as you're sitting there studying the simulation, I come in, like me comes to you one day and says, Hey, you know, you're really good at studying the mechanics of this simulation. But have you ever thought about what the simulation actually is? That you're studying? What is the actual substance? What is the truth? What's really going on here? What is what is this life that you're living? Have you ever thought about this? And the scientist says, of course, as they typically do, ah, that's not that's outside my domain of concern. I don't care about that. I'm a simple scientist, I just do my experiments. I just study this phenomenon. I don't care about anything else. I don't care about philosophy. Those are those are, those are questions beyond science. Science does not care about that. These these are issues of truth and sciences pursue truth. Science is just a simple pragmatic activity. All we're doing is we're just mapping some variables in life. And that's it. See, science is humble. And so you hand me waved me away. So of course I leave because I can't convince you otherwise. And then, one day after a long, rich life, the simulation ends. And a new simulation begins. You're in a totally different world. Imagine switching video game discs, you're now in a totally different world. Totally different Vironment, totally different people, animals, creatures, lot physical laws, every absolutely everything has changed. Now, here's my question to you. What has remained of your science? All of that science that you spent 40 years doing? Is any of it true anymore? What has remained nothing. Nothing roommates. Everything you thought was true. was only relatively true. Maybe it would have been useful for you to wonder about the bigger picture, rather than just getting locked into your little endeavor of studying the laws and mechanics of the particular simulation that you were in. That's the thought experiment. Contemplate that for yourself. Now, people will misunderstand me here, people to think that oh, Leo, so are you saying that we're inside of a VR simulation? Are you saying reality is a simulation? Actually, no, I'm saying exactly the opposite. I, I am conclusively saying that you can become conscious that reality is not a simulation. You are definitely not in the simulation, you can become directly conscious of this. But you may be in a dream. All right, next point. The next point is that all scientific truths are relative. And of course, you're wondering how can this be the case? Well, the previous example, give you a little taste of it. But I want to just make this very explicit, a little bit more. So. Here are all the relativizing factors of scientific truths. scientific truth is always relative to culture, society, era, language, mental categories, your paradigm or method, the instruments that you use to collect your data, your neurology, which is related to your DNA, your perception, your intelligence, your mental capacity, your ego, mind and your state of consciousness. All of these factors, completely relativized any truth of science, such that if all these factors were changed sufficiently enough, any truth of science would no longer be true, it would be false. So whatever give me give me some Tell me some statement that you think is absolutely true. Within science. What do you think is absolutely true? It it can't be false. What do you think that is? All of it can be relativized. That statement that you're thinking of can be changed. You might even say, Leo, what about one plus one equals two? That has to be true in every conceivable universe, even now, it doesn't, you're wrong. It doesn't have to be true in every conceivable universe. That's just something you're assuming. The only reason that you think one plus one equals two is absolutely true in all conceivable universes, is because actually, of the particular state of consciousness that you're in right now. If your state of consciousness changed, and your neurology changed, one plus one equals two would not be true for you. So what it is, and so whatever every other scientific fact. So, so yeah, that's a problem for science. See, scientists really don't like admitting this. They really don't admit to this. Because they want their discoveries to be absolutely true, but they aren't. Here's some examples of how this works. So early humans might have said that objects fall down the snap salute, truth objects fall down. Of course, once you zoom out, and you see the larger context, you realize that objects don't fall down, down, it's just a relative notion, to the local curvature of the of the earth that we're on. And then in fact, there's no such thing as down because down every direction is down. When you're in space. There's no There's no down down was relative. So the idea of your soil down, it seems true only when you're on on the surface of the earth. And then it's not true when you're in outer space, or on some other planet. Or even when you're on the opposite side of the globe. Now, up becomes down. You might say today is 12 o'clock, that's a scientific statement. Is it really? No, it's not. It's 12 o'clock here. It's one o'clock. One state over it's two o'clock in the next country, and so on, of course. So obviously, that's relative time is relative, Einstein showed that. How about the Eiffel Tower, you might say the Eiffel Tower is 800 and or 984 feet tall. That's the number they gave me on Google 984 feet tall. So if the Eiffel Tower is 984 feet tall, that's an objective fact. Right? Nope. Completely relative. According to Einstein, depending on the speed at which you're moving at, relative to the Eiffel Tower changes. Its length, if you're moving to the closer you move to the speed of light, the Eiffel tower will look shorter and shorter to you. So that measurement of 984 feet that assumes that you are within the same inertial frame as the Eiffel Tower. But of course, that's that's going back and change easily could change. How about the statement that snow is white? That's true, right? No, of course not. It's relative. If you take LSD snow is not going to be wet anymore. If you have a neurological disorder where you can't see colors correctly, people have those, then White is not gonna look white to you, it might look gray, might look purple, who knows could look any color. In fact, you don't even know what the word white even refers to what you call White might be my black. This is called the reverse spectrum problem. And in fact, there's no way to scientifically resolve this problem. So this is just a little taste of how scientific statements work. Any scientific statement that you think is absolutely true. If you think about a little bit harder, you'll realize that it's relative, and conditional, and can be changed as long as we change the the context within which you're holding it. All right. Next point. The number one enemy of truth is belief. And science is 99%. Belief and authority. When I make this claim, some people don't understand what I'm saying. We are how could it be that science is 99%? Belief? Well, how could it be otherwise? Of course, it's belief what is science but belief? It's 9%. Believe, if you don't understand the science is 9% Believe. The reason you understand is because you don't actually understand what a belief is. See, most people misunderstand belief to be either crazy religious ideas. They call that belief, or belief in their mind is something that isn't true. But that's not what belief meets a belief. And here's where you need to do some entry introspection work. You can introspect and actually contemplate what a belief is, and have a direct experience of what a belief is. Feel yourself holding a belief, any belief, and you'll, you'll soon realize what beliefs are. So for example, you believe that I'm real. I could just be a computer simulation here. I could be just an AI invented by Google, teaching you this stuff. But you believe I'm a real human, you've never seen me, but you believe I'm a real human. That's a belief you hold. You believe that the Earth has an has a rotation that it rotates every 24 hours, you believe that you have no direct experience of this. You've never seen it actually happen. You've never tested it or verified in any way you believe that the Earth rotates. Now you'll you'll object here and you'll say, well, Leo, but this has been tested by scientists, and has been validated. So it's not a belief. No, it's still a belief. In fact, you have a belief that it's been validated by scientists, because you've actually never checked whether it was validated by scientists, you just believe that. So you have a belief wrapped inside of a belief. Now, you have many other beliefs, you believe that your parents, for example, are actually your parents? You've never checked, have you? Have you actually gotten a DNA test? Maybe you have, in which case is no longer a belief. But there's still a belief that the DNA test is actually valid. That's a belief. So you have to trust the DNA test. But let's just assume that all DNA tests are valid. And in which case, if you did get a DNA test that told you that your parents are actually your parents, then now that's no longer a belief. But did you actually do that? Probably not. You say, Well, Leah, but I could I could I bet you if I, if I went and I checked the DNA of my parents, I didn't I didn't do it because it costs money. But if I really wanted to, I could do it. And then I they would be my real parents. That's a belief. Because if you haven't done it yet, then it's a belief. See? You believe that your your hand is made out of atoms. You've never seen these atoms. You've never actually done any experiments to prove these atoms. You believe it? You say? Well, Leo, no, Leo. I've seen pictures. I've seen YouTube videos of atoms, where like, they take a microscope, a scanning electron microscope, zoom, they zoom into, you know, whatever. And they actually can see little individual ball atoms, and I've seen pictures like that. So atoms are not a belief. But that's a belief. You're believing that those microscopes and those pictures are showing you atoms which correspond with actual stuff inside your hand. That's