Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - When to Believe Experts! Twitter/X Space

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 13, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:25:31

When to Believe Experts! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, hello, everybody.
	Good afternoon.
	Philosophical conundrum of the day.
	When your daughter makes date squares, when your daughter makes date squares, either A, she shares them with other people, which has you resent her, or she gives them to you, which makes you fat.
	These are big, deep, robust challenges that we must all try and puzzle our way through.
	And as a philosopher, of course, I will focus on the most negative experiences of both options.
	I asked if you wanted them.
	Yes.
	You asked if I wanted them, and I said you want me to make war.
	But I don't know, because I can't taste these ones.
	Then why are you complaining that you can't have them if you clearly don't want them?
	Okay, you've known me for how long and you're asking me why I'm complaining.
	Yeah, this is the philosopher you guys take advice.
	All right.
	I may have to return after putting quelling the rebellion of reason at home monstrous.
	Monstrous.
	Alright.
	Well, I'm, of course, happy to take your questions and comments.
	I will, of course, remove myself from the baking arena in just a moment.
	Oh, you had some.
	No, I didn't.
	Oh, I saw that.
	I did not.
	Oh.
	Alright.
	Okay.
	So I hope you guys are having a great day.
	I have a um surprise Shank O time.
	So I thought I would chat with you all, and I had I had some interesting thoughts.
	Well, interesting to me, hopefully they're interesting to you as well.
	And again, feel free to interrupt me with your own thoughts and comments or questions, uh, criticisms, whatever's on your mind.
	But you don't need to have listened to last night's live stream, because I'll sort of go over it.
	But I have these interesting interactions with people, and I puzzled them out quite a bit for myself, because I sort of like to understand what is going on in my mind and what is going on in the world.
	Sorry, I'm just myself adjusted here.
	So I had a fellow call in last night, and I've had a number of these kinds of conversations over the years.
	I'm always trying to look and figure out these patterns.
	And a pattern that I noticed last night was uh a guy called in and wanted to discuss uh a topic, and I asked for some clarifications, I asked for some definitions, you know, that kind of stuff, right?
	And I find it interesting.
	I don't know if you've had this, if you have, feel free to share.
	But I don't know if you've had this where what happens is people want to have a particular conversation, and they'll start saying stuff.
	Now, if I don't understand someone, if I don't understand their definitions or how they're using the word let's say fairness, I mean fairness can mean any bunch of things.
	Equality can mean a bunch of things, good and bad can mean a bunch of different things.
	So I like to know what people are talking about.
	Uh I don't feel that there's any real conversation without clarity.
	It's just two people saying stuff, the overlap, like the the two circles, I think the Venn diagram, the overlap is where you agree on definitions.
	There is no conversation that has two minds in the same space without agreed upon definitions.
	It is about as much overlap as two people speaking neutrally to each other in languages that the other person just doesn't understand.
	If if somebody from Japan is talking to me in Japanese in a neutral tone, and I'm speaking to them in English in a neutral tone, we don't have any exchange of information.
	Because I don't understand the definitions of the words he's using, and he doesn't understand the definitions of the word that I'm using.
	Which is why when I ask for definitions, I'm asking to meet, to reason together, to think together, to be in each other's company.
	We meet in a lovely little land called dictionary.
	Because if people are using terms in a way that you don't understand, or even worse if you think you understand but don't, if people are using those terms, you're not having a conversation.
	So if somebody says, I think people should be equal, I don't know what that means.
	Equal in height, equal in ability, equal in opportunity, equal in outcome, equal in musical ability.
	Like I don't know what that means.
	Now, I want to know what that means, because I want to know what The person is talking about.
	I don't know whether to agree or disagree or have any other reaction to someone when I don't know what they're talking about.
	I mean, if I said to you, do you agree with flipper to gibbet?
	You would not be able to answer that question unless you knew what flippit to gibbet referred to.
	So there's an interesting phenomenon that occurs when people are talking about things and I don't know what they're talking about, and I asked them to explain to me what they're talking about.
	Now, I'll tell you this, and maybe you've had a different experience.
	Obviously, there's me in the mix, so it's not some super objective thing.
	But those conversations never go well.
	I can't think of a time where I've asked for definitions, and the conversation has gone well from there.
	So I was thinking about that, because this this happened last call in uh uh ex live stream.
	This happened uh on the one from last night.
	And uh James, if you could remind me.
	I remember the conflict, but I can't remember where it sort of started or what what we were wrangling about.
	It doesn't hugely matter.
	But when people use terms that are ambiguous or ambivalent, like somebody uses equality or fairness or justice or whatever.
	Like I mean, I don't I don't know.
	What do you mean by justice?
	Even the word forgiveness is confusing.
	Does does forgiveness refer to willed forgiveness regardless of the other person's actions?
	Or does it refer to justly forgiving someone who has done their best to apologize and repent?
	Does forgiveness mean I forgive you, but I'm still not going to spend time with you, or I forgive you and I will spend time with you, or I forgive you and you're the greatest person ever.
	Like, I don't know what people mean by something like forgiveness.
	It's it's difficult to know.
	I mean, it's impossible to know, really.
	And this is why precision in language is the only way we can effectively communicate.
	So then I was sort of thinking today about, okay, well, why why does it go so badly when I ask people for definitions?
	I don't ask in a rude manner.
	I don't say you having it so dumb you can't even define your terms.
	Like I don't I just think, oh, I don't know what you mean by this.
	Can you can you explain it?
	And then it's funny, you know, I I'm kinda tuning fork this way.
	I'm sort of very sensitive to vibes.
	I know it sounds a bit bit odd or mystical, but I'm very sensitive to people's mind sets, which is why I have these great call-in shows and conversations and so on.
	And so I think, okay, well, why is it that people get mad when you ask for definitions?
	And please understand, this is not a new thing in philosophy, right?
	This is not a new thing in philosophy.
	I mean, this is what got Socrates killed, was asking for definitions.
	Because when you ask for definitions, you reveal that people are using words not to convey clarity and understanding.
	If I use a word, obviously I should know what it means.
	And obviously, uh if people say to me what do you mean by X, Y, or Z, I will say, right?
	What do you mean by truth?
	Ideas of the mind that conform to reason and evidence.
	What do you mean by reason?
	The art of non contradictory identification.
	Uh what do you mean by argument?
	The reason series of statements designed to establish a proposition, all this kind of stuff, right?
	So I will I mean not everyone, of course.
	I don't have a monopoly on the dictionary, not everyone has to agree with my definitions, but I have them because I don't want to be a sophist.
	Sophists suck donkey eggs.
	So yeah.
	So that is and and I would say the um philosophy professor who called in, who was just like this kind of ad hominem aggression and so on.
	So let me just see here.
	I have this Twitter space.
	I have a link here.
	And I just want to make sure I can I'm just trying to find the uh sorry, GG James, I don't see a link to the transcript here.
	I see a link to the show, but not to the transcript.
	I think that's what you Oh, you know what?
	I can just get the transcript.
	Never mind.
	Never mind.
	Alright.
	So let me find.
	Let me find this.
	Because I do I do want to remember, sort of.
	Sorry, I should have done this beforehand, but I wasn't sure I was gonna I I wasn't sure I was going to get into this level of detail, but I think it's I think it's fair.
	I think it's fair.
	Right.
	Ah yes.
	Oh yes.
	Okay, okay.
	So let's look at this as a whole.
	So the caller says, so the question is, can you get something from nothing?
	And I said, Well, I mean, that's a very loosely defined question.
	Can you be a bit more specific?
	Right?
	So that's I think that's a fair and reasonable.
	It's not even a pushback.
	It's like, can you get something from nothing?
	I don't know.
	Can you i i i if you have a whole bunch of ingredients for a cake, you don't have a cake.
	You mix the ingredients together, you bake it, you have a cake.
	Have you got you've got a cake from something that's not a cake, is that what you mean?
	Or like are you talking?
	So I mean that's that's right.
	So the caller said, I'm thinking of, in the context of creation and reality, like in all of existence come from nothing.
	Like, can all of existence come from nothingness?
	And I said, Well, not according to physics.
	According to physics matter can't be created or destroyed and so on, right?
	So then he says, see, I was asserting that the very idea to atheist I was asserting that very idea to atheists, but then I stopped mid-sentence because have you ever like studied the flower of life before?
	No.
	It's a he's and the caller says it is a series of concentric circles, which the circle is representative of nothingness.
	And so it's like the zero in math.
	What do you think the first number made was?
	And I said, What sorry, what do you what do I think the first number that was created, says the listener, and I said, the first number that was created.
	I'm not sure numbers are created in that way.
	I mean, they're not created in the way that you would build a house.
	I would assume that the first number that was conceived of was one, not zero, because that's a bit of a foreign idea to a lot of people.
	And the caller says, I would wager zero.
	I would argue that it's zero.
	And I said, I'm not sure that's an argument thing, though, because that would be an empirical thing, right?
	So again, here, honestly, I am not trying to whitewash myself, but I am pretty white.
	I'm pretty nice about all of this stuff.
	Right?
	That's kind of loosely.
	Could you be a bit more specific?
	And uh it's not really an argument thing and so on, right?
	I'm being nice.
	I said, and it's and the caller said, well, it's representative of nothingness.
	It's representative of nothingness.
	And I said, okay, I agree that zero represents nothing.
	And he said, okay, so that's an equivalence for what preceded creation.
	And I said, well, but human beings don't experience nothingness.
	Right.
	And so I went through all of the sense data, like when you walk around, you can feel even little bits of breeze on your face and things like that.
	And so I said it's it's I don't think we really experienced nothing.
	So it took people a while to come up with the concept of zero as a number.
	I mean, can you imagine walking around the world?
	This is me talking now.
	Can you imagine walking around the world with zero wind resistance?
	I think that would be very bizarre.
	And he said, Well, it wouldn't debate that, but we can experience varying degrees of separation from what is true.
	Like we can understand an empty box, an empty vessel.
	And I said, sure, but we also it's not empty because when we put our hand in it, we can still breathe, right?
	So he says an empty vessel and an empty box.
	It's not empty, right?
	And he said, Well, that's not always true because you can create a vacuum.
	And we understand that we can make vacuums and we do that.
	Well, so he's talking about the very first number that was ever conceived of being zero, right?
	And he's saying, but we can create a vacuum.
	But but creating a vacuum is a very modern piece of where it requires seals and suctions and all this kind of stuff, right?
	So when he's saying the first number was created because people experience nothing, and I say, well, they don't really experience nothing, because you have stuff all around you all the time.
	And he's like, yes, but we can create vacuums.
	That's a that's breaking the continuity, right?
	So the fact that we can create a vacuum over the last 60 or 70 years doesn't mean that that was around when people were inventing numbers.
	So again, I'm still having it's an interesting debate, right?
	So I said, look, you you can't didn't create vacuums in the past when they were coming up with the number zero.
	And he said, I'm not arguing that they had vacuums necessarily to the extent that you're imagining it, but a vacuum could be defined very loosely when it's not at the scientific level that you're proposing.
	So uh this is where, honestly, this is where conversations begin to go arrive for me.
	And I'm I'm again happy to be corrected if I'm.
	So first of all, I didn't imagine it.
	I was saying that the ability to create a vacuum, which, you know, you need uh a vacuum for certain scientific experiments for some that you need a very sort of low particle element for the creation of um some sort of computer chips and so on, right?
	So I'm not imagining it.
	So uh uh when I'm pointing out a fact that the creation of a vacuum is a modern phenomenon, and he says, well, not to the extent that you're imagining it.
	So that's rude, because I'm not imagining it.
	I'm pointing out a fact.
	Again, not the end of the world, right?
	And I said, So, okay, so I'm not sure you're debating in good faith here, to be honest, right?
	Because he's not addressing.
	So he's saying, well, we come up with the number zero first.
	And I'm like, well, but human beings don't experience nothing.
	He says, Well, we have vacuums, and I say, but they're modern.
	And he says, Well, yeah, but that's that you're just imagining that.
	I mean, that's just not a good faith debate or conversation.
	So he says, we've tangent so I sort of make this argument.
	And he says, we've tangentially moved from the conceptualization of nothingness, and we use the number zero to demonstrate that.
