All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 17, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
09:01
Episode 1625 Scott Adams: Nighttime Lecture on a New Branch of Science
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is a very special lecture on a new extension, really, of science itself.
Now, I know it's been confusing these last few years, and a lot of you have started to question science.
Do not question science.
I'm here to repair any damage that has been done to science with a simple extension that I think you'll find quite pleasing.
I might not be a trained scientist, but does a trained scientist have a double-sided whiteboard?
Okay, they might have one of those.
But does a trained scientist have a live...
Okay, they might have a live stream and a double whiteboard, and they might be trained, but are they here now?
Possibly. But if you don't know where they are, stick around, because I'm going to teach you how to improve on science.
Now, really, this is not something that I invented.
I don't want to take credit for it.
Some people are calling me the father of this new science, the inventor of it.
I like to think of myself as a co-inventor, more of a on-the-team sort of a person.
You know, I have some patents.
Not on this, but...
So, without further ado, let's start with a background, all right?
Before we get to the new stuff, it's good to get a grounding.
So, you're familiar with the traditional model of science, which...
For our purposes, I'm going to call the Old Testament by analogy.
So you may be aware that you start with a hypothesis, then you test it, and ideally you would run your test results and your write-up through a peer-review system.
In a perfect world, people would also retest it to make sure that the test can be reproduced.
And if you've got something that's reproducible and it can pass the peer review system and eventually the test of time, it becomes what they call a theory.
A theory. Now, people, theory is not used in the scientific context the way the unwashed like you use it.
The people who really, really are...
In the know. The people who would know what schadenfreude meant without having to look it up.
That sort of people. They would know that in this context, theory doesn't mean you think it's true.
It means it's been so thoroughly tested that it's just a fact for all practical purposes.
Oh yes, the fact could later be revised.
But in the scientific context, it's a fact.
Now, once you have this fact that's gone through a rigorous process to find out what is true, then the next step is to communicate it, to make it useful.
Because what good is a fact if only a few people know it?
You need to get the fact out.
And so the fact will run through a filter called journalism.
And then the journalism will interact with another filter called the government.
And between those two filters, the theory, which some would call a fact, will be turned into, and some would say transmogrified, into complete bullshit.
Now, the complete bullshit would then be fed to idiots.
The idiots would reward the bullshitters.
Forming what we call in science a fusion reaction that's endless.
Now, this is what I call the Old Testament.
And I don't know if you've heard of the Bible.
It's a big book.
It's everywhere. And the Bible had something called the Old Testament.
And I think you'd agree, you know, an update was...
Sort of called for.
And the New Testament really added a lot to the Bible, say the people who have read it.
I've heard about it, but that's what I hear.
Now, similar concept for science.
Now, again, this is not something I invented.
At most, don't call me the inventor of it or the co-inventor.
I was on the team.
That's all. All right, you can call me the inventor of it.
Stop it. I'm starting to blush.
But this is what is called the New Testament.
And this extends science in the same way that the New Testament extended the Old Testament and really made it useful.
That was the part that was missing from science until recently.
Now, a lot of this is courtesy of, really, you could say...
Maybe the founder of the field, if you will.
His name was Trump, Donald Trump.
And in many ways he was considered like the Einstein of this branch of science, some would say.
Co-inventor, possibly just on the team.
But here it starts where the Old Testament left off a heaping pile of bullshit that had been created by processing something through journalism and then government and then supercharging it through idiots in a fusion reaction.
So you take the government bullshit and then you put it through a filter which is assume everybody is a lying piece of shit and then assume that whatever they told you It's the opposite.
The opposite.
It's a very simple filter.
What did they tell you?
Assume it's the opposite.
Now, this is called a transformation, and that would transform your giant pile of bullshit into something close to the truth.
Now, I'm not going to say it works every time.
It's more of an 80% thing.
So, if you're wondering why there's so much division in the world, why can't we agree on simple scientific things, it's because some people are still stuck in the Old Testament of science, and some people have come to the future and learned how to transform bullshit into truth.
Doesn't work every time.
You know, it's like prayer.
If prayer worked every time, well, that would ruin the whole system, because you wouldn't need any faith.
You'd just, like, pray up some money, you know, that sort of thing.
So you want a good system that doesn't work every time, because that's what makes it sticky.
Now, I don't know if all of you have been exposed to this new branch of science, but if you haven't, I think this was probably enlightening.
Would that be the right word?
Enlightening? I think it would be.
And can we now understand why the new branch of science, which operates almost entirely on anecdotes, has a higher hit rate than Than the one that we call the Old Testament of science.
I think we do know why.
So, that is my lecture for today.
And I'm pretty sure that this will...
I don't want to say Nobel Prize.
No, stop it.
Stop it.
Stop it. All right.
I mean, I suppose if they offered it to me, I'd go and pick it up.
But it wouldn't be for me.
It would be for us.
It would be for us.
It wouldn't be about me.
Deserve it, obviously.
But still, it would be about us.
It would not be about me.
So, you're welcome.
And that is all I had to offer for tonight.
If I had more, I'd give it to you.
But it's just about all I got.
▲
Export Selection