a belief. You're believing those videos you saw earlier but but that was real science, it was verified by a bunch of peer reviews people at Harvard. Yeah, that's a belief and also an appeal to authority. See, science is a pyramid scheme of belief, built upon belief, built upon belief so tightly. That once you find yourself inside of this pyramid, you can't see any way out. Every belief is justifying every other belief. And it becomes extremely convincing. This belief system then takes on a reality of its own. My question to you is, have you actually ever done any signs in your life? Ever? For most people, the answer is no. Isn't it amazing? That over 90% of the entire population of this planet has never done a single science experiment ever. And they take all of science as true. Isn't that amazing? This is utterly mind blowing when you really contemplate this. This should shake you to your boats. Just this simple fact. I'm not I'm not making any outrageous claims here. I'm just stating basic facts about science. facts that they really should have taught you in school. But of course they didn't. For obvious reasons. You see, science has this very interesting problem. I call it the overleveraged problem. Science is way over leveraged like a bank. I use this term from the banking industry, when we have economic collapses, how do they happen, banks become over leveraged, they lend out way too much money, they don't have enough actual gold or currency and their reserves to cover any kind of loan defaults. Or if everybody makes a run to the bank, they don't have enough money to cover everybody. And then the bank can collapse and the economy can explode, it can be bubbles and the sorts of stuff. And the reason this over leveraging happens is because a bank is always supposed to keep some sort of minimum amount of currency or gold in their coffers, so to speak, in their vaults to to insure against, you know, a run on the bank's money. And the federal government usually sets that at like 10%, or 5%, or 20%. I don't know what the number, what the rate is right now. But usually, it's somewhere around maybe, let's say 10% of the bank's total assets need to be actually tangible. So it's not just you know, fake money. But some banks become so over leveraged that they only have like 1%, hard assets, the rest 9% is just loans and, you know, certificates of deposit notes, kinds of things like this intangible assets, and so they become very vulnerable. Well, science has exactly this problem. Because if 99% of science is belief, which it is, and if over 90% of the population on the planet has never done a single science experiment, do you see the problem here? The problem is that there's so much, there's so much room for error, that you would never even know is there. Now, you're gonna see below, all the majority of science, this is the majority of scientific beliefs, they can all be validated, and they have been validated by peer review, and so forth. That's a belief. See, that's a belief. But even if it's true, even let's grant it to you, let's say the majority have been validated. First of all, again, it's a belief, you're just, you're just blindly believing that second of all, a majority is still not that much. Even if 95% of all scientific beliefs have been validated by peer review, that still leaves a 5% that haven't, that's very significant. 5% is very, very significant. Those 5% can kill you. So I'm not claiming that the majority of scientific beliefs are empirically fallacious. I'm claiming something more subtle than that. I'm claiming that there's a subtle and very deep overleveraged problem here. And this creates a sort of a bubble until it creates these intellectual bubbles that will burst in the future when someone like me comes along and challenges them sufficiently enough. And this is what creates paradigm shifts in science, as Thomas Kuhn talks about, in his classic book on the scientific revolutions, but so you know, his the history of science is the history of scientific revolutions that are caused by these intellectual bubbles. Because it's a pyramid scheme. What did you think science was? It's a pyramid scheme. And so lurking within this pyramid scheme are gargantuan truths, which no scientists understand. And you don't understand, because you believe they don't exist. Because you just basically buy the entire pyramid scheme, and you just assume that the whole thing is true and real. And that's the end of the story. And the only thing left is just a little bit of minor, you know, adjustments on the outside. But no, there are monstrous errors and problems and truths lurking within the very center of that pyramid scheme that you've never personally tested. You see, this is the whole problem of knowledge, is that if you really want to build up a very giant knowledge base, the larger your knowledge base becomes, the less testing of it any individual can do. And this means that the potential for dilution of the entire culture and mass of people becomes larger and larger and larger and larger and larger. And that's exactly what's happened over the last 500 years what science there is a special part of science which goes extra untested, which is the meta scientific parts of science, the the metaphysical and epistemic and, and methodological assumptions. These especially go on validated untested and just believed in blindly. Also, I want you to notice that institutionally, science is indoctrination. Pretty much like religion. Children are in fact, this is a factual statement. Children are in fact indoctrinated into science for 12 years. And then even more if they go to university. Why do I say indoctrinated? Is this a slur? No, this is an accurate factual statement. Because in fact, children are not taught epistemology, or metaphysics or alternative worldviews, or alternative methodologies. In school, for the first 12 years of their growing up, they're not taught this at all. They're not taught philosophy. They're not taught different ways of looking at the world. None of these none of these things are ever mentioned. Science is learned by children through brute rote memorization. Do you remember science tests, chemistry, biology, physics. Whatever other science you took, all of it was just blind memorization, you didn't derive a single biological fact, you didn't drive a single physical fact you didn't drive derive a single chemical fact. And even those few bullshit experiments that your chemistry teacher might have forced you to do, while you were just, you know, probably laughing with your friends and dicking around you were just like, write numbers down, you know, make a numbers out of your ass while you're doing doing those experiments. You weren't actually thinking about anything while you're doing those experiments. You didn't actually do any real science there. You didn't actually validate anything or invalidate anything. You didn't test anything. You were just following instructions. Even when the chemistry teacher told you to do the experiment. He or she gave you a list of steps to follow an exact method and you just follow it like a blind fucking monkey. That's what you did. And you generated exactly the kind of results that he wanted you degenerate. You weren't seriously testing anything. So truly, you were indoctrinated into science? Exactly. Like a Muslim is indoctrinated into Islam in a Islamic madrasa religious school you know, they will beat Muslim children with sticks in Madras is forcing them to memorize the Quran, word for word, the entire fucking Quran. Well, that's essentially what happened to you. In the West. When you were learning science in school, they did this to you for 12 years. And you don't even know that they did this to you. You just assume that this is how it is, and you took it for reality. This is highly significant might say, Leo, but why? Why does this matter? This is not important. Isn't education good? It's highly significant at the point that I'm making because your first 12 years of development, from age six to let's say, 18. These are the most formative years of your mind. Your entire sense making apparatus of your ego mind is formed during this time. If you give me 12 years to indoctrinate a child into anything I want. I can make that child believe anything for the rest of his life. He'll believe that it's real and true. This is imprinting of the mind Do not underestimate the significance of this indoctrination. It's, it's utterly radically profound. Your entire worldview is shaped by this. You are virtually incapable of thinking outside of this worldview. You were indoctrinated with materialism, realism, objectivism, rationalism, skepticism, whatever else will other isms. And you're not smart enough to think outside of this. This is the operating system that you are now using to make sense of the things that I'm telling you, every word coming out of my mouth has been run through that operating system, and being corrupted by all of the faulty assumptions, metaphysical and epistemic and mythological within that system that you were indoctrinated with that you never questioned. And if you don't think that's a significant problem, you're kidding yourself. As you were learning science, you have never ever validated the scientific method itself. You never, it never even crossed your mind to test it. Never, never. And as you went to university, it never even crossed your mind to test it. Because you were too busy cramming for tests, drinking beer with your buddies, smoking weed, going to parties, and just barely struggling to maintain your grades. That's what you were doing. You weren't doing a serious investigation of anything true or real. You never gave a fuck about reality or truth ever, in your entire educational career. It was all memorization and belief. And, of course, now you have to hope you have to hope it was all true. Because as soon as you start to realize that some of it wasn't true, well, that that's those little seeds of doubt, which are gonna grow and grow and grow until the whole thing collapses. See, if you allow me I can easily design a school curriculum that will teach students false science, I can invent a system equivalent to science, which is completely false. And I can teach it to children for 12 years. And they will become so convinced of it. By the end of those 12 years, that they will be utterly irredeemable for the rest of their lives, the majority of them, you will never be able to convince them of an alternative system. That's the power of imprinting on a young mind. And guess what? It's happened to you. See, all this time you were laughing thing had happened to somebody else, to those crazy religious people, to those Mormons, to those Scientologists to those Muslims to those evangelicals. It happened to you. It just happened in a scientific way. That doesn't mean it's true. That's just an alternative worldview. See, science is a social cultural activity and game. Modern science is actually impossible without society, culture, bureaucracy, institutions, funding schools, books, language, standards, norms. Science requires building consensus. This requires bureaucracy, massive bureaucracy, Sciences Authority. 