	But my point of concern was never really talking about the nature of numbers as much as trying to discern whether or not you can actually get something from nothingness and the flower of life pattern.
	And that's rude.
	So when you're having a conversation, when I'm having a conversation, you don't get to dictate where the direction goes.
	Because there's some people who do this, right?
	They they have an agenda, they have a goal, and anything that you say that interrupts that goal is considered an irritation or a tangent, and and that's not how conversations work.
	Right?
	That's so, and I said, what you're doing is rude.
	Oh, and so I said, I said, okay, hang on, hang on.
	And he said, let me go for a minute, let me go for a minute and actually get to the point.
	Now, the point is something that we are both negotiating about.
	There's not one person's point that the other person has to accept or agree with, right?
	We're having a debate.
	Right?
	The proposition is zero was the first number, and I say, Well, human beings don't experience nothingness.
	And he says, Well, there are vacuums, and I say, but those are modern, and you're talking about the origin of numbers.
	I mean, that's an interesting debate, I think.
	But then he just moves the goalpost.
	He's not addressing, like, the logical result would be, yeah, you know what?
	Uh, you make a good point.
	Human beings don't experience nothingness, and I can't talk about the origin of numbers, and then also say, and I see people want to talk, so let me just finish my my thoughts here and I'll I'll love to take your call, so I appreciate your patience.
	So it is it is rude.
	So you can't just say when somebody disproves an argument, well, that's just a tangent.
	I mean, you can say it, you can say whatever you want, but I won't put up with it.
	Right?
	If you say zero is the first number, and I say, but human beings don't really experience emptiness or nothingness, and you say, well, what about an empty box?
	And I said, Well, you know, it's not empty because you can put your head in it and still breathe, so you know there's still air in there.
	We say, ah, but we can create vacuums.
	Okay, so so you're just you're losing the argument.
	Now, that doesn't mean that zero, I mean, I know zero was invented much later than than numbers.
	I mean, you can find numbers in as ancient a text as like there are ancient Babylonians complaining about I ordered a hundred units and you only sent me 80, right?
	So they they had numbers, but uh the invention of zero, or the understanding of zero as a whole and its sort of value in math came came later, at least from what from what we um from what we know.
	So what I think is interesting about this is that somebody wants to make a case.
	What do we get here?
	The concept of zero is first recorded in the ancient Indian bakshali manuscript dating back to the third or fourth century.
	However, earlier uses of a placeholder for zero can be traced back to the Sumerians around 5,000 years ago.
	So that's cool.
	That's cool.
	It's a little uh I thought it was a little later, but very, very early.
	So yeah, so you can get the concept of zero without um uh sort of a modern vacuum, but I I don't believe that zero was the first number that was uh invented.
	I would assume it would be one or something like that.
	Okay, I don't know for sure, I don't know if anyone knows for sure, but it would be unlikely to be zero.
	Anyway, it's an interesting point, right?
	So if I'm rebutting points that you make, and then you say, well, my point of concern was never really talking about the nature of numbers.
	It's like, well, but He brought I mean if you bring numbers up and I disprove you, then saying, well, I never really wanted to talk about numbers is just rude.
	It's just rude.
	And it's saying I'm not having a conversation with you.
	I have an agenda, and I'm using you, Steph, as a prop for my agenda.
	I don't do that.
	And I don't want to subject my audience to that.
	So the reason that people don't like definitions is because I think it's a basic empathy thing.
	And I'm rereading the book, The Science of Evil.
	And the empathy thing is really on my mind.
	So I think there's a certain amount of bullying when you come in with terms, like if you want to have a debate, I have to assume that you have a reasonable level of intelligence.
	Now, anybody with a reasonable level of intelligence, and I would assume this would be anybody with an IQ above 9095, anybody with a reasonable degree of intelligence will know that if you say, can you get something from nothing?
	That's can that's not clear.
	It's not clear what is being meant.
	Are you talking physics?
	Are you talking construction?
	Are you talking baking?
	Are you talking there's a baby here that wasn't here before?
	Like, who knows, right?
	I'm building a house, I don't know.
	Ideas.
	Ideas, I mean, UPB did not exist, and then UPB came into existence.
	A song that you write did not exist, and then it comes into existence when you write it down and you share it and so on, right?
	Even a ditty that's floating through your head.
	So I don't know what it means, can you get something from nothing?
	So then my question is, if you're smart, then you should know that you are using terms that are highly ambiguous.
	And if I were to say, if I were to ask someone a question, I would say, can you get something from nothing?
	And here's what I mean by that, because that would be empathetic.
	I wouldn't put the onus upon the other person.
	So I think that there's a certain amount of dominance play that goes on with these kinds of things.
	So somebody wants to assert something, and they put forward ambiguous terms, fairness, justice, goodness, equality, niceness, forgiveness, existence, right?
	They put forward terms that are debatable, uh, but they refuse to debate these terms.
	So that indicates a lack of empathy.
	If I want to explain something to someone, I have to start by defining my terms.
	If I don't define my terms, I'm steamrollering over them.
	And even if, and I've I've talked about this with callers as well, it's a public show.
	It's a live stream, right?
	So that's important.
	The reason being that if someone comes in with a technical term, and you've heard me say this before, if somebody comes in with a technical term and just blows right past it as if we're not talking to a general audience of non-technical, non-whatever experts, I mean, some of you will be for sure, but not not everyone, then it's important to define your terms.
	I mean, you'll hear me say, usually, uh, epistemology, the study of knowledge or metaphysics, the study of reality, ethics, the study of virtue thought.
	So I'll try to explain my terms.
	Not any, I don't just say the I I'm I advocate the nap.
	When I have a rest, right?
	So a non-aggression principle, thou shalt not initiate force, so on.
	Right.
	So when someone comes in with ambiguous terms and wants to steamroll past any questions you have about definitions, and then views your attempts to understand where they're coming from as tangents or interruptions, uh, I think it's just a dominance play.
	I think it's just a dominance play.
	And I think that's why when the dominance play is interrupted by asking for definitions by dominance play, I simply mean that they wish to enter from a superior hierarchical position as if they're a boss or someone who's in charge of your life, and dominate the conversation and use you as leverage, particularly in a public show like this, use you as leverage to get their ideas out to the audience.
	And if if their goal is I'm going to use your public platform to get my arguments out to the audience or my assertions out to the audience, if that's their goal, that's a dominance play.
	And it's dishonest.
	Now, when I ask for definitions, I'm interrupting their goal of using my platform To get their ideas out to my audience.
	They view it as a tangent.
	They view it as an interruption.
	They view it as a side quest.
	Like, what do you mean you want me to define my terms, right?
	Num zero is the first invented number.
	It's like, okay, make your case.
	Because people don't really experience nothing.
	But vacuums.
	It's like, but that's modern.
	You're talking about ancient history.
	So their goal is to use to not have a reasoned conversation, not to make a case, not to engage in a good faith debate, but simply to use my platform to get their ideas out to the audience, then they view my request for definitions as an interference to that, right?
	And I think, you know, when you have the goal, you want to drive to some town, and then you start your drive, and the road is closed.
	Oh man, that's annoying.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So we'll I'll try some reroute.
	Or whatever.
	Okay, I'll try some other route.
	Oh man, there's a parade.
	Oh, good lord.
	Okay, I'm gonna turn back.
	Oh, come on, that's a train.
	There's a car crash, the road's washed out.
	I'm never getting to this town.
	So you have a goal to get to the town.
	And you view interruptions to that goal as annoying.
	And I think that's the way that it goes.
	So just if you're in your life and people are talking to you.
	They say, uh, hey, you gotta show respect.
	It's like, well, what do you mean by respect?
	Is it mutual?
	Is it universal?
	Like help me understand what you mean by respect.
	Gotta be nice.
	Okay, does nice involve being dishonest?
	Or I mean, should I lie?
	If somebody's really overweight, should I pretend that they're not?
	Should I lie?
	Uh just ask people to define the terms.
	Otherwise, they're dominating you.
	Domination is thwarted by asking for definitions.
	Because definitions means that we're equals.
	And if somebody's trying to dominate you and use you, control you, definitions will thwarp that process, and they would get progressively more annoyed.
	And say, look, my goal is to get to this town, which is to get my ideas out using your platform.
	Your definitions are just road closed, there's a parade, there's a train, there's a car crash, the road is washed out.
	It's just annoying.
	You're in the way of me using your platform to get my ideas out.
	And I won't do that.
	Listen, I'm I'm fiercely protective of you, the lovely audience.
	I really am.
	I don't want bad ideas to get into your head.
	So if people are promoting bad ideas or bad faith debates, I will call them out.
	Because I don't want to be a platform by which bad ideas get to people.
	That would be being a kind of disease vector.
	Alright.
	And name, thank you for your patience.
	I am all ears.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Hey, can you hear me okay?
	Yes, Larry, go ahead.
	Awesome.
	Just wanted to use your platform to get my opinions out.
	Do it.
	Do it.
	I'll take an end.
	So you were talking and I wrote down some notes, and uh I just wanted to kind of make the case for why I think this happens.
	Um I think that people just generally want to have their opinions and they just want to express them with as little resistance as possible.
	Hang on, sorry to interrupt.
	So I really apologize for interrupting in the beginning.
	I don't know no problem with people having their opinions.
	Like if if someone comes uh calls up and says, you know, I think that goat voiced Fahuza is a wonderful singer, I'm like, hey, there's nothing to disagree with, because it's an opinion.
	But when people come in with facts, right?
	Zero was the first number invented, that's not an opinion, right?
	So opinions, opinions is no problem.
	You can like the color red, and I can like the color blue, and we have no conflicts, right?
	Correct.
	But if I say the wavelength of blue is the same as the wavelength of red, then I'm claiming an objective fact, and then we we have something to mediate.
	I'm sorry, go ahead.
	No, no, yeah, absolutely right on.
	Um but I I think with the people that you tend to speak to that, you know, that the conversation goes down this road, generally it's the most emotional people, the ones that are most excited to explain to you why they think that you're wrong, right?
	And um usually when you have these conversations, from what I've noticed is when you start going down that that that road of, hey, I need you to define your terms, uh, they generally start complaining.
	They they say things like, well, this isn't what I wanted to talk about, right?
	Which is what's talking past each other, uh uh this is this is not the point that I'm trying to get to, and I'm like, don't tell me what the point of the conversation is, we're having a conversation.
	We both get to participate.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Correct.
	No, no, yes, yeah, absolutely.
	And um, which I I thought I thought I think that that's kind of telling, uh, in my opinion.
	Um, and I I think people are honestly afraid to set their definitions.
	Um because once they set their definitions, it's now something that they can't wiggle out of, right?
	Uh you they've given you a concrete term in which you have to have the discussion using those terms because they've defined them.
	And once they set that standard, uh, it really opens them up to the possibility of being wrong about something.
	And I think that people have such a great fear of being wrong that when you start asking these questions of what do you mean by this definition, or what are you talking about, or how did you get to that that whatever you got to, um, they have that fear that they're gonna be trapped, right?
	Like they're not gonna be able to get out once they once they start explaining their their position.
	Kind of like the way that you would talk to a police officer or a lawyer or right, or or uh a judge in a court case, like once they start asking you questions, like that is the fact.
	And these people that speak to you, they get emotional that that can't define their position, it's almost like they need a way out, right?
	So that even if they have the conversation with you, and even if it appears that they're wrong, well, they can just lean back and say, yeah, well, that's not what I meant.
	He didn't understand any of that, right?
	So I don't know, it just feels like a tactic to not have to define your terms so that you don't have to commit to the conversation.
	You can just commit to whatever it is you feel like you want to say.
	And when you say that it feels like you're just steamrolling ahead, that that's exactly what it feels like.
	Um one example that comes to mind is you got people that go to campuses and they just say something like, what is a woman, right?
	And people get infuriated by that question because they just do not want to define it.
	Because once they define it, now they're locked in and now they can't get out because they they've defined it from their own mouth.
	So I feel like that's the challenge um that you're facing when you talk to these people who disagree with you.
	Uh one thing that I will say, and I I hope this helps.