100% depends upon this consensus that is built. This building of consensus is a highly social, psychological, sociological, cultural, political and survival activity. This consensus is not built on truth. It's built on what is useful for the survival of the institutions and the bureaucracy that is doing the consensus building first and foremost, truth is always a secondary concern. The number one concern of any bureaucracy is the survival of that bureaucracy. And that is, of course true for all universities, schools. And science. Scientifically people, scientifically minded people love to defend their belief system with this idea of peer review, as if peer review will save you from the problems that I'm talking about Leo, but this stuff was peer reviewed. Leo, why don't you get your work? You're reviewed, if you're so smart, and you're talking about all this stuff, Hey, where's your peer reviewed research study? This is such a stupid objection. Because peer review is the very definition of confirmation bias and question begging and circular logic. Peer review is pure groupthink and collective ego. When you are submitting your article for peer review, who are you giving it to, to review to peers like you, and who do you consider a peer, a peer is a relative notion, you only call those people, your peers who you consider doing valid science as doing valid science. And, of course, who you consider as being a valid scientist is, of course, completely circular, depending upon whatever methodology you have. So whoever agrees with your methodology is going to be your peer. And anybody who doesn't read the methodology is not going to be your peer. So all that you're doing when you're going through peer review as a scientist, is you're giving your paper and your research to somebody who already has exactly the same metaphysical and epistemic and methodological biases and prejudices, and worldview as you do. And all that they do is they look at it and they evaluate, and sure they can reject your work based on the fact that your own work doesn't even fit your own, you know, stated a metaphysical and epistemic and mythological standards. That's all that peer review does. Peer review doesn't review the meta science, it only checks whether your science just accords to sort of the traditions of your field. That's all that peer review does. It's pure groupthink. It's a pure circle jerk. Don't go asking somebody to peer review. This is so stupid when you do that. See, you might be tempted to do that. Well, Leo is making some good points here, but I'm not sure. So I'm going to take this video, I'm gonna go show it to a scientist that I know and ask him is Leo Right? Or maybe he's wrong. I'm gonna go take it and post it on Reddit and ask some reddit people Hey, guys, is maybes Leo's right or wrong? Give me your opinion. What do you think? Or I'm gonna go give this to my university professor and ask him, What what do you think? Do you think he's right or wrong? It doesn't matter. You can't get truth by asking somebody else for truth. Because how do you know you can trust that person? The only reason you respect that person or trust that person's opinion is because you think that he fits within your pre existing paradigm. So all you're doing is you're just question begging, when you're asking somebody else to validate my work, the only way to validate my work is to actually sit down and validate it yourself, test it yourself, contemplate what I say yourself, don't ask somebody else. Mainstream academia is spiral dynamics, stage orange, green, roughly in between there somewhere, it's not even fully green, it's not fully pluralist. It doesn't even understand post modernism fully, it doesn't understand relativity fully. So all of your peer review will be happening within the spile dynamics stage, orange green paradigm. If you're gonna be presenting yellow ideas, or turquoise ideas, to a circle of peers who are stage orange and green, they're not going to understand what you're talking about. You will pass their peer review not because what you have to say is not true, but because they themselves are not at a cognitive level of development to understand the depth of what you're saying. You see, scientific consensus is orthodoxy. I mean, what you're doing when you're doing peer review is is analogous to the following absurd example. Imagine that I'm a fundamentalist Islamic person, and you come to me and you say, well, Islam is all full of bullshit and nonsense. And I say, No, it isn't. Islam has been peer reviewed. Just last year, I took the Koran to 20 different slopes, Islamic scholars, and they all and I asked them all I was I was very skipped. I was, you know, I took your concerns seriously, because, you know, you said that there's some bullshit in Islam. And I took that seriously. I thought, yeah, maybe there is some bullshit. So I went to 20 different scholars of Islam presented to them, you know, my critiques and objections. And they all said, Actually, Islam is truth. That that's, that's what peer review is. Because what you consider as an expert is, of course, completely entangled with your paradigm. So the peers and experts that you consider as valid experts, are those people in this case, who already Islamic, you know, who have been born and raised and into this Islamic worldview. And so of course, they're going to think it's truth, and they will have all sorts of valid justification. Since an evidence and also to back it all up, just like scientists do. You see, the problem with scientific peer review is that when you're giving it to your peers to review your your work or whatever your peers were indoctrinated through the same education system that you were the same metaphysical, epistemic and methodological biases and assumptions and blind spots and beliefs, all of those came to us from from your culture. You see, you have to understand that all of science, the only reason you know science is because of culture. There's no other way you could know science without culture. And chances are that you and your peers grew up in the same culture, basically, the same scientific subculture. So you believe all the same shit. So any blind spots within your paradigm are going to be spread throughout all your peers. Of course, of course. You see, the trick with changing and evolving science is that changing science requires changing culture. And changing culture is a marketing problem. And this is something that scientists are in denial about, because most scientists are not marketers. They don't like marketing. They don't they don't want to associate their science with marketing. But actually, it is. Changing culture requires a culture war, a marketing war, massive marketing dollars need to be invested into an idea in order to get a spread through society to change across society. And this is especially true when the idea is not beneficial. To the low consciousness survival needs of the people in society, the majority of people. scientific consensus has a very long tail, it takes about 50 to 200 years for a scientific idea to fully percolate and make its way into culture. So if some radical truth is discovered today, it might take 100 or 200 years for that radical truth to permeate all of culture and be taught in schools and to be accepted by laymen. People assume that the hard part of science is discovering the truth. Now, that's the easy part. The hard part is getting millions of unthinking people who don't do any science to understand and accept the truth. This requires a culture war. This requires a massive marketing campaign. Marketing and science are entangled. You can't disentangle these two. And if you think you can, you're fucking deluding yourself. And this is going to lead to huge problems for you. There are in fact, many scientific truths that were discovered 100 years ago that have still not percolated through, into mainstream culture. One of them, for example, is just Einstein's general relativity. I mean, people know about Einstein, and they've heard about general relativity, but people don't understand that time is relative. People still walk around thinking and so time is absolute. Now, of course, the professional scientists understand this, but but the layman don't. 90% of 90 probably 95% of humans on the planet don't understand that time is relative, they don't understand that distance is relative. They believe that objects actually have an objective length to them. They don't say that length is relative to your velocity into to the speed that you're moving it. That's just one ideal example of one idea and another is quantum mechanics. I mean, people have heard about quantum mechanics they loosely know about quantum mechanics. But the epistemic and metaphysical implications of quantum mechanics were so radical in the early 1900s, that today, even today, most people don't understand these these implicate I mean, quantum mechanics almost virtually completely debunked. Materialism and realism. People still don't understand that in culture. By large today, and even many professional scientists. Still don't understand it. Go check out my two