	This is just an observation on my side, is that when you start getting into that type of conversation, uh, they start making mistakes.
	And when they start making mistakes upon mistake upon mistake, you you continue to interrupt to say, well, well, now hold on, that's not right.
	And and one example that comes to mind was the uh the the dude that was telling you about the Aztec sacrifice to eat the brains and get the dopamine or whatever versus the lobotomies, right?
	Like that exact conversation um just comes to mind.
	And and he he just he couldn't take the conversation because you were you were just laying down the foundation of why these things were happening, and he just he couldn't get around it.
	So I don't know.
	I I just think that you have a lot of conversation with people that are more excited to tell you that you're wrong than explain why you're wrong.
	And it's not to say that you're right or wrong on anything.
	It's just that once you start to get more granular, uh you you start to find out that there's problems with their logic.
	And once you expose that, they get upset, they talk about other things, they bring up different topics, they steamroll, they get mad, they run away, and uh you get frustrated too.
	So just wanted to add that.
	Well, I don't particularly get frustrated, I just get annoyed.
	But and it's interesting now, uh, and I'm you could be right, but let me sort of tell you what I got from what you're saying, other than the reasonable arguments, which I thought were great.
	Is that you said they're excited to share their ideas, but then they're afraid and so on.
	But and I'm curious what your thoughts on this.
	What about the possibility of malevolence?
	Because everything you're talking about is like, well, they're excited, but then they get scared, and it's like talking to the cops and so on, but they're voluntarily coming into a conversation, making claims, and then getting kind of rude when definitions are asked for.
	Do you think, and maybe you're right, but do you think that there's any possibility that they could be acting uh malevolently?
	Oh, I think it's possible.
	I I think it's possible that people have gaps in their knowledge that they haven't identified.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Oh my gosh.
	Well, come on.
	I'm not laughing at you, but I'm talking about malevolence, and you're like, no, no, no, gaps in knowledge.
	It's like that's not benevolence.
	We all have gaps in knowledge.
	Tell me more about malevolence as you as you think you think about that that they're doing it like nefariously.
	Like, what do you mean by that?
	I guess to find your terms.
	I'm trying to understand.
	Yeah, yeah, that's fair.
	I mean, I did talk about it in the introduction, but I'll I'll touch on it again here.
	Maybe you didn't catch the the introduction too much.
	But so the malevolence is I want to use Steph's platform to get my ideas out to the public.
	In other words, I'm gonna pretend to have a debate, but I don't want to have a debate.
	I just want to use his platform in the same way that a guy might pretend he really likes a girl, but he just wants to sleep with her and then ghost her.
	That's that would be malevolent, right?
	Because it's not being honest.
	Now, if somebody were to say, listen, Steph, I just want to get my ideas out here.
	I'm not interested in a debate.
	I'm not gonna define my terms, then I would say, then you need to start your own show because I don't want to uh like I'm not gonna just give you a platform to put out ideas that may be bad without challenging them because this is a philosophy show, not a speaker's corner, right?
	And so if somebody were to say, look, I'm not gonna define my terms, I'm just gonna say my ideas, and then I'm gonna just hang up, I would be like, well, that's not I don't want to do that, right?
	But if they come in and say, I'm going to debate, I'm gonna put forward arguments, and we're gonna have a debate, and it turns out that when I push back, they just get annoyed.
	Then there's a certain amount of uh entitlement or greed or uh lying in order to in order to get resources, right?
	And if people lie in order to get resources, that's kind of bad, right?
	Yeah, that that tries.
	So it may not be that they're excited, and I get the the fear thing like talking to a cops.
	Yeah, but but we don't like talking to the cops because it usually meets her in trouble, right?
	I mean, this is a voluntary philosophy show.
	I'm not I'm not arresting people here, I'm not whoop-whoop pulling people over the side of the road with my flashers, right?
	I mean, so people are voluntarily calling in, so I get the cop analogy.
	Doesn't really work.
	And of course, if they listen if they listen to the show, which I assume most people have, if they call in, uh they know I'm gonna ask for a definition of terms.
	So I'm not saying it's pure malevolence or anything like evil, like hand rubbing stuff, but I'm saying that there is a dishonesty to it.
	And I mean, this guy was uh you didn't see this, of course, but he was insulting me in the chat afterwards, like I don't even understand basic terms.
	Right.
	So when you ask people to define their terms and they get kind of passive aggressive and insulting, and then you say I don't stand for that, and then they further then there's malevolence in that, right?
	Yes, I would agree.
	I I think what you're saying follows uh as far as I understand.
	I have a question for you though.
	Yeah, yeah.
	When when you ask people questions, I get the feeling that they feel that if they give you an answer that they they feel like you might be trapping them in some way.
	And that's why I brought up the police and the lawyer, because they're really, really good at that.
	Um but when you ask a question, they beat around the bush, they don't answer the question, they bring up something else.
	It almost feels like they think you're gonna trap them in in in in a way that ah, now that you've answered it this way, now let me tell you why you're wrong.
	And so they don't.
	Um do you do you feel that at all?
	Do you do you get that?
	Like this hesitancy to answer the questions that you're asking, because they're they're very reasonable.
	Even when you're asking somebody about the rock, do you agree that we have a rock?
	If it's in my hand, it does and the person says, I think it exists.
	Like, what is that?
	Like, what are you trying to weasel out of?
	Can you just answer that that question?
	You know, and and I I'm just wondering if you get that, or if you feel that at all.
	Oh no, of course, yeah.
	People they do feel that they're gonna get trapped and cornered.
	But you know, if if if I'm the way that I sort of view it is like this.
	If I'm new to chess, right, and I've been playing for a week or two, and I go up against somebody who's a world famous chess player with 43 years of experience, and I desperately want to win, I'm not I'm gonna be very paranoid about making a move, right?
	Yeah.
	So what I should do is I should not pretend I'm going to win.
	Like if I'm going up, like I I have a friend, his his kid is like 10, who's he's been studying chess since he was like five.
	Now, I'm a very instinctual chess player.
	I'm I don't remember any moves or and like I just oh I could try this, right?
	I so I'm not I'm not hard to beat by somebody who's who's really skilled.
	Honestly, it's it's really not.
	You know, my daughter started playing a month ago, and she's already um, you know, I made one mistake and I she she just like hammered me and and and I forfeited the game because I just see Yeah, yeah.
	And that's that's fine, that's fair, right?
	So I mean, I get chess, sometimes I can win, but I'm not, I'm not I'm not a skilled chess player.
	I'm just sort of instinctual, which means sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.
	So I I'm sort of aware of those limitations, and so I don't pretend to be some kind of great chess player, right?
	So I'm not I'm not gonna go confidently striding in to a grandmaster with 43 years experience and then get annoyed and and try changing the rules if I'm losing.
	I'm gonna go in and say, okay, this guy's gonna clean my clock.
	Like when I had a boss many years ago who was a semi-professional poker player and he invited me to an exclusive club in Toronto to play poker, I took 500 bucks out of my bank account and I kissed them goodbye.
	Because I mean, it it by sheer fluke I ended up winning an extra 500 bucks.
	Uh they all thought I was a ringer, right?
	But but anyway, I mean, but I was just like, okay, well, goodbye, farewell.
	Uh, you know, go, you know, I I'm gonna I'm gonna lose, but it's gonna be uh memorable and enjoyable or whatever, right?
	So I think that the arrogance is interesting.
	There's this sort of vanity and arrogance that uh, you know, I have been debating.
	I was in the high school debate team, I was in my university debate team, I was vice president of my debate team, I debated all over Canada, came in sixth, my very first year out of thousands and thousands of people, I'm very good at this.
	Doesn't mean of course I'm perfect, doesn't mean I can't make mistakes, blah, blah, blah.
	But I have 43 years of experience in philosophy.
	I guess now that I'm 59, it's 44 years in philosophy, and there is a certain privilege that you get when you just have a lot of experience.
	And so when people come in and, you know, sort of confidently stating their position, that's fine.
	I ask for definitions.
	And it's a it's a funny thing when you're very good at things, and I'm sure I'm sure everybody has this in their life, because I'm, you know, all smart people here, and I'm sure you guys are really, really good at stuff, stuff that way better than I am at some things.
	So when you've had, you know, 44 years experience in things, and even in the business world, the business world involves a lot of debating.
	Where should we spend our money?
	What product should we invest more in?
	Where should we expand our product?
	You know, it's uh you're just debating all the time.
	And even programming computers is a form of debating, because you're trying to create logical reasons why the computer should do what you want.
	So I just have a lot of experience uh with this kind of stuff.
	I've written, you know, 10 books on philosophy and had a billion views and downloads and blah, blah, blah.
	Now, again, that's not an argument of authority, like I'm always right.
	But it means that in order to win, you have to really prepare.
	Like when I uh when I have debates, and and I've even got shows in the premium section where I have a debate coming up.
	I never want to reuse the same arguments I've used before, because people will have studied those and have rebuttals.
	So I will get I will sort of sit there for hours working out new arguments, and I will get a bunch of donors on a call and say, here's what I'm thinking of arguing, does this make sense?
	Tell me where the floors are, and we'll so I'll prepare and rehearse.
	So even after I've been debating for 40 plus years, I still spend hours and hours and hours and get tons of feedback on an upcoming debate.
	I'm still working my ass off, even with all my experience to uh attempt to represent the best I can in a debate.
	So I kind of know what I'm doing.
	And then for people to come in and expect that, like be shocked and annoyed when I ask for definitions, which is the essence of philosophy, uh, means that they're arrogant and entitled.
	And and look, I have some sympathy for young people because tough love is completely out the window.
	Like, and that's because we have an overly feminized educational system and and so on, and sort of dads are absent or kind of cowed by you know wives plus the state or whatever, but for whatever reason, people just haven't been knocked down a peg or put into their place, which is an unpleasant thing.
	I mean, I remember being at a karaoke contest, and I was doing okay.
	I was doing okay.
	And then some guy with the voice of an absolute angel came and nailed uh unchained melody by the Righteous Brothers, and I'm like, okay, if I'm not I can't do that, right?
	I could sing a little, but I can't do that.
	And so it's just like, okay, so so that guy's really good.
	Really good.
	So just knowing where you are in the pecking order is really important.
	Because if you think you're really good, but you're not, you won't improve.
	If people want to debate, which is great, you you should, life is about debating.
	Life is about debating.
	You get what you negotiate.
	And if people want to debate, I think that's great.
	But there's something about I I think it's got a uh it's the failure of the boomers to be respectful.
	Oh, sorry, to be worthy of respect.
	I think that young people look at old people these days as absolute buffoons.
	And I'm not gonna entirely disagree with them, of course, right?
	But I was raised by the greatest generation, the the pre-boomers, right?
	And and so those were people who had some some grit, some gristle.
	They knew how to put you in your place, how to take you down a peg, so that you had something to grow to, something to to improve upon.
	And they were they were blunt and they were frank when something was bad, they said this is bad, uh, and so on.
	And we've got, I think, two generations now that have never run up against that hard wall of you're not good at this.
	And you know, this doesn't mean you're always going to be bad at this, but right now you're pretty bad, and that's fine.
	You know, and I I remember even in theater school, there was an old woman, older woman, she was pretty she was kind of old, and she'd come up from New York, and she was really harsh.
	She was really harsh.
	And I I I've said this story before, so I'll keep it really brief.
	But uh we had to just do, she just gave us an exercise of like three minutes doing something around the house.
	Don't act just right.
	And I I came in with this big idea that I was gonna I was gonna be unpacking my laundry and I was gonna put a sock on my hands and I was gonna sing a Sam Cook song, pretending my sock was singing and all of that kind of stuff, and I mean it was and she's like, that's bad.
	Like you'd never you would never do that, that's totally fake.
	You're acting, and that's really, really bad.
	And I was like, ah, you know, like anyway, so then uh we we did everyone did the exercise twice, and then the second exercise, I uh pretended to be coming out of the shower, I lay down on the bed, and I um I actually bought in my CD player and I put on uh a Pink Floyd album and put on my headphones and just closed my eyes.
	And I did that for three minutes, and she said, perfect.
	Like, what a difference.
	What a difference, right?