part series called quantum mechanics debunks materialism where I go into much depth about this. I even called you know, like, for example, Sean Carroll Sean Carroll is a well respected professional physicist at MIT. He studies quantum mechanics and other such things, quantum field theory, yet he he himself still does not understand the metaphysical and epistemic implications of the things that for example, Niels Bohr or understood, Werner Heisenberg understood and their colleagues Max Planck understood, still still doesn't understand it. Why not? Because he's bad at doing philosophy of science. He's good at doing science, but he's bad at doing medicine. Because like I told you, the doing of science is a completely separate thing from understanding science as a system, and epistemology and metaphysics, these are different things. Just because you're good in one doesn't mean you're, you're good in the other. So be careful with that. See, science is conservative by its nature, why is science conservative, because there's a sort of a filtration problem. There's a lot of bullshit out in the world. And science is supposed to be a system for filtering out all the bullshit in the world. So the way it does that is by erecting a strong barrier or shield, it's almost like an antivirus system on your computer, you know, erects a very strong shield such that no virus can come through. But also, it has false positives, which means that good software and webpages also get blocked accidentally, because they're thought to be a virus, but actually they aren't. So science has this, this problem, erects its shield too tightly. In a sense, it gives a lot of false positives. It excludes many aspects of reality, which are true and real, and important, but don't fall within its narrow mythological biases and constraints that they consider, you know, valid science. They do this because for them, because science is built upon authority, the entire pyramid is is built upon authority, they need to maintain their authority, that's the most important thing for scientists is to maintain their authority. As soon as there's any doubt about a scientist reputation, or about his research, anything he's done, he's over, he's got lost his whole career. So science is all about maintaining this bastion of authority. And the way he does that is by being extremely rigorous, overly rigorous. In fact, the justification here is that science is trying to preserve the purity and truth of the system of science. But actually, of course, as these things go, since life is so counterintuitive, it ends up backfiring, it boomerangs on them by erecting your shields too, too strictly. And defining your method too narrowly, what ends up happening is that actually, the thing that you think is supposed to preserve the purity of your system ends up backfiring and actually undermining its purity, it becomes the root of the corruption. That's how tricky this stuff is. being conservative is not the same thing as pursuing truth. These are different things. If you're bias is to be hyper, hyper conservative, and to only allow those things that have been triple and quadruple proven beyond a shadow of any doubt, that's fine, you can create a system like that, but just realize how it will how narrow and limited that is, you cannot then assume that you have a complete understanding of truth. There's a lot then you have to admit that is outside of your little narrow, rigid formulations. There's a sort of a rolling edge to science that people overlook. Let me explain how this works. The rolling edge of science works like this. There's usually some genius, radical revolutionary scientist who thinks totally outside the box, and outside the norms of all culture and all society. He's usually considered to kind of weird and wacky, and maybe even a little bit crazy by normal people, because he thinks outside the box. But thanks to that he makes some groundbreaking new discovery that recontextualizes the entire status quo of established science. Then what happens is that there's a battle that ensues as this idea is put forward. It's so radical and so threatening to people that people of course deny it and they attack this person. They attack him as being a nutcase as being crazy or stupid or whatever. But eventually, that generation who denies it, it dies out slowly, over time, it dies out. And then a new generation is born, who's more open minded, and they generally come to accept this new discovery. But this only happens after much battle. This is not a smooth process. Because this new worldview, a new new paradigm is seen as dangerous, crazy and insane. Think, for example of Charles Darwin, when he proposed the theory of natural selection evolution. At that time, it was a crazy, insane, dangerous idea relative to the standards and culture of the time, which is kind of more religious. And this idea that you know, man evolved from apes, and so fourth, this was very, very much a no no for people that didn't like it. And they didn't accept it. The only way we move forward is people died a new generations were born, who were not indoctrinated into those old ideas but into the new ideas. So anyways, the old generations die off the truth finally prevails, and a new generation is born with the new worldview. At but but there's a problem here. The new generation now just takes it as obvious takes it for granted. The new Gerrish thinks that evolution was obviously the true all the time, it was easy to develop this, and in that original problem, and the new generation now becomes dogmatic about this new paradigm, just like the old generation was about the old paradigm. And they use the new generation to deny the next new paradigm, new discoveries, new discoveries beyond evolution, they're gonna deny those on the grounds that evolution is what's true. And the cycle continues over and over and over throughout all of human history, which with every generation dying off and the new generation, being born, and taking things for granted, taking epistemology and metaphysics for granted. And nobody is acknowledging the meta structure of this entire thing. Everybody is taking the entire mechanism for granted. And so the problem just keeps repeating itself over and over and over again throughout human history, and we keep making the same stupid mistakes. epistemic blunder after epistemic blunder metaphysical blunder after I miss metaphysical blunder, ignorance and dogma after ignorance and dogma, ideology after ideology, the content of the dogma changes, but the structure is always more dogma. Dogma, on top of dogma belief on top of belief authority on top of authority. The only thing that really changed between religion, the religious worldview, and the scientific worldview is simply that the content has changed. The mechanisms have largely all stayed the same. There have been many discoveries within science in the last 100 years, that have completely undermined materialism and realism. Including discoveries from quantum mechanics, biology, general relativity, cosmology, chaos, theory, logic, Mathematics, Philosophy of Science. All of this has undermined classic modern science. post modernism also has done that, to some degree. But the myth of science persists, because it takes a long time for culture to change. The majority of humans today still do not understand the lessons of quantum mechanics, or general relativity, or chaos theory. Or, for example, the works of Georg Cantor with multiple sets of infinities, infinity of infinities, or the works of Google, and his incompleteness theorems, or tar skis, incompleteness theorems, or what post modernism is 99% of humans do not understand these things. Even many scientists don't understand these things. They might understand them superficially, but they don't, they haven't fully contemplated the epistemic and metaphysical significance of these things. Because oftentimes, they just tell themselves, there are none. There are no implications, there is no significance. But there is. The history of science is full of these sorts of epistemic blunders, which are denied and then whitewashed after the fact. I'm going to give you one very powerful example that I think just encapsulates this entire point. And that is the example of a man by the name of Ignace similes. Maybe you've heard of them. I'm going to read here a little quotation from Wikipedia. about some of these, is it some of these are some wise, I don't know. It's a weird Hungarian name. I'm going to call them several weeks. All right. So here's the quotation. Quote, Ignaz. Simone Weitz was a Hungarian physician and scientist now known as an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Some always discovered that the incidence of child bed fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Child bed fever was common in the mid 19th century hospitals, and often fatal. Some always propose the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in the Vienna General Hospital, despite various publications of results were handwashing procedures reduced mortality to below 1%. Some of these his observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time. Time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Somalis supposedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. He died 14 days later, after being beaten by the guards. Some of these his practice earned him widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed germ theory and quote, this is in reality, how science deals with contrary theories and worldviews. The Myth of science says that if you just discover the truth, we will accept it, just prove it to us, and we will accept it. That's the myth of science. In reality, what happens is, you discover a truth, you try to present it to your colleagues, your colleagues, because they've indoctrinated in the old paradigm, they think you're an idiot. And they might even think you're crazy. And they might even put you in insane asylum and kill you. That's the reality of it. A very similar situation, by the way, happened with Georg Cantor with mathematics. gare Cantor discovered some groundbreaking new mathematics of infinity, roughly