	So she was really harsh, and we were all nervous, and but she also gave praise where praise was due.
	And it was a very big lesson for me to not be too showy and to just be authentic and do things that are real and listen to instructions and don't show off or whatever it is, right?
	And of course, in the business world, things are pretty harsh.
	You just don't get the contract or you don't get the raise or whatever it is, or you don't provide value, or you get fired, which has happened once or twice in my life.
	But it doesn't it doesn't really happen to the young generation because they don't respect the older generation, and because they don't respect the older generation, you have this cult of youth.
	And they think, well, you know, young people, they can run faster, they're better at video games, they know brain rot terms, they, you know, uh they're they're they're prettier, their skin is smoother, they don't have gray hair, they're not bald, and they're just cooler.
	And, you know, this cult of youth is really dangerous because it means that all of the lessons hard won by the older generation don't transmit down.
	So I don't deserve deference for my experience.
	But what I want to really push back against is if you are going up against someone with close to half a century of hard tested experience, don't be overconfident.
	You know I'm gonna ask for definitions.
	You know I'm gonna ask for definitions.
	Have those definitions ready.
	But if you just go in half cocked, right?
	And And aren't prepared, you're gonna get smacked down.
	And that's not a cruel thing.
	Right?
	I mean, if if I'm going up against Mike Tyson and I don't even train, I'm gonna get smacked down.
	Right?
	Because who am I to think that that you know Mike Tyson in his prime was a beast, right?
	And who am I to think that Mike Tyson who spent you know thousands and thousands and thousands of hours training and punching and beating and experience, you know, like well who am I to just oh yeah, I'm just gonna step in the ring and and like again, I know that's a sort of an aggressive uh metaphor.
	You can sort of put put anything in there.
	If I'm going up against somebody who's got 20 years' experience at the highest level of judo, and I get my ass handed to me, I mean, what was I expecting?
	And I I think that that it's unkind to the young to pretend that experience has no value.
	And it is important that they're gonna face real trials in their life, and really bad people are gonna try really to do really bad things to them.
	And they better be prepared.
	And this is one of the reasons why when you were talking about, well, they're excited and they're scared, and say, Yeah, it could be.
	They could also be malevolent.
	They could be.
	And it certainly does seem to be the case that when people are smacked down, and I've had this happen in the business world as well, when people are smacked down and sort of put in their place or taken down a peg, that's tough.
	But it is a necessary process because otherwise the old or the aged can't transmit their wisdom down if the young is so arrogant to think that the aged have nothing, that someone who has no training, no experience, has obviously never studied philosophy, has never read Plato's dialogues, and is probably the smartest guy in a you know, big fish in a little pond.
	He's probably the smartest guy in his social circle, and therefore he can talk rings around everyone else.
	Fine, okay.
	So if you are the best chess player in your local chess club, that's great, that's fine.
	But recognize that when you move up to a different level.
	Like I was the best actor in my university, because I was always cast in the lead.
	I didn't even have to audition, and I was in, I don't know, a dozen plays, or half half a dozen plays, hang on.
	So uh but then when I went to the National Theater School, I was not the best actor there.
	I mean, no question, there were better actors there than me.
	And I had to sort of adjust my expectations accordingly.
	So I'm so sorry, go ahead.
	Um Yeah, so so just uh question, and and this will be my last contribution, and I'll just move on.
	Um I think that people are very excited to tell you something because they already have those thoughts and those opinions and those stances fleshed out in the way that they want to tell you.
	But I think they're scared and terrified to be challenged on on those thoughts that they have.
	Then they should prepare.
	They should.
	And and and and they don't, right?
	And so that's my question.
	I mean, if I was going up against Mike Tyson, I'd be really scared and I would train like crazy.
	I would just walk in there, get knocked out and say Mike Tyson cheated.
	But to keep to the analogy of the chess, and again, this will just be my last bit, um, when they sit down with you, uh you you are playing a game of chess, but once they make a bad move, or once it looks like they're gonna make a bad move, you is the master, you you bring a lot of teaching to this in the form of asking questions and challenging.
	And if you're playing chess, you know, think about think if you were playing a grandmaster, every single move, they might be like, oh, are you sure you want to do that?
	Because this is gonna happen, and this is gonna you probably shouldn't do that, right?
	That's what I did.
	And that's exactly the percentline.
	But that's what I did.
	I said, you know, I don't think this is a debate thing.
	I you know, I don't think this is I you're just asserting things, or I don't quite understand what you mean by nothingness, right?
	So I'm being quite gentle and saying, hey, you know, if you could explain this, I'd really appreciate it being sort of very nice.
	I'm nice, and I've always said this.
	I'm I treat people the best I can when I first meet them.
	After that, I treat them as they treat me.
	And if he starts to get pissy and aggressive, okay, we can go there.
	Well, well, well, you you are.
	You you absolutely are.
	So I I I would also contend that you are.
	Um, but to the person who's trying to make that move, uh, as you know in chess, there there's a timer.
	There's a timer, you know, everyone, each person has their own time to make their own moves.
	And a vacuum.
	Well, there isn't a timer, sorry.
	I mean, they can't, but not by the way.
	Well, is it like in competitive chess?
	Like there's like a timer, right?
	Well, so yeah, certainly in a live debate, you can't sort of say, I'll get back to you in three hours, just wait.
	But as that time dwindles down, and as you challenge every single move that they make, because they you're able to see things that they can't, uh, these people, they just get frustrated, and and that's when they flip the board, and that's when they're not going to be able to do it, but they can't let me.
	No, no.
	You keep giving them helplessness and child vibes and excited and scared, and they just can't.
	Of course they can.
	They just have to have prepared.
	Well, they can, but then they're gonna get their ass whooped just like Mike Tyson.
	No, no.
	No, what they can do is do what I do, even with all my experience.
	And James, if he was like not going somewhere, he could he would tell you every single time I've had a debate.
	I go over every possible argument.
	I go over counter-arguments.
	I plot it out, I draw it out, I've still got the diagrams in my notes somewhere.
	I prepare.
	Even though I've been doing it for decades, I prepare.
	I don't just wander in and then get my ass handed to me and then complain that the person is cheated.
	Yeah, and and and eventually they they start to try to cheat the rules, they try to make moves that that they can't do within the confines of the game.
	And so yeah, they'll they'll say things like, oh, well, you know, time ran out, he didn't need me, I'm not wrong.
	And so I'm not sure.
	Yeah, he wasn't listening, uh, you know, yelled at me and give that perspective.
	That's all.
	That's all.
	Well, and listen, I mean, this this is a perpetual debate in philosophy, which you and I aren't going to resolve here.
	I I think I'm more open to the argument from malevolence than you are, but I think that people can be malevolent.
	I think that they can be false and lying and manipulative and petty and vengeful and and they can be malevolent.
	And uh I don't assume that, of course, at the beginning of conversations, but uh they can also be ridiculously hypocritical, right?
	Where people who are like, well, I don't know if Aztecs eating children's brains is wrong, but I know that you asking for definitions is really bad.
	That's just hypocritical, right?
	That's like having zero.
	I don't know that a rock exists, but I know that you're being rude, Steph.
	You know, that's just that's sad.
	And that that is and and I view uh and I view this kind of stuff as a as as a virus.
	And I view myself as kind of an immune system uh to to the audience, if that makes sense.
	I I view myself as if I don't say something, if I don't mount a robust defense or expose the negativity, hostility or malevolence that uh people are going to use my platform to harm people's capacity for clear thought.
	And so if I've got someone on the show who says, Well, I don't know that rocks exist, I can't just leave that lie.
	Because I cannot have I cannot be responsible for spending 44 years in philosophy for reason and evidence and then have people come and take a lung dump all over the intellectual food I'm delivering to my audience.
	I just can't do it.
	And I will fight grimly, I will fight hard, I will fight with intransigence in the same way that if you get an infection, you want your immune system to take no quarter and to kill off that virus so you don't get sepsis and die.
	I know that sounds like kind of uh strong and harsh, but it it's one thing if I was in a private conversation with somebody who didn't know that rocks were real, I just Good luck.
	You know, I I wouldn't I wouldn't have I mean I might spend a minute or two trying to save them from their own radical skepticism, and I think that people dissolve reality in their minds fundamentally because they have a really bad conscience and they've done terrible things in their life and they don't want to have reality.
	But if it was a private conversation, I wouldn't.
	I wouldn't particularly care.
	Uh but if it's a public conversation and I have platformed someone, if they say things that are harmful to the minds and morals of my audience, then I am responsible for stopping that transmission.
	I am responsible for stopping the transmission of corrupt ideas to my audience.
	Uh it's something I take uh very seriously indeed.
	And this is not just, of course, on these sort of life talks, but you know, even when it comes to uh ex posts and so on, if somebody is promoting something egregious and wrong and false and bad and toxic and all of that, I'm like, no, you know, hey, if uh and I'm not gonna go around hunting people down If you've got your own platform, do your own thing.
	But if I'm responsible, you know, like it's it's one thing if your friend meets some girl who turns out to be kind of nutty, I mean, you'd care, but you'd care more if you're the one who introduced your friend to this girl, right?
	Oh man, she's great, she's honest, she's hardworking, she's moral, she's humble, she's a faction, and then she turns out to be a real bonny bunny boiling psycho, you'd feel pretty bad because you encouraged and introduced your friend to this girl.
	And so if people are coming up to talk to me and to talk to the millions of people who are going to listen to all of this stuff down the road.
	I mean, this is this is an important conversation, all of us involved here.
	This is an important conversation in the history of philosophy.
	This is philosophy has never been done this way before.
	It's never been done where a philosopher engages with the general population in a productive and assertive manner that is recorded for all time.
	I mean, I'm sure that uh you know Schopenhauer and Hegel and uh uh maybe not Nietzsche, but but they had lots of conversations with people, but they were never recorded.
	They had lots of arguments and debates with people, but they were never recorded.
	Uh we only know what they've wrote.
	We don't know how that kind of interacted.
	Socrates spent his whole life talking with people but never wrote anything down, and of course, his conversations for obvious technical reasons were never recorded.
	So this is the first time that a philosopher is recorded having interactions with the general uh population.
	Uh I mean, there's not a whole lot of I mean, I I think that um oh gosh, what's his name?
	The I can't sorry, I can't remember his name right now, but I did a show with him once or twice.
	He's street epistemology guy bringing on atheism, but then he would nuts over Trump, so that doesn't really uh count.
	But this is kind of new, and because it's new, it's going to be studied quite extensively in the future, and I cannot have people like if somebody thinks that a rock doesn't exist, they're mentally ill.
	And now I don't believe that that guy really believes that a rock doesn't exist because of the way that he's acting.
	But if somebody genuinely doesn't even believe that a rock exists, they would be crazy.
	That would be insane.
	They would be psychotic.
	And again, I'm not saying this guy is any of that because I think it was just a sort of pose or a hipster bit of uh intellectual trash, but but I can't I can't let that I can't let my audience be like, wow, yeah, maybe what if rocks don't exist?
	Like I can't have that be passed across the airwaves that I have any kind of influence or say over.
	So I can't just say, oh, you're crazy and hang up because I'm not answering the question, and I need to follow it through to its conclusion, but I will not let that stuff stand because it's poisonous to the minds of fine listeners such as yourself, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, and um I I think you're really, really good at observing that and identifying that or that breakdown is.
	Um I think that you are going to see this from now until the end of time until you decide that you're done.
	And I hope, I hope, I hope, I hope uh you are able to develop some kind of methodology or technique to find a way past that so that we can quickly get to you know, telling them that that they're wrong and proving to them that they're wrong because of X, Y, and Z. So usually it's not more than five minutes, so I think it's really efficient.
	And the other thing too, and I know I know you gotta go and I'll I'll take the next caller, but the other thing too is that you know, these weren't voluntarily acquired skills.
	Like my mother is metaphysically uh crazy, like crazy.
	Uh believes in supernatural beings, higher powers, that she can knit psychic helmets to protect people from malign thoughts.
	Uh, she is really heavily mystical, and so for me, uh fighting back the immune system that I have with regards to people saying crazy stuff is you say, Oh, I'm good at it.