actually around the same time of SEMO. He's a little bit later, around the turn of the century there. And, and his his mathematical colleagues thought he was insane. He basically ended up losing his mind. Also, I think in an insane asylum. This is not just one example. There are many, many, many examples in science similar to this. Science routinely. talks about how willing it is to better itself and to evolve itself, when in practice isn't historically, all these errors are whitewashed away. And we'd like to pretend as though like, oh, well, Galileo, that happened back in the 19th century. It doesn't happen today. It happens today. It happens today. Science is constantly moving the goalposts this notion of science, can you see that it's it's an elastic notion with every generation, the boundaries of science, which used to be small, are expanded a little bit, a little bit, a little bit. And the people who expand these boundaries are the revolutionaries, the crackpots because the notion of a crackpot is relative to your boundaries. So your boundaries, expand, expand, expand, but these the expansion of these boundaries, this happens through a through a challenging battle process. It's a culture war process. It is not, it is not some sort of cordial process where you come up and you just present the truth to people and say, oh, yeah, that's the truth. Okay. You've convinced me. Okay, I accept it. Now. Let's go have some cake and tea together? No. That's not how it works. Because the truth is threatening to ego minds. Ego minds are threatened by new models and theories of reality, new possibilities of reality. This scares people. It scares people to tell them that the Earth is round when they thought it was flat. It scares people to tell them that time is relative and doesn't exist when they thought it was absolute and did. It scares people to tell them that, you know, mathematical truths or projections of their own mind are not objective. It scares people to tell them that they evolved from apes. It scares people to tell them that all of science is 99% belief and a pyramid scheme. This is scary to people, they don't want to hear this shit. And of course, they shoot the messenger. It's a story as old as human civilization. Science is not immune to psychology, prejudices, biases, attachments, ideology, arrogance, cultural norms, groupthink, closed mindedness and survival concerns. Scientists have to worry about survival all the time. Institutions, scientific institutions have to worry about survival all the time. What I mean by survival here is for example, if you're a scientist, you have to worry about your career. You have to worry about maintaining your reputation. You have to worry about publishing papers, you have to worry about peer review. You have to worry about not pissing off your peers. As soon as your reputation is tarnished as a scientist, you're done. If you get labeled as a crackpot, you're done, which is why you're not allowed to have true free rein to go out there to explore weird new alien phenomenon that is foreign to the established paradigm of science. You're not really allowed to challenge the paradigms of science from within the scientific establishment. Because all of the people who are your peers, their careers depend upon their reputations. And so all together, you have come together to defend each other's reputations. Of course, this is all done subconsciously and under the surface shut that such that you will pretend as though you're really pursuing truth, when in fact, what you're doing is you're just saving your own careers. Of course, there's no science done really outside of institutions. The majority of science is done inside of major institutions who have huge survival biases and concerns that take priority over any matter of truth. If you're working at Caltech, MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Stanford, wherever these institutions they are, they have massive budgets of billions of dollars, 10s and hundreds of billions of dollars. Endowments they have to they have to they have to make sure that this money Where does money come from it comes from donors. That means the donors only get to these institutions because these institutions give the donors authority and legitimacy. That means the institution like MIT needs to preserve its authority, and legitimacy. That means it can't have any crazy crackpot scientists on its rosters. It fires those people, it doesn't hire them in the first place. The only scientists that MIT will hire are the people who already confirm all of their pre existing methodological, epistemic and metaphysical biases. These institutions are not primarily concerned with truth, they're primarily concerned with donors and survival. Which is why they charge their students so much for attendance and why they charge so much for books and all this other stuff. This is all corruption within science. Now, I'm not saying you can't do some good research within these institutions, you certainly can. These are valuable institutions, they have their purpose. I would rather trust some research coming out of MIT than I would from, you know, some Christian organization, or some Islamic organization, or some right wing organization or think tank, of course, but understand the limits. When you have consigned your life to working at MIT, you have written a tacit agreement that you will play by the rules and jump through their hoops and do everything they want you to do. And you will only generate the results that fit within the paradigm that they have drawn for you. And as soon as your results do not fit in that paradigm, you will be kicked out. You need to understand that when you go into MIT or some other academic institution. The problem is that once you've already spent, you know, many years trying to get those pieces, those those positions are so difficult to get these tenured professorships are so rare people are fighting over them so hard, you know, PhD students, students, and so forth. It's such a brutal and competitive system that you get just to get that position, you're going to be so thankful and lucky that you got that position that you finally know pay off hundreds of 1000s of students in student loans, and you can finally maybe support yourself and your you know, your children and your family, that you're going to forget all about the truth by that point. And you're just going to want to stay within the narrow confines of the parameters, they lay it lay out for you. And then you will your ego mind will rationalize to you that oh, well, Leo, the truth doesn't even matter. It's not important anymore. Science isn't about the truth. Science is about doing what's within little circle that MIT has drawn for me, that's what will become your science. And that will be the the nice little shock collar that MIT places upon you. And as soon as you wander off the territory, they're gonna, they're gonna push that button. And this is, this is how your mind keeps itself jailed. And once you've sunk in, you know, 10 years into a PhD $100,000 in student debt, and you've finally gotten your position, are you going to be in a mood to question that? No, you're way too bought into it. You've been completely indoctrinated by all of the norms and values and standards and methodologies and metaphysics and epistemology and culture of that institution. You're going to be a complete loyalist and you're going to be fully convinced that what you're doing and what your solution doing is good and normal and proper and truthful and there can't be anything better. Why do you think I didn't become an academic? I would have become an academic. When I was 20 years old, and university I seriously wanted to become an academic, professional philosophy professor and get a PhD, I was seriously going to do it until I talked with some of the philosophy professors at my university. And I realized that this isn't truth. They're not interested in truth. They're just surviving in their profession. That's what they're doing. They're not doing real philosophy, this is horseshit. And I had too much integrity to put myself into that system. Now, of course, the critics will say, Oh, that's just because you couldn't cut it. That's just because your ideas are unscientific. And that's why you couldn't get in there. Well, that's one way to frame it. Another way to think about it is that, actually, you're never going to discover the truth through academia. Academia is not about truth. Academia is about maintaining a certain status quo, and playing the function that serves within society, and the education system at large. Our education system is not designed for truth. If it was, there wouldn't be all the tests, all of the memorization, all of the cramming, and all the other ways that things are taught, both in schools and in universities. Our entire education system is utterly corrupt, and in the dark ages. It's laughable. It's laughable. Our children are not even taught basic epistemology and metaphysics. For 12 years, is a complete travesty. This is not education. It's horseshit. And you've been indoctrinated into it, recognize that expertise, credentials, status, popularity, success, none of this is equivalent to truth. All of that is authority. It's all an illusion. Another problem with science is, of course, the funding problem. Science is happening within late stage capitalism. Today. late stage capitalism corrupts the entire University System. Where does funding go? Within science? How do you get funding for serious research? Funding mostly goes to practical issues that have survival payoffs. No one is interested in giving you millions and billions of dollars to answer non useful questions or to answer weird mystical, new agey questions and other sorts of things like that. Most science these days is done actually, not even in universities, but inside of corporations. What are these corporations care about? They don't care about truth at all. They care about profits, they only do research for profit, whatever is profitable, whatever the public wants, whatever will produce a better technology, that's where the money mostly goes. So true, science is actually starved. Scientists are not allowed to freely choose the things they want to study. Without any pressures, there are all sorts of hidden and implicit pressures within the university research system and also within the corporate research system, to do the kind of research that makes money and this corrupts the research. That doesn't mean the research is wrong. I'm saying something more profound than that. I'm saying that I'm not saying that the research necessarily wrong, you know, I'm not saying just that, like, yeah, you know, like a tobacco company will will make fake research to justify that, you know, smoking doesn't cause cancer. I mean, that's obviously you know, devilry and, and not science. But, but even shy of that kind of, you know, worst case scenario, there's still a very big problem. Because when you grow up doing research in an environment where the entire thing is motivated by a profit motive, and whatever is most profitable and more most successful and produce the best technology that consumers want, you're going to start to think of science as that kind of endeavor to you, that's what science will become, science will not become about the truth anymore, or about exploring new domains of, of nature and reality that perhaps maybe don't have practical implications, or maybe they do, but you know, only a century down the road. Or maybe they're not going to be immediately profitable for a decade or something. You're not going to your what you think of a science is going to be so narrow, as to like be consumer, basically consumer products and goods. That's what you're going to define science as, which means there's going to be all sorts of new domains of reality, which you're not going to properly be able to explore and understand. And that's going to limit your methodology. It's going to then end up turning into sort of an echo chamber in a self reinforcing feedback loop for your metaphysics and for your epistemology. Because see, nobody in the government or in your corporation is going to fund you researching new metaphysics or new epistemology. GE they don't give a fuck about that stuff. Hardly you care about it assigned the most your colleagues don't care about it. If you are one of those scientists is care about it. Who's going to support you? Who's going to fund you? If somebody gives you going to give you a $10 million grant to go research, you know, something like a paranormal activity or phenomenon or something, or some mystical experiences or psychedelics? No, of course not. And as science becomes more complicated, the experiments become more expensive. They require more labor. This means you need large teams, large teams mean more groupthink. It requires larger budgets. larger budgets require also more groupthink and more being beholden to donors. And of course, your donors want to pay off. They're more like investors. They don't care about the truth, your donors and investors, they care about their profit margins. There's a lot of amazing research that we could be doing on all kinds of non material phenomena, that is not being done right now. Because there's simply no funding for it. You know, something like creating a particle collider can cost $10 billion, and take 10 years to build one. That's a huge investment. All of that just to discover a new subatomic particle. Imagine if that kind of funding was available for mystical research for psychedelics, for paranormal phenomena, there will be groundbreaking discoveries made. But of course, it's not immediately profitable. And most scientists don't even think that this is a fruitful or worthwhile thing to do research on, because they think that is pseudoscience. Alright, let's talk about another problem here. In science, there's a problem that I call the reductionism problem. It's also associated with how universities are structured. Last second, I got something stuck in my throat. Lots of stock. Alright, so science is becoming increasingly more over specialized, which means that people are becoming narrow, narrow experts in fields. This is like putting blinders on. It's very problematic if you're trying to understand the nature of reality at a deep level, because that can only be understood holistically. So as science is developing, people are becoming so specialized that they do not look outside the domains of their fields. And they don't care about anything outside their little field. This makes everybody basically stupid and ignorant, even though they can be very good experts at the particular thing that they're good at. See, science likes to break nature apart into fields and subfields. And they think that these are natural divisions within reality, they're not, there's nothing natural about this at all. So you could have biology, chemistry, physics, then within physics, you can carve that up into you know, quantum field theory, plasma physics, you know, laser physics, gravitation, general relativity, string theory, blah, blah, you can see all these subfields, those subfields will have their own subfields, and so on, and so on, and so on. It gets very, very technical. This technical science is important. I'm not saying it should stop. Of course, we need technical science. But also, if your concern is understanding the nature of reality, and doing groundbreaking research, then the problem is that all the subfields once they're subdivided, they're not communicating with each other properly. And nobody is responsible for what the entire says system is doing, and how its conceiving of reality. So basically, the branches aren't properly communicating with each other. And also, all of science is not properly communicating with other epistemic modalities beyond science. Science is not communicating with shamanism shines is not communicating with mystics, with Yogi's with meditators with psychedelic users. And I can go on and on and on. Because everybody considers that, hey, you know, I'm not responsible for that. All I do is I do plasma physics, I do plasma physics and everything else doesn't matter to me. And you know what all I do, I do evolutionary biology. That's all that matters to me. And somebody else says, All I do is I do psychology on mentally disabled people. That's all I do. I don't care about anything else. When you take that kind of attitude, to, to science and to understanding nature. This is, this is this is so problematic. Can you see this how problematic This is? Because what this results in is a very fragmented, techno kradic sort of picture of reality. You've artificially subdivided reality, all these little fragments, and nobody is seeing the whole picture. This makes people easily, easily fooled. Because actually, reality is not simply the sum of its parts. Reality is more than the sum of its parts. And what we deeply and badly need within science is a breaking up of many of these boundaries to get all the branches communicating with each other, such that if you're in if you're doing plasma physics, that's fine. You can do plasma physics. But you can't just say, well, anything outside of plasma physics, I don't care about. Because the ego mind will latch on to this and use this as the perfect defense mechanism against ever deconstructing your own mind and getting to the truth. You see, because anytime someone like me comes along and says, Hey, you know, I can teach you about meditation and psychedelics and other things like that. And you're a plasma physicist, you just say, Ah, I don't care about that doesn't apply to me, all I care about is plasma physics. That's all I know. I'm not going to be arrogant and pretend like I know stuff outside of that. And every, every scientist can do that. And in this way, every scientist can be both smart and dumb. At the same time. They see the little picture but they don't see the big picture. This is part of the reductionist bias at the heart of materialist science. Material Science basically assumes that if we just subdivide reality into little pieces, we can reduce it all down to smaller and smaller parts. And eventually all of it will boil down to just physics. This is an utterly unscientific and false assumption. You cannot reduce all of science to physics, and to bouncing atoms, or strings, or quanta, or anything like this. This is absurd. I gave that example in part one where I talked about putting a frog in a blender, blending it up and just studying the the juice the frog juice. And thinking that you understand the frog, no, you cannot understand a frog that way. That's one way to understand a little bit about a frog. But there are many other ways to understand a frog. The reductionist delusion is to think that if you put a frog in a blender and study its juice, that you will understand everything about the frog, because the frog is nothing but the molecules that are inside of it. That's the rational. That's the reductionist delusion. It's very problematic. And this, this infects almost all disciplines of science. There are way too narrowly focused. One of the strengths that I have in that I'm not in a university system, I can do independent research is that I have the complete freedom, my mind has the complete freedom to research everything I want. This is extremely powerful, I'm able to read about all sorts of crazy fields and theories and like that nobody, that no other scientist or researcher would really have the luxury or freedom to do, given how specialized they have to become. See, this is one of the advantages that I have by not being an academic, which is how allowed me to run circles around academics, and to understand reality in such a broad and deep and profound way that they can't even comprehend as possible, because of the system they have signed themselves up into. You see, this is not an accident, I deliberately saw when I was 20 years old, this problem, and I deliberately said no to this problem. And I made myself independent, I worked, create my own businesses so that I could pay for my fucking self. So I don't have to be relied on advertisers, or be relied on investments or other kinds of survival forces that would corrupt my work. Now, that doesn't mean I'm immune from