	It's like, well, yeah, thanks.
	But, you know, if if you spend your whole life as a child having rocks thrown at you, you get pretty good at catching and dodging.
	And then you learn to throw them back.
	And and so it is an emergency skill that I have developed that I hope to turn to the good of mankind.
	So I thank you.
	Really appreciate the conversation.
	It's great, great thoughts.
	All right.
	Hey, Garth.
	A Gartha, what is on your mind?
	What is on my mind?
	Um a lot about this topic.
	Um in general.
	I'm always happy to be on here, and I greatly appreciate it a lot.
	A second question is could I get like a follow back and um oh my bad, my mind kind of like paused a bit.
	So uh one of the things I wanted to touch up on is how different philosophies will approach um like different arguments on what is right, like what's wrong.
	So for instance, um like let's say a utilitarian, they might have a different view in terms of how to approach um like a criminal as compared to like let's suppose uh more like libertarian philosophies as compared to let's say uh a Christian, like certain like views on that sense.
	So are you asking me to unpack the differences in approaches of these schools of thought, or is there more that you wanted to add?
	Or I I don't want to uh step on your toes if you're starting a topic.
	Uh oh yeah, it's like whenever it comes to down to that sort of stuff, uh you know, I think to myself in the sense of like proportional force and like things like rehabilitation, that's more of a utilitarian approach, thinking, all right.
	No, I could probably get more use out of this uh criminal where instead of let's say shooting them just for trespassing on my property, that might be a better like libertarian approach.
	So I'm still not sure what your question is because it's kind of a scatter shot of general force and legal theories.
	If you could just narrow down, I I don't want to answer something that's sort of based upon my own impulses.
	I want to make sure I'm addressing what your uh focus is.
	So uh if you could narrow it down to Smidch, I'd appreciate it.
	My bad, like my mind like I'm kind of like a deer in the headlights um from like the previous uh conversation.
	Oh, like sort of processing my conversation with the last caller?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, listen, I think I think it's a fascinating topic.
	I'm certainly happy to talk about the different philosophical approaches to criminality.
	I mean, I I love the topic, so uh, but I want to I just want to make sure you I don't sort of give a speech and you're like, bro, that's nothing to do with what I was asking about.
	So I mean, if you want to just unleash me on that topic, I'm thrilled to do it.
	If there's something you'd like me to be more focused on, I'm happy to take that approach too.
	Uh oh, thank you.
	Um so uh only other thing would be like um Wait, wait, but you didn't answer the question.
	Do you want me to just unleash at some point on different philosophical approaches to criminality?
	Or yes, uh that that sounds like a great topic.
	Okay, I'll do that, but if there's something else you wanted to add, I'm I'm happy to hear.
	Thank you.
	All right, so I appreciate that.
	Okay.
	So uh it's a great topic, and um if other people want to jump in, um I'm happy to have you talk about that as well, and it is a completely fascinating and deep topic about criminality.
	So we'll just talk about criminality from a libertarian standpoint.
	So criminality is the initiation of the use of force or fraud.
	Fraud, a little more complex, but let's just deal with the basics, rape, theft, assault, and murder.
	So rape, theft, assault, and murder are violations of persons and property and uh and are harmful.
	Now the question of proportional force is uh interesting.
	Most common law systems will say that you can only use force in self-defense proportional to what the offense is.
	So most common law systems will say that you can only use violence and particularly lethal violence when you have a reasonable fear of imminent and grievous bodily harm or death.
	So, you know, if if someone slaps you across the face, that is not imminent grievous bodily harm.
	Grievous bodily harm is something that's going to put you in the hospital or you know, perhaps permanently alter your physiology for the worst, and so on.
	So generally now, how that gets adjudicated is not a matter of philosophy.
	Philosophy is there to say what is right and what is wrong in principle.
	Philosophy is not there to say what is right or wrong in every individual instance because that can vary.
	So for instance, physics will give you laws that apply all across the universe, but physics will not tell you what is the best design for a bridge in India, because the best design For a bridge in India is to do with engineering, which has to do with um material cost and uh tensile strength needed in worst-case scenarios like in in the CN Tower in Canada, it's a giant structure.
	There's a glass floor which can take the weight of eight, sorry, a four hippopotami.
	So it's it's a lot.
	You can jump up and down, it feels like you're a looney tunes carry to the run off a cliff just jumping up and down.
	It's kind of kind of disorienting.
	I used to take uh business partners to there uh from time to time when I was in the business world.
	So the difference between philosophy and a court is the difference between physics and engineering.
	So engineering has to take into account the laws of physics, but there are particular individual instances that the law of physics cannot answer.
	So the law of physics can't tell you if a footbridge or like what what a footbridge should be made of.
	Now you can over-engineer a footbridge that's just gonna take a couple of people walking across a little stream.
	You can over-engineer that footbridge and you can make it so that it could take the weight of four hippopotami, but that's over-engineering, right?
	And so the laws of physics will say here are the universal physical properties of matter energy, but engineering is specific instances that always has to obey the laws of physics, but the laws of physics cannot say how each bridge should be made.
	In the same way, the laws of morality cannot tell you how every individual case should be adjudicated.
	But there can be no justice in any individual case without reference to universal moral laws.
	So I just sort of wanted to point that out.
	Because people are like, well, but what about this and what about that?
	And so on.
	So if somebody you know puts his foot on your property, he's not doing you any particular harm.
	So you don't get to shoot him.
	You get to say, hey, can you get off my property?
	And if he leaves his foot on your property, which again is kind of a weird thing, like who does that, but you know, whatever you can we can entertain a couple of theoreticals.
	At some point theoretically, could I place landmines on my property then blow his foot off instead?
	Like, would that be like that wouldn't be any worse?
	I'm I'm at any um I I mean like that would be like more justified, like if I instead had that on my property.
	No, it wouldn't be justified.
	It wouldn't be justified because you are killing him when he's not harming anything about your body.
	So he's doing you zero physical harm, and you are destroying his entire life physically.
	So that's disproportionate, right?
	I mean, I thought my property is an extension of my body, therefore I can defend it using lethal force.
	Well, okay, let me ask you this.
	Would you rather somebody steal a pencil of yours or cut off your arm?
	Steal a pencil.
	Right.
	But hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on.
	So would you rather somebody steal your car or take your kidneys or a kidney, right?
	And so on, right?
	So that which is against our body is worse in general than that which is against our property.
	And for the simple reason that if somebody takes your property, you will feel emotional pain, but not physical pain.
	Uh this is where I'm gonna say I would rather have someone um slap me across the face than to take uh a dollar from my wallet.
	Really?
	You'd rather be slapped in the face than somebody take a dollar from your wallet if you leave it in your desk, saying you go for uh the washroom or whatever, right?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	What if you were on a date?
	If I were on a date, it would be different.
	Okay, why?
	Because then I'd have a woman and just like who my reputation overall would be more valuable in that respect.
	So I've never had anyone make size emasculation.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	In that sense, though.
	It's like, yes, I on their normal circumstances.
	Uh if someone slaps me, yeah, I might turn the other cheek and do the Christian thing like that, but then uh offer it a slap box them.
	Offer to front of a woman, it's a different story.
	Okay.
	So help me understand, because if somebody slaps you across the face, it is humiliating, right?
	Well, I look at it like this.
	Um it can be, but like at the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
	Oh no, it is It is.
	Come on.
	No, no, no, don't give me this.
	It can be.
	If somebody slaps you across the face, it's humiliating.
	And now you have a problem because that person has now put you in a situation.
	What do you do after somebody slaps you in the face?
	Do you slap them back?
	Do you retreat?
	Do they hang on, let me finish.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	I'm let me let me finish my thought.
	Let's not do this thing where you start over talking me in the middle of a sentence, right?
	So if somebody slaps you across the face, you have a problem that goes forward in time.
	Which is okay, do you hit them back?
	And if you don't hit them back, are they gonna escalate from there?
	Right?
	So obviously somebody who just slaps you in the face for no reason is kind of a crazy person, maybe a sadist or mean or cruel, or they want to dominate you in some manner.
	So somebody slapping you in the face is the start of a fairly significant problem, or it could be, because you have to worry about the person coming back, or are they gonna escalate, or what do you do back in return?
	And let's say you slap them back and then they slap you back even harder.
	Well, now you're in a situation where things are gonna escalate and you might end up having to use significant amounts of force.
	So being slapped to the face is not the start and end of the story.
	Now, you could of course say, but somebody who takes a dollar from your wallet and so on, it's like, well then just keep your wallet on you.
	Right?
	And and it doesn't escalate in the same way.
	So I I've never hurt the argument, and doesn't mean you're wrong, but I I I've never heard the argument that I'd rather get slapped in the face and somebody take a dollar from my wallet because being slapped in the face is the beginning of a set of problems that are quite complex and difficult.
	Whereas if somebody takes a dollar from your wallet, you can just keep your wallet on you or lock it in your desk or something like that.
	At the end of the day, the problem is not is not uh as great.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Uh yeah, it's like a few different things.
	Number one, I I'm a pretty big dude, so if if they slap me, like let's suppose someone jokingly slaps me in the face, like all right, okay.
	No, no, you know, you you can't just insert the word jokingly.
	Oh, because then then you're doing something like you know, that tortilla thing where you roll up a tortilla and smack each other in the face.
	So you can't just insert the word jokingly and think you're dealing with the same situation.
	Uh oh, all right, fine.
	But like let's suppose a random like I would rather have a random stranger slap me in the face and then take a dollar from me.
	All right.
	If they take a dollar from me, I'm using legal voice.
	Hold on, I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt.
	I'm sorry to interrupt.
	Let's just play this out, right?
	So, how tall are you?
	I'm like I'm like 250 pounds, but I'm like 5'10.
	Five plus I mean, I'm like 20-ish percent body fat.
	Okay.
	You're 5'10 and 250 pounds.
	Yeah, I'm a pretty fat dude.
	Yeah, you're fine, man.
	Like, if we can't establish that that's fat, I don't know where we go from here.
	I mean, I could post myself in the jumbotron at like 235.
	Like, yeah, I am fat, but like I'm not like I mean, I'm not terribly out of shape.
	What?
	I I mean I'm out of shape right now, but you know what, I'll I'll post a picture of myself real quick.
	All right, okay.
	I'm gonna BMI this.
	Alright, but like that's my thought like that.
	You've got to be, I mean, maybe not morbidly obese, but you gotta be obese.
	And again, I'm I'm not trying to be mean or anything.
	Um calculator.
	All right, give me that.
	BMI calculator.
	Here we go.
	What a beautiful.
	FFMI or body fat percent.
	All right.
	Height is five feet, 10 inches, 250 pounds.
	My 5.8.
	Your BMI is 35.9, which is five points above obesity.
	So uh uh healthy is 18.6 to 24.9, overweight is 25 to 29.9, obesity is 30 or above, and you're almost 36.
	Well I I mean, like a decent amount of that's gonna be like muscle tissue, so really.
	I mean, look at myself in this picture though.
	What?
	Uh you see uh why post in the jumbotron, that's myself.
	Uh what?
	Is that in the what is that?
	Uh it uh it's in uh right above you in the jumbotron.
	I'm not sure.
	Like, is that in that on X?
	Uh yeah, yeah.
	Uh you see my uh picture I posted.
	I don't know how to get to the chat here.
	Hang on, remove listener speakers, let me just get to the chat here.
	Uh where is the chat?
	I don't know.
	Uh yeah, I I'm on a phone here, so I I'm not sure exactly how to get to the chat exactly.
	So uh but no, I mean, look, bro, I mean, I I get that if you're, you know, it's severely massively ripped or something, but you said you're not particularly in shape.
	I mean, like, I'm not at my best, like my pig, but like I'm better for most of the time.
	Come on, let's know.
	I mean, look, let's let's not cope with this.
	Let's just call it what it is.
	Yeah, I'm fine.
	I have terribly.
	I I'm just under six feet, and I maxed out once at about two twenty-three-to-twenty-four.
	How much do you think?
	I'm now one ninety.
	Hang on, I'm now one ninety-three.
	When I was too t and I was still working out, and when I was two twenty-three, two twenty-four, about thirty pounds up.