corruption, of course, I can be corrupted to, I have to be careful, I'm always cognitive that I'm, I am capable of corruption. But also, I take, I take that very seriously. I've tried to mitigate those things. And I feel sorry for many scientists who have consigned themselves to that bureaucratic system. Now they're stuck. Now they're wedded to it. And, in fact, they're so wedded to it, that they're not even going to admit to themselves now, they don't have the luxury of admitting to themselves, the system is corrupted. Because literally their children won't be fed. If they leave the system, they've invested so much time and energy into that system, what would they do? How would they do work outside the system? How would you even do work as an independent scientist? How would you get funding? How would you publish your work? I mean, it's only now becoming possible with YouTube and the internet, it is now becoming possible, more and more viable for you to be an independent scientist. And actually, you know, many of the early scientists, people like Newton and Leibniz and and so and, you know, even Einstein, you know, these were independent scientists. They weren't working in some large institutions, which is why they were able to make amazing groundbreaking discoveries. This is becoming more and more rare with late stage capitalism, because all of our resources are are being funneled up to the top of society such that if you want to actually be independent, you got to you can't be independent because you got to All suck up to some to some capitalist who has a bunch of money and then you gotta become his bitch. And he doesn't care about the truth at all. He cares about more money. So of course, the solution to this reductionism problem is holism. But the problem with holism is that it's not financially rewarded. You can get paid very well as a specialist. Companies need specialists, businesses need specialists, Universities need specialist who needs a generalist who needs a whole list? Well, they do need them, but they don't recognize that they need them on what you would call a whole list. But it's hard to survive as a whole list, you can be a lot more successful as a general as a as a specialist. The next problem is a problem of falsifiability. There's this false, ironically, this false idea within the myth of science, that every theory and statement about nature needs to be falsifiable. This is a common objection that is made against religious people and so forth, you know, like, someone will say that Allah is exists, and a scientist will say what, but that's not a falsifiable claim. How could you ever falsify a law? Because all all has no, supposedly like, no predictive power, right? And there's also this idea that every every theory needs to have predictive power. And if it doesn't, then it's not a real, legitimate theory. And it doesn't even make sense. There's this even further delusion within science that a question that has no predictive power is not a bad, it's not even just a bad question. It's actually meaningless. The idea that it's a meaningless question, you know, like a question, you could ask a question like, What is existence? And some scientists are so pragmatic, so deluded with pragmatism that they will tell you that that's not even a valid question to ask, it's not even meaningful? Because the answer to what is existence? It can't exist. Such an answer can't exist, and it would have no practical purposes, and it would be unfalsifiable. Well, this is bullshit, of course, because it's question begging. The fact is, is that you don't know what can and can't be falsifiable in the future, things that don't seem like they're practical today, end up being practical. 100 years from now, or 200 years from now, in fact, the history of science is filled with examples where things were discovered these discoveries. At first, they seemed like they were impractical, that they were pointless, that they were insignificant, that they had no meaning to them whatsoever. And then 100 years later, 20 years later, we discovered that actually, oh, my God, this is the most amazing thing. It has so many practical implications. How could we have been so stupid? See, the mistake is to try to judge the practicality of of a truthful thing. You don't know the practicality of every piece of truth. Some truthful things are very practical, others are not so practical. But also, since science is all about connecting different pieces of truth together more and more and more and more. As you connect things, you find hidden meanings, hidden relationships, and then one truth helps you to build upon the next and the next and next. So even when a truth isn't immediately practical or useful, it might be a stepping stone to one more truth, or two more troops above it, truth above it, which actually ends up you know, creating a technological revolution. This happened, for example, with non Euclidean geometries. When non Euclidean geometries were originally discovered in mathematics, people thought it was just sort of a triviality. It didn't really matter. Because it was it was mostly just sort of a little kind of like a little quirk of mathematics, but it wasn't important because it didn't apply to nature. Because nature was obviously just Euclidean. Well, today, of course, we know much better. And today, non Euclidean geometries are extremely powerful, have been used for general relativity, and have been used for all sorts of you know, string theories. And God knows what else that I'm not even aware of. That's beyond my, my expertise to talk about. But But yeah, so I mean, and this, this is going to keep happening. A lot of times the criticism, one of the biggest questions I get is that I talk about all this abstract stuff, and people just say, Leo, it's all so abstract and theoretical. There's no practical consequences to any of the things you say. In fact, you probably said yesterday about this series, you probably said, Leo, all of this talk about science, but ultimately, it's completely irrelevant, because it's impractical, right? You've said that you've thought that? Well, actually, there are huge practical implications to the things I'm saying, but what you have to understand is that they're not going to materialize immediately. You're not gonna be able to see them immediately. It might take you five or 10 years of studying this stuff and pursuing it and working on it, contemplating it and doing practices and exercises before you get the full fruit. The practical fruit I have this work and these ideas. But people are so myopic today that if they can't see if their ego can't see an immediate practical survival advantage to some idea or some teaching, they immediately just dismiss it as stupid. This is, this is not scientific, this is just idiocy. This is pure idiocy. This is why you have to separate very carefully between survival and pragmatism and truth. Truth can have all sorts of hidden value to it, that you never expected you'll be amazed at how practical truth can be, but in the long term, not in the short term, you have to be farsighted, not nearsighted. Another try to see how much time I got left here long. Okay, I got a little bit more material for you here. Another problem within science is the problem of infinity and incompleteness. So if you don't know this yet, reality is infinite. Science is in denial about the fact that reality is infinite. Science treats reality as though it's finite. Science does not understand infinity, and doesn't know how to deal with infinity. The problem with infinity for science is the following If reality is truly infinite, as I say, and it is, this is a verifiable claim, then no finite method could ever describe infinity. That means that any formal method, including mathematics, any axiomatic system, any scheme of logic, or any scientific method, is going to be finite. And if it's finite, by definition, it is incomplete and it is incapable of grasping the infinite. Any method you articulate will be incomplete. Which means that your method will always be expanding. But you're also going to resist the expansion. Which means there's always going to be truths that lie outside of your method that your method cannot prove or cannot access. That's just the nature of what happens when you have infinity and then you have a finite circle within infinity. The finite circle does not encompass the entirety of infinity. So the bottom line is that the scientific method lacks the requisite variety to handle reality. The only way to handle reality is with infinite requisite variety. This is a concept from cybernetics. That means, if you want to truly be the best scientist, you can, and you want the most truthful and powerful in pure science, your method and your approach to the study of Nature needs to be so creative, so open, so flexible, so radical, that it has equal requisite variety to nature itself, which is infinity. The more closer to infinity your mind is, the less limited imposes on itself, the more it will be able to understand nature. Scientists still do not understand the significance of this problem. Scientists treat nature like It's finite. And the reason they do that is because their methods are finite. So it's actually very convenient. Their methods cannot access infinity directly. And therefore, to them. It seems as though nature is finite, because hey, if I can't access it with my methods, and I believe my methods are complete, then and there's no problems with others, then that means that infinity doesn't exist. Of course, this is question begging, and gross confirmation bias to blind spot. Now, of course, you might wonder, well, Leo, but how do you know that reality is infinite? Prove It, if this is true, but of course, this begs the whole question. Because the notion of proof is a finite notion. Any notion of proof you have is going to be finite. And infinity, by definition is not finite. It's infinite. So actually, it's impossible to prove infinity. Now you'll say but that means infinity isn't true. No. Infinity is true. It just means that it can't be proven, at least not according to your narrow, narrow confines of what proof meets. Actually the notion of truth will always outstrip the notion of proof. Proof is a smaller subset of thing than truth. That means there will always be things in nature and in reality that are true, but cannot be proven. If you want to know more about that, go check out my episode about the metaphysical implications of girdles and completeness theorem. That's the title, where I explained that in more depth, it's a it's a very important result that most scientists do not understand the significance of most scientists are under the false impression that nature can be quantified, analyzed, dissected, explained, and reduced and formally proven, it can be formalized the idea of formalization. You can take nature and you can symbolize it and formalize it. This is false, you can't do this. Google proved that you can't do this with mathematics and logic. And, of course, it extends beyond that Tarski extended that beyond mathematics and logic. And of course, just you can use common sense to extend it beyond that as well. It is possible to demonstrate to yourself that reality is infinite, but that requires your consciousness, you can't do it indirectly through peer review. You can't do it indirectly through through a formal proof like a mathematical proof or something like that. But you can do it directly with your consciousness. Using the methods that I talked about elsewhere, you can become directly conscious that reality is infinite. And then you will clearly understand why science is finite. See, science requires personal insight and deep intuitive, holistic intelligence to function at all. This is something again, many scientists and rationalist don't comprehend. People think that they can understand nature through a mechanical meat grinder process. This is not true, you can't do that. That's extremely limited. All the greatest scientists and their achievements came from direct personal intuitive insight, holistic pattern recognition, beyond anything formalized or explicable. It's completely nonlinear, and you can't write rules for it. And all proof, the whole notion of proof beyond just being relative, the notion of proof hinges on personal intellectual capacity. Proof assumes that your mind can have enough capacity for personal insight and intuition to grasp the truth of the proof. You see, this is not a given. People have different capacities for insight. In the same way that for example, a donkey has a much lower capacity for insight than a human, which is why math and science does not exist for donkeys. Have you noticed this? It's so obvious, but again, overlooked, and most scientists don't understand this. There is no science or math for donkeys. There's no numbers for donkeys. There's no gravity for donkeys. There's no quantum mechanics for donkeys. There's no Adam's for donkeys. Now, most people assume well, that's because the donkeys are stupid. And the donkey can't understand these truths. And therefore, the donkeys just aren't aware of them. None are real. It's not the donkey is too stupid and isn't and isn't aware of them. For the donkey. These things literally don't exist. They exist for you as a human, because of your level of consciousness and your neurology and the projection and the invention of these things that you've done with your mind. Science is an invention of the human mind. It's a projection of the human mind, which is why it doesn't exist for donkeys. And likewise, for you to be able to understand infinity, it would be as problematic as trying to explain arithmetic to a donkey trying to explain infinity to a rationalist, materialist, reductionist realist, who is stuck within spiral dynamics stage orange, is as difficult and impossible as trying to explain arithmetic to a donkey. It can't work. But if you evolve your level of cognitive development, to post rational and you have some, you know, breakthrough direct consciousness awakenings, you can have a direct experience of infinity yourself. You can't do it through peer review, though, if you insist on doing it through peer review, you're always going to Miss infinity because infinity is not a thing that comes to you through peer review. Because peer review is finite, not infinite. So you have to be smart enough to understand this. So sort of the contradiction with inside Science is that, although science likes to claim itself as this very hyper rational, objective method, in reality, what makes the heart of science function and what has generated all the amazing breakthroughs in science has been intuition. This soft, fuzzy thing, it's not hard, and it's not rigid. And it's not rule based. It's intuition. There's a great scene from Star Wars, the very original Star Wars, at the end, where Luke is flying through the trench and the Death Star, and you know, he's using his, all the all the other pilots are using their navigating computers to you know, to try to shoot that bomb that proton bomb or whatever it is, into the death hole, that star, you know, exhaust port. And, and you know, the scene, right? What happens. Everybody is using their marketing computers, but they're all missing, they're missing. They're missing, they're missing. And then Luke, he's about to use his targeting computer, and he's about to take the shot. And then he hears he hears opioids tell him something like, you know, use the force, use the Force. And this is the this is a perfect example here, because the force is supposed to be this mystical, anti scientific thing, right? But then, of course, Luke turns off his computer, everybody else is like, No, you're crazy. Don't turn off your computer, he's going to, you know, he's going to screw up the whole mission. Because they don't understand what the force is. But then he uses it, boom, gets the shot, saves the day. That's actually how science works. Science isn't done through a fucking targeting computer. It is not done. By sticking nature into a meat grinder and getting truth out the other end. It is done by highly intuitive minds that are using the Force. And then it's backwards rationalized as having been objective and rigid and hard science. But in truth, it was done using the Force. All the greatest scientific discoveries of mankind have been highly intuitive leaps of consciousness, not achievable through a dumb mechanical process, as the rationalists. And the materialists would like to have you believe this is a delusion and part of the myth of science that we are deconstructing? All right, that's it for this episode, I still have more to say still have a lot more stuff. Make sure you stay tuned for part two. In conclusion, let me just say this look, all that we're doing here, all that I'm doing here is I'm just questioning every assumption ever made by science. That's it. That's it. I don't have an ideology. I don't have an agenda. The only thing I did in my life is I said, I want to know the truth. And I'm willing to burn everything. To get to the truth. I don't care how sacred it is. I don't care if it's religion, I don't care if it's science, I don't care if it's logic, I don't care if it's mathematics, I will burn the entire fucking world down to get to the truth. That's all I said. And that's what I've been doing. That's it. And whatever remains, after throwing all of this stuff into the fire, whatever remains, that will be the truth. That's all that we're doing here. Don't be afraid, afraid to throw things into the fire. Have faith that the truth will survive the fire. The only thing that will burn away is the bullshit. So don't be afraid of of questioning science, science, and truth. These are not fragile things. They benefit from rigorous questioning. You get that? Again, it all comes down to where do your loyalties lie? Do your loyalties lie with some sort of human invention? Some human bureaucracy, some human institution like science or religion or government? Or do your loyalties lie with something that is prior to humans? Truth? That's the value of truth is that it was there before humans. It's non human. It's not a human invention. That's the amazing thing about truth. Whereas everything else that you run into in society is all human made bullshit. Humans spin bullshit. Better than spider spin silk. This should be obvious to you. If you've spent even a couple of decades here on this planet, how much bullshit is spun? And don't let anybody convince you that scientists do not spin bullshit. Scientists are some of the greatest bullshitters out there, which is why in fact they bullshit you into thinking that they don't bullshit you. That's even more bullshit bullshit double dose of bullshit right there. So watch out bullshit is everywhere. Be careful. And of course you bullshit yourself too. So it's not like they're guilty of it. This isn't some conspiracy theory. Scientists are not conspiring against you to bullshit you scientists are bullshitting themselves as much as they are you. This is the human condition we're talking about. There's no group of elites who are trying to control the world with bullshit. Every individual human is generating enough bullshit, such that we end up in the state that we're in, everybody is full of shit. Tara, it's pretty, pretty obvious what to think about it. I'm not saying anything revolutionary here. It's just that most people are in denial about it. All right. Anyways, we still have a lot more left. So stick around for part three. If you have any objections or criticisms by by all means, please post them down below. I love reading objections and criticism and answering them I'll answer every single one that's high quality. And then I'll answer more objections in part four, and so on. Alright, that's it. We're done here. Please click that like button for me. I worked hard on this one lot. This is so my best content here. And then come check out actualize that org That's my website, you will find my blog. With great insights and unique content. You will find my book list with great books you will find the life purpose course that will help you to set your life on track. What else you'll find the forum and if you'd like you can support me at actualized at patreon.com/actualized Alright, see you in part three.