	So I'm almost two inches taller than you, and I was fat, or at least severely chunky when I was two twenty-four.
	If you're two inches shorter than me and you've got an extra twenty-five pounds, bro, you're fat.
	Well, yeah, I I was fat, like I wasn't stage weight ripped.
	But like when I was like at your weight, this was like back 2019.
	I could bench uh I benched 365 for like five, so and was squatting 405 after.
	Okay, are I talking to you in 2019?
	What is what is 2020?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	I know.
	I mean like I don't look that much different from my previous.
	Like, so what does that have to do with now?
	I mean, I don't look that much different from my previous self, so uh so I mean this is an emotional thing, and look, I sympathize.
	I really do.
	But this is an emotional thing.
	That you don't like the fact that you're obese.
	And and but I'm not I'm not gonna again, you know, I just had this whole conversation where I'm not gonna be able to do that.
	But like even myself, like when I work in a different now, hang on, now you're doing the thing.
	See, it's this kind of impulsivity that probably has you overeating, right?
	Like you can't restrain yourself even from talking when I'm talking, right?
	So I've just, you know, listen, you you're obese.
	And doesn't mean you have to stay that way, but you don't give me the what you what you benched six years ago.
	I mean, I I could give you like what I benched like last year, so I was still benching like three plates, like repping it out.
	So But you said you're out of shape now.
	I mean, right now I let myself go like quite a bit.
	Okay, so I gained like 15 pounds.
	But like not everything entirely deteriorated.
	No, you gained more than 15 pounds, bro.
	No, I only gained like 15 pounds since like this picture I posted in the jumbotron.
	No, no.
	But if you've let yourself go, what's happened to your muscle mass?
	Yeah, I know it decreased a bit.
	Like I'm a bit m floppier now.
	A bit.
	Yeah.
	No, no.
	Muscle mass you have to maintain.
	Uh I I know, I know, but like it doesn't like all go away like overnight.
	Yes, I'm a fat fuck.
	I probably gained like an additional ten percent body fat.
	Okay, so all I'm saying is that if you've gained 15 pounds but you stopped working out, you've lost muscle mass, and it's you and I and everybody knows muscle mass weights quite a bit more than than fat.
	So if you've stopped working out and you've gained weight, you've gained more than 15 pounds of fat because you've lost muscle mass.
	Yeah, I probably gained like 25, 30 pounds of fat.
	Oh, why do you think that is?
	What what's going on in your life that's not a good thing?
	Oh, why?
	I honestly just like a whole bunch of issues in life.
	Um it's a long story.
	And uh is it stress eating?
	It's not even stress eating.
	Like my metabolism slows down so much, it's insane.
	Um I actually eat a lot more when I am in shape.
	Well, everybody does.
	Yeah, because your muscles are eating food all the time, right?
	Even when you're sleeping, your muscles are consuming calories.
	Of course.
	So it's not stress-eating.
	No.
	It's it's honestly more depression.
	Okay.
	And listen, I I really sympathize with that.
	And like I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything like that, but again, we sort of have to uh, you know, the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names.
	And what's going on with your depression?
	Um to say the least, I did a whole bunch of uh I mean I'd rather talk to you on my uh other account.
	Okay, listen, don't yeah, don't talk about anything you're uncomfortable with.
	I'm I just listen, I just want to give you a big bear hug and and a lot of sympathy.
	Because life can, you know, life can kick your ass up and down the street.
	And sometimes it feels like you're just falling forever, and and you know, I really so I just really want to give, you know, big man bear hug sympathy to you, and yeah, if you want to talk again, you can book a private call or a call-in show, whatever, you can go to freedomain.com slash call.
	But I just want to give you a big hug and say, listen, man, I mean I've been up and down over the course of my life, and uh, you know, the downs are tough, and the ups, you know, once you've had some downs, the ups feel almost like you almost get suspicious, the ups and all of that.
	So uh I just really wanted to say I'm really sorry for what you're going through.
	And uh, you know, I'm sort of it's annoying and and and basic to say it will pass.
	Life will improve, things will get better, but try not to make the kind of decisions that make things worse.
	And please, please, please get back to working out.
	I mean, I know it's, you know, what's it that that's meme?
	Like there's only only a few ways out of depression for men, like lifting weights is is one of them, and I think that's important because you know that thing where you gain weights and then you feel bad, and because you feel bad, you don't work out, and then because you don't work out, you gain more weight, and then you feel worse trying to avoid like you've got to do something to interrupt what can be kind of a downward spiral, and you know, my strong advice is uh sunshine, love, and moving cold metal in a dark room.
	It seems to be the thing.
	So, all right, so let me uh sympathies, just big sympathies for that, and you know, life life can be an ugly bear and a beast, particularly when you're trying to do good in the world.
	Life can be an ugly bear and a beast, and I just really want to give you my deepest sympathies for that and my absolute reassurance that things will get better, you just have to force yourself to make some better decisions.
	And I say this to myself every day as well.
	I have to force myself to make better decisions, so I uh I have great and deep sympathy for all of that.
	So uh yeah, so with regards to punishment, there's a sort of philosophical question that actually comes out of horse thieving in Australia, I think it was, which is do we punish horse thieves because they did wrong, or do we punish horse thieves so that horses don't get stolen?
	In other words, is it moral or practical?
	Do we put prisoners in jail to punish them for their sins?
	Or do we put prisoners in jail the way that we put someone who's sick in quarantine, not because of a moral failing, but because their actions, if they're out in society, are negative to others.
	Now, of course the question is why not both and all of that.
	So the utilitarian argument is to say, in general, that people who are horse thieves, which is sort of use that as an example, or car thieves, right?
	So people who are car thieves are bad for society.
	And it's not so much that we would say, oh, we're gonna punish this person for their moral misdeeds or whatever it is, but we're gonna say, well, this person has an illness called criminality, which if they're left out in society will only infect others, and therefore we quarantine them so that fewer cars get stolen.
	It's more of a practical way of dealing with this issue.
	And of course, as I mentioned in the show yesterday, Bukelli in El Salvador has reduced the murder rate by 99% just by putting criminals in jail and keeping them there.
	So it's a practical thing.
	It's not that you you uh are punishing people, it's that they have proved themselves unfit to live in a civilized society.
	They have no longer the right to freedom because they deny the right to freedom to others, and you cannot claim a right that you deny to others.
	The thief who steals something, like a thief steals a car, and then he leaves the car idling to go and get a cup of coffee, and then somebody else steals the car from him.
	I mean, he's gonna be annoyed and upset, but he can't exactly go to court and say, hey man, somebody stole the car that I stole.
	That would be like bad comedy, right?
	So you cannot claim rights that you violate in others.
	And so if people have said, well, I'm gonna abuse my right of freedom and I'm gonna harm others, then they really can't complain about losing their right to freedom because they're taking away that right of freedom for others, because the argument goes something like this.
	So let's say that I make uh $20 an hour, and no, you know what?
	I'm gonna I'm gonna make this easy.
	I'm gonna make this easy on my tremulous math brand.
	So let's say I make $40 an hour, and I have a $40,000 car, right?
	And we just, you know, forget taxes and all of that sort of stuff.
	We'll just make it kind of easy, right?
	So I have a 40,000 car, and I make $40 an hour.
	So clearly, I have Been working for a thousand hours to buy that car.
	Right?
	So let's do a thousand hours divided by 40, so that's 25 weeks of work.
	I've worked 25 weeks to buy a 40,000 car, which is um 26 would be half the year, 52 weeks.
	So let's just round it up and say uh I've worked for six months to buy the car.
	Now, if somebody takes that car from me, then they have transferred six months' worth of labor from me to them.
	Which is exactly the same, really, as forcing me to work for them for six months.
	If if someone gets kidnapped and is forced to work for someone else for six months, we would call that slavery.
	Enslavement.
	Yeah, yeah, that's slavery, right?
	So if somebody steals my 40,000 car that took me six months to earn, they have now enslaved me for six months.
	Now, if somebody if somebody were to try to kidnap me so that they could enslave me for six months, would I have the right to use force to prevent that?
	100%.
	100%.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	Now, there's a difference between enslaving someone and asking a favor, right?
	So we've all had the situation.
	Actually, you know, I don't think this happens anymore because of GPS, but there used to be the situation where you'd get lost in a neighborhood and you'd say, hey, where's Elm Street?
	Somebody somebody you'd pull over and you'd ask somebody, hey, where's Elm Street?
	And then they'd give you some incomprehensible direction that you'd pretend to understand that you just drive around in a circle and ask them again 20 minutes later.
	But you know, if you're asking someone, hey, can you give me directions to um what was the old joke about New York?
	Uh can you tell me where the Bronx zoo is, or should I just go F myself, right?
	Because New York is a sort of famously abrupt, if not downright route.
	So we can ask people for favors, and let's say a lawyer who makes a thousand dollars an hour spends five minutes, right, explaining something to you.
	Does he get to charge you?
	No, because there's just a general back and forth as far as that goes.
	We it's not enslavement because you still have the option to, as the aforementioned joke said, tell someone to go F themselves and not tell them where the Bronx Zoo is.
	So uh stealing is a form of enslavement, which is why it's justified to use force to prevent property theft.
	And so uh if you said, well, I can use force to defend my property, well, sure, because enslavement is wrong.
	And to in and the more you're going to enslave someone, the worse it is.
	I mean, obviously I remember many years ago, I was uh I had a I had a business before I got into the software field, which was uh setting up people's computers.
	I would set up networks, I would set up printers, uh I knew just about every DOS command known to man Bill Gates and the devil, but I repeat myself.
	And I remember going to a guy's house.
	I didn't have a car, so uh I was sort of limited, but I remember going to a guy's house who was in the business world, and I hooked up his entire house in a network.
	This is back when this was actually quite a quite a big deal.
	I remember I tried an entire weekend to get an office hooked up in a network, but it turns out that the network cars have been delivered with the wrong jumper settings.
	Like you literally had to move something to to make it work.
	And this is long before the internet was any useful for that kind of stuff as a whole.
	But I remember going out to this guy's house, hooking up his entire computer system uh on uh a network.
	And anyway, it was too late to drive me home, and so I ended up, I mean, he was in the insurance business, and he ended up uh taking me the next day.
	He couldn't drop me in the morning because he had an insurance seminar to go to, so I ended up going to this insurance seminar because I just couldn't get home.
	The insurance seminar was also out by the airport, and there weren't any buses to get me home, and then all of his insurance buddies and him were down for dinner, and he's like, I'm sorry I can't drop you back home.
	He took me out for dinner.
	You know, I still remember uh some interesting conversations from this little sort of long ago dinner with this guy.
	Now, I wasn't exactly kidnapped, but I sure as heck didn't want to look to go to a full-day insurance seminar and all of that.
	But it was, you know, it it's not a big deal.
	But that was something that happened that was kind of like kidnapping.
	I just remember like, can I can I get home at any point?
	I'm sort of ending up in one of these weird movies, you know, where you just can't get home, or these dreams where you just can't get home.
	So, yeah, so and and so the longer you enslave someone, the uh worse it is, right?
	So this is why, you know, with the slapping and the the pencil and the the dollar and so on.
	So if you make, you know, forty dollars an hour, and someone takes a dollar uh from you, well, they have enslaved you for what, 90 seconds?
	It's not a huge deal.
	But like still, it's like how would you like physically enslave someone, like especially nowadays, like 90 seconds, like and even then it's like there's people that make less than that, so uh like what one person might be willing to do for a hundred, someone else would be like, nah, a thousand, someone else might be like there's a certain degree of value that's gonna be a very subjective thing, though.
	I don't know what that adds to the conversation, but I'm happy to hear.
	Oh, all right.
	So for instance, um there's certain people who aren't going to like there's certain things, hey, I wouldn't do for sixty-five grand, but I would be willing to sell a kidney for in terms of capital.
	Okay, so then the hang on, hang on.
	I'm sorry to interrupt.
	I'm sorry to interrupt.
	Do you spend a lot of time around really smart people because you're a smart guy, right?
	I'm I'm with that.
	I'm just curious if you spend a lot of time around really smart people.
	Some of them.
	Uh you're one of the smarter ones.
	Uh I wouldn't say the smartest, though.
	Um that's fine.
	So saying that wages vary across the population, do you think that adds a lot of value to smart people?
	Uh yes.
	Why?
	Why do you think that that adds value to smart people?
	Why do I think that adds value to smart people?
	I mean, do you not think that smart people know that wages vary?
	Well, well, of course they vary.
	So, like what might be 90 seconds to you might be like an hour.
	Yeah, yeah, I'm I'm aware of all of that.
	So, yes, there are people who make a thousand.
	I mean, I literally just had in my show this conversation that you and I are having.
	I gave the example of a lawyer who makes a thousand dollars an hour, and then a guy who makes forty bucks an hour.
	So now you're telling me, do you know that uh Steph, do you know that some people have different wages?
	So it's like someone's gonna evaluate one dollar very differently.
	It's like I might evaluate someone who steals a dollar from me, their life uh like if they have to steal, I might say, you know what, this person's life is now worth less than this dollar.
	J just based on how their own actions have evaluated that risk.
	Like if they're so desperate that they have to, I'm like in in some respect, they kind of become subhuman.
	Wow, that's a lot of suppositions there.
	Okay.
	But what I'm saying is that when you're having a high-level conversation, bringing in low-level obvious stuff kind of derails the conversation.
	And I'm just saying this to you because you're a smart guy, and maybe you've spent a lot of time around people who are like, oh wow, yeah, you know, people do make different amounts of money.
	People do value their time differently.
	But it's like, well, of course, like everybody knows that, right?
	It's like going to a business seminar and saying, you know, profit is very important.
	And it's like, yeah, okay, thanks.
	Appreciate it.
	I don't go to math seminars and remind people that two and two make four.
	So I'm just saying.
	So like let's suppose if someone did enslave like it wouldn't be wrong to like uh use physical force if someone tried to enslave you for 90 seconds, though.
	Well, no.
	Or or or even like 15 seconds, really.
	Well, no.
	Because someone might be doing that by accident, right?
	So let's say that I'm trying to leave a bus and the bus conductor thinks I haven't paid, and he detains me, right?
	Do I get to shoot him?
	No.
	No.
	Whereas if somebody locks me in the basement and demands that I do philosophy all day, they have enslaved me.
	That's not an accident, right?
	Right?
	If if somebody um sees me, uh uh, this is when I was in Hong Kong, right?
	And I was in Hong Kong and they were shooting all this tear gas at the protesters.
	And I marched firmly towards the tear gas, because I was very curious, and it's really the closest I've come to war, and I was kind of curious and and so on.
	So I marched towards the tear gas.
	And there were people on the street who grabbed me and said, don't go there.
	They're shooting tear gas.
	Now, they were detaining me.
	They were forcefully preventing me from moving forward.
	Do I get to shoot them?
	I would say you shouldn't.
	You should be more forgiving towards that.
	No, no, it's because they're trying to help me.
	Yes.
	Right.
	If I have uh uh if I have if I have a wound on me and and I'm on a stretcher and I keep thrashing around, which is damaging my wound, can they restrain me?
	Can they tie me down?
	Of course they can, because they're trying to help me.
	So the reason why you wouldn't just shoot anybody who interfered with you, is because they could be trying to do it for your best interest, they could be a misunderstanding.
	Maybe I did have the ticket on the bus, I just can't find it, but until I can show it to the guy, he shouldn't let me go because you have to enforce people paying for the bus and so on, right?
	So uh my point is that the reason why you wouldn't be upset about being detained for a very short period of time, or at least you shouldn't, is because it has very little material effect upon you, and because the person could be trying to act in your best interest, or there could be some misunderstanding, or they might have a reason that you're not aware of as to why they're detaining you.
	But like let's suppose So you wouldn't use force in that situation.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	I mean, like, let's suppose I don't know, some random uh crazed criminal decides to detain someone who walks past their alleyway for who knows whatever reasons.
	Okay, hang on.
	Slow down, slow down.
	So we got a crazed criminal.
	Why aren't they in prison?
	Why aren't they?
	Yeah.
	I mean, we already know they're a criminal, so they should be in prison.
	All right, well, like let's suppose there's a whole host of different types of crimes, obviously.
	Like um Okay, but you said crazed criminal, which means that they're I mean, so just keeping it.
	Like a brief period of time in an alleyway for who knows whatever reason, all right?
	Okay, hang on.
	I'm just building a profile.
	Hang on, hang on, bro.
	Slow, slow the fuck down.
	Jesus.
	Okay.
	So I'm walking down an alley that's not owned by anyone, right?
	Yeah, it's not not really owned by anyone.
	Okay, so it's not like it's not like the behind of a restaurant where they keep the garbage, maybe they own that.
	Oh, yeah.
	It's a okay, hang on.
	Jesus, okay.
	You know what?
	You get your shit out, and then I'll because you just keep talking over me.
	It's really annoying.
	I'm trying to have a productive conversation here.
	And you're like hyped up, I don't know, you want drugs or something?
	So you get your stuff out, you tell me everything you want to say, and then we'll continue, because I can't do this.
	Okay, let's say the criminal is gener like let's suppose uh has no like violent crimes on his record, but he's randomly decides to like so let's say this guy's like a gangbanger of some sort.
	All right?
	He sees a person walking past his alleyway that he doesn't necessarily rightfully own, but has marked his territory via graffiti and sees someone walking towards it and decides to use force to detain them for 90 seconds and might intend to do some sort of bodily harm.
	Is it right to use uh physical force in them?
	Even if um uh let's say there's a degree of ambiguity on whether this person is trying to harm uh random person he grabs or not.
	Okay, what did I say about ambiguity?
	Uh earlier.
	Yes, uh then you would be justified for using um.
	No, no, no.
	What did I say about ambiguity?
	So philosophy is designed to give you moral principles.
	And I said, what about individual situations?
	Where is that adjudicated?
	By philosophy or by the courts?
	That would be done by the courts.
	Right.
	So am I a lawyer?
	Am I a prosecutor?
	Am I a judge?
	I'm none of those things.
	I'm a moral philosopher.
	So I can say you can use proportional force to protect yourself.
	Now, what degree of proportional force?
	And of course, you've got a lot of mind reading shit in your hypothetical, which is he's a gangbanger, he's a criminal.
	I don't know that if I'm just walking down the alley.
	I mean, if he's if the guy is dressed in gang signs, and he's got, I don't know, like the tears of I'm a murderer tattooed on his cheek or something like that, and he's got a gun out, then yeah, I think people can use force if you're detained by such a person because they're almost certainly doing it for no good.
	Right?
	So but I don't know any of these things.
	In the theoretical, you're giving me there's a certain mind reading capacity.
	He's a criminal.
	He's I don't know that, unless he's got like clear gang signs or whatever.
	But yeah, if you're walking down an alley and some obvious gang affiliated criminal pulls a gun on you and tells you to stop, yeah, I've got no problem if somebody uses force to protect themselves against that, because clearly uh this is gonna go badly.
	If it's a little old lady saying, I've lost my cat, can you help me?
	And you blow her away.
	It's a little bit of a different matter, right?
	Well, I mean, like a little old lady asking you to uh help her find her cat, like she's not detaining you.
	She's just like you could ignore her, just walk past her.
	She's not like extorting you.
	Okay, so what you're saying by detaining is somebody's got a knife out and they're saying stop or I'll stab you, or stop or I'll shoot you.
	Uh the there's a degree of force in some respect.
	Okay, what is that?
	What does that mean?
	A degree of force.
	Uh all right, so like let's suppose, all right.
	Uh well let's suppose instead of this guy being dressed as a gangbanger, he's dressed up as an officer.
	Oh, he's pretending to be a policeman.
	Yeah, uh he could be.
	All right.
	No, no, don't give me could be.
	I mean let's just theoretically cop instead.
	What?
	So let's suppose he is a cop.
	Yes.
	Okay, so you've completely switched the scenario here.
	Is that because the previous scenario was answered, or what?
	Are you just moving the goalposts here or what's going on?
	I feel like we're never getting anywhere because you just keep changing the scenario whenever I come up with an answer.
	I mean, it's still the same like degree of like.
	No, no.
	Do you understand my frustration?
	Yes, of course.
	I'm answering your questions and you keep changing the scenario.
	This is why you're depressed.
	Because you can't accept any answers.
	And you also can't express any gratitude.
	Have I explained things to you that are helpful in your life in answering these questions?
	Have I given you answers that you find to be a value that you didn't have before?
	Such as the $40,000 enslaving you for six months, that kind of stuff, right?
	I'm hang on, because if I haven't hang on, if I I would tell you, if I if I if I haven't answered anything of value to you, then I'm gonna not continue the conversation because I'm not adding anything of value to you in the conversation.
	So if I haven't given you anything that you haven't already thought of a million times before, then I'll move on, because I'm you know, you you know all of this stuff way better than I do, or whatever, so I'm not really adding anything of value to you.
	Uh I would say I find it of value just to even be on your stage and to speak.
	No, no, that's not what I'm asking.
	Have I given you any answers to these complex questions when I talk about utilitarianism versus moral libertarianism when I talk about uh fraud, when I talk about uh enslavement, uh when I give you these these arguments, uh whether we uh punish horse thieves because they're wrong or just so that the horses aren't stolen and so on.
	So and when I talk about proportional levels of violence and the difference between moral philosophy and court adjudication, is any of that new information to you, or have you thought of it all before?
	I I haven't entirely thought of it before.
	I I don't know what that means entirely.
	What have I told you that's new to you?
	Um in terms of I'd say ammonia.
	Bro, this is not overly complicated.
	What have I given you in the last half hour that we've been talking?
	What have I provided that's new to you?
	Um the uh uh that that is new.
	Oh, the bus example, um, in terms of like detaining or like let's suppose uh other um in terms of I mean like there's certain things like I haven't really thought of, but I wouldn't say entirely um that are entirely new in terms of concepts.
	I'm not sure what entirely new in terms of concepts means.
	Have I thought through anything or giving you any answers that are of any value to you?
	Uh anything that's of uh any value.
	Um for entertainment purposes, I think.
	No, no, so that's rude, right?
	Oh, that's rude and dismissive and kind of insulting, just to be honest, right?
	I'm just telling you what you look like from the outside.
	Because if you say, Steph, you're talking about good and evil and punishment of right and wrong and self-defense and coercion and incarceration, but I find your answers not moral or valid or useful, but only entertaining.
	Uh I do find them.
	No, but that's insulting, right?
	Uh I I mean it helps to give me a perspective on where you're No, that's insulting, right?
	I'm sorry.
	So why would you do that?
	I mean, we're trying to have a productive conversation here.
	Uh-uh.
	Why are you being so mean?
	I I'm not intentionally being mean.
	No, no.
	No, don't don't don't give me that.
	Don't give me that.
	You're responsible for what you said.
	Oh, okay.
	You don't get to claim some big intentionality excuse, right?
	I'm just curious.
	Like, why is it hard for you to say, Steph, what you have provided to me for free, right?
	This is this is college level stuff, right?
	I'm just handing this out like candy.
	Why wouldn't you say, or why is it hard for you to say, uh, Steph, you've given me some really interesting and thought-provoking answers.
	I I didn't have those words on my uh vocabulary.
	I I mean uh like those why not?
	Why not?
	Because I was trying to um uh answer a different question in terms because like when it comes to like value, that's a very subjective question and like way to look at it, so I don't know what that means.
	So I'll just I'll just give you so just be quiet for a second, and I'll give you just some feedback, right?
	This is the tough love part of the show, and I I have great sympathy for where you are in life, and none of this is coming out of any place of hostility.
	But I'll tell you straight up, man.
	So I'm providing to you concentrated philosophy for free in a relatively easy to digest format.
	I've answered a lot of important questions that I assume are important to you because you could talk to me about anything and you choose to talk to me about this, so I assume it's important to you.
	Now, why people are gonna have trouble contributing to your life is because you frustrate them.
	And I I say this for sympathy.
	I assume that this comes out of your family, out of your your history and so on.
	So the reason that it's frustrating is that uh I work hard to try and provide clear, comprehensible answers to complex questions.
	Now, listen, this doesn't mean that I'm 100% right, blah, blah, blah.
	Usual caveats, right?
	But you've got important questions that are burning their way through your brain.
	And I'm working my very best to give you clear and useful answers to you.
	Now, you did keep interrupting me, which I had to keep repeating, which is annoying.
	Now, the other issue that I have is that you expressed absolutely no gratitude for the answers that I was providing, but instead you just kept moving the goalposts.
	Okay, well, what if it's a criminal?
	Well, what if it's not an obvious criminal?
	Well, what if it's a cop?
	Right?
	And so what happens is then I end up, if I had no sense of pride or or self-respect, I would end up just trying to chase all of your theoretical scenarios, and then you're kind of playing with me like uh you're dangling a cat toy over a cat and having them jump at it.
	I don't do your I have no reason to answer all of your completely moving the goalpost theoreticals.
	Well, what if it's uh not an obvious criminal?
	What if it's a cop?
	And it's like those are all very, very different scenarios.
	Now, why would I bother answering your scenarios?
	Because you've expressed absolutely zero gratitude, and you know, people run on gratitude, or they run on pay, right?
	That's the two things in life.
	You gotta pay for what you get in one form or another, right?
	So if you want your wife to cook you a nice meal, you should appreciate the nice nice meals that she cooks you, right?
	If all you do is you say, well, this doesn't taste good, or there's not enough salt, or it's not what I want, she's gonna lose her desire to cook meals for you.
	Or if you say, well, I would really like seafood Alfredo pasta, right?
	And then she makes you nice seafood alfredo pasta and you say, well, uh, you know, I wanted rigatoni.
	Or what if it was uh not seafood pasta, but what if it was a like clam chowder, right?
	Then she would lose the desire to deliver things to you.
	Now, of course, we all do things where we don't get a lot of appreciation, but then we get paid.
	So, and I say this to you, I say this to everyone because it's an important principle in life.
	If you want people to provide benefits to you, either pay them or show some appreciation.
	But if you neither pay them nor show appreciation, and you keep changing or moving the goalposts, then people will not enjoy interacting with you, and they will move on to other situations or environments, if that makes sense.
	So that is sort of my major uh lesson to you that you know we want people in our life who we provide value to and who provide value to us.
	And the way we do that is show appreciation, pay them, or at least don't frustrate them by constantly moving the goalposts.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes.
	Um, could I so my whole point was with using the cop as an example as compared to a no, no, no.
	See you, you're not you're just skating past what I said.
	What do you think of what I said, not about the copship?
	Uh uh, I would say that that's definitely a valuable point because it uh I should give a degree of clarity rather than did I ask for clarity?
	You're still not addressing what I said.
	I mean, if I move the goalpost, uh it takes away clarity, and then people don't want to help me, and it shows that there's a lack of gratitude.
	And therefore, that's not going to lead to better outcomes.
	So tell me, sell sell this to me, and um I again I don't mean this with any hostility.
	Honestly, I'm I'm really trying to help you and and the audience here.
	What is the plus for me in continuing the conversation?
	Sell it to me.
	Entertainment purposes for the audience.
	Well, do I enjoy am I enjoying the conversation?
	Sadly, I don't think so.
	Okay.
	So why should I continue something that I don't enjoy?
	Because you're a nice person and I appreciate it.
	But you've expressed absolutely zero appreciation.
	But I I did.
	I said thank you for having me on, and uh thank you plenty of different times.
	You think you've thanked me in this conversation?
	Like, wow, thank you.
	I hadn't thought of that.
	That's really interesting.
	I mean, have I thought about those responses?
	Um, no, no, that's no, no, no.
	See, you you you keep you keep dodging the what I'm saying, which means we're not really having a conversation.
	So do you feel that you have thanked me for the value that I have provided you in the conversation?
	Parts of it, not the entire thing.
	You couldn't even tell me any value that I'd added.
	Um of course you haven't.
	So listen, let's just be honest, right?
	You have not expressed appreciation.
	Now, that's fine.
	You don't have to express appreciation.
	I mean, I remember the first call, I thanked him very much for the very thought-provoking conversations.
	I started off my show yesterday by thanking everyone for their great contributions, and I thank you for this conversation as well.
	It's very interesting, and I think of value to people because sometimes we need to talk about a topic and sometimes we need to talk about talking.
	And this is sort of one of these situations, which is if you don't express appreciation, and you don't pay people, and you frustrate people, who's going to want to spend a lot of time with you?
	And because you are saying you say that you're feeling kind of depressed at the moment, which I again really sympathize with, I'm trying to get you out of that by being honest and direct.
	I mean, do you think I know a lot about providing value?
	I mean, I've been an entrepreneur for like 30 years, right?
	To certain audiences.
	I'm sorry, what does that mean?
	I mean, to certain uh uh ideal customers and demographics.
	I don't know what that means.
	Uh what that means.
	Do you think do you think that you think that I've got to hang on?
	Okay, let me let me try again.
	So I've been running a challenging philosophical conversation for 20 years.
	I have a graduate degree in the history of philosophy.
	I have been an entrepreneur in a number of different fields for 30 years.
	I've been happily married, despite coming from a terrible childhood, I've been very happily married to a mental health professional for almost a quarter century.
	Do you think that I know something about how to provide value and receive value in relationships?
	To some people.
	Oh, at least.
	Okay.
	Well, that's uh that's it for me.
	I'm tapping out.
	That's uh that's crazy, man.
	Thank you.
	No, listen, I I did my very best.
	I really did, but I think it's important to know when to when to admit defeat that you just got.
	Right.
	So of course, uh I will fully admit, and this is why it's important in life to know who you're talking to, so that you don't say obvious things as if they're very valuable.
	Right?
	So if I go up to somebody who is uh a graduate degree in mathematics, and I say, well, remember, you know, two and two make four, that's provocative, right?
	That's kind of insulting.
	So when I say, when I ask, do you know something about uh do you think I know something about how to provide value?
	And you say, to certain people, it's like, well, of course, for certain people, I have no idea how to provide value to people who Don't speak English.
	Right?
	I have no idea.
	I have no idea how to provide value to people who oppose truth, reason, and evidence.
	I don't know how to provide value.
	In fact, I would be an irritant to them.
	As a moral philosopher, I don't know how to provide value to evil people.
	So when I say like every single person who provides value only provides value to certain people.
	That is, and that's why I sort of tapped out, because this is somebody who just doesn't want to express gratitude.
	For which I'm like, I'm sorry.
	I think it's I think it's a I think it's a terrible life and a sad life to not have gratitude in in life.
	And if you've got a hedge and say, well, uh Steph, uh, you know how to provide value, but not to all six billion people in the world at the same time, it's like, okay, um, then that's just somebody who doesn't want to express anything and is sort of working to uh prevent or avoid a conversation.
	All right, let's do one last caller, my friend, the man they called Brian.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Yeah, um really just uh I'm really appreciative of uh someone uh talking philosophy on here.
	And I'm actually working through an epistemology paper.
	I'm wondering if you can provide some insight on it.
	Love to so I just recently read this paper by Devin Lane um No Relation.
	And he contends that we we can't um we can't rely on single experts.
	Um that they're they're often mistaken about like the consensus of experts, but we can uh we can rely on a consensus of experts.
	So you see this in in something like uh climate change, right?
	Like there's this uh consensus opinion on climate change.
	So we are as lay people, we should defer to these experts.
	But I'm wondering if we if we as lay people, if there's a sort of hurdle we can we can overcome in order to have a justified belief that is contrary to experts.
	Okay, uh that's a very interesting very interesting question.
	So this is sort of reliance upon the peer review process, right?
	Yeah, they uh that's that's certainly certainly a part of it, yeah.
	Um it would be and it's it's mostly in yeah, scientific con context um with with pure review.
	Um something like climate change might be might be too controversial for us for us to be able to to disagree with it.
	Um but maybe and and stop me if I'm sorry, too controversial to disagree with.
	I mean, isn't controversial stuff the stuff where you're most likely to disagree?
	I mean, very few people disagree that the world is a sphere, right?
	Sure.
	Yeah.
	Um when that when there's so much consensus, I I'm I think that it's uh it's a bit more controversial to disagree is is the point I'm trying to make, I guess.
	Okay.
	So your argument is that if experts agree, it would you say that if experts agree that it's the best test of truth?
	Is there a better one?
	Or is that the highest?
	Is that the pinnacle the pinnacle?
	That seems to be pretty pretty solid evidence, yeah.
	I mean, you think of like uh no, no, no, no, no, no, sorry.
	You're gonna have to be precise in your answers, sorry.
	I didn't ask if it's solid evidence.
	What did I ask?
	If that's the ultimate test of evidence.
	Is there a better test of truth than expert consensus?
	Uh perhaps like a universal consensus.
	Uh all people agree.
	So then I have to ask you, I guess it's a more foundational epistemological question, just so I know where we're coming from.
	What is truth?
	How do we know what truth is?
	I mean, what is the definition of truth?
	It can't just be expert consensus.
	Because that would mean to say that truth changes when expert opinion changes, right?
	I mean, it was expert consensus that the the the blood did not circulate around the body.
	It was expert consensus that it was the balance of humors that caused disease.
	It was expert consensus that epilepsy was caused by demonic possession, it was expert consensus that good heavens you don't need to wash your hands before operating on someone.
	And so the truth can't change based upon expert consensus.
	Because expert consensus changes all the time, which means that that there is no such thing as truth.
	There is only expert consensus.
	But then how would why would expert consensus change if there was no external truth that they had to refer to?
	So I guess my question is what is truth for uh in your formulation.
	How do we know something's true?
	Uh I'm wondering if I could um if I could back up a little bit and not answer the the truth question, but how did the consensus change?
	And I think it was other experts weighing in with a differing opinion, and the the hurdle that I have to overcome is how can a lay person who's not an expert change what we perceive as to be truth.
	Sorry, so you gotta you gotta slow down.
	Uh you know, philosophy is is not something you can rush past, right?
	Okay.
	So you said how did expert opinion change, and you said because other experts said other things, right?
	Correct.
	But why why would one expert be preferable to another?
	In other words, did did the expert opinion change to relative to any relative external standard?
	I'm not sure what that means.
	Well, so if people believe, as most experts did throughout most of human history, that the world is flat, that's expert consensus, right?
	Right.
	Okay.
	So then some other experts came along and said the world is a sphere, right?
	Right.
	Now, is the world flat in reality, or is it a sphere?
	I think it's a sphere.
	Sorry, you think it's a sphere, what do you mean?
	I mean, I've never been to space and seen it with my own sensory perception, but have you ever been to Australia?
	No.
	Do you think Australia is real?
	Yes.
	But you've never been.
	You've never seen it with your own two eyes.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I I have uh a similar amount of evidence and justified belief in both Australia and that the world is a sphere.
	Okay, but you think that the world is a sphere, but you know Australia is real, right?
	Okay, let me let me tell you that I I know that the world is a sphere.
	Okay, that's fine.
	So when the experts said that the world is flat, they were wrong.
	According to like the fact that the world is a sphere, right?
	Uh-huh.
	So when the new experts came along, the Galileo, Copernicus, Tycho Brahi, and and so on, when they came along and said, well, or I mean, this was in ancient Greece and so on, they they put these two stakes in the ground and they measured the different like it's a thousand miles apart, and they then measured the relative shadows and they could calculate the curvature of the earth, actually quite accurately and so on.
	So when other experts came along and they said the world is a sphere, they gained ascendancy and it became common knowledge because they were right that the world is a sphere rather than the world is flat.
	Is that right?
	Right.
	So that's what I'm asking.
	Truth cannot be expert consensus, because experts believed that the world was flat, and then new experts came along and said the world is a sphere, and the world didn't change from flat to sphere when new experts came along.
	But the new experts were correct and the old experts were incorrect, is that right?
	Sorry, are we still on?
	Oh, I hope this isn't when I challenge somebody's foundational beliefs, they just vanish.
	Alright, I'll give him a second or two more.
	And uh if he doesn't come back, oh sorry something.
	Sorry.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	This is like uh a realist perspective of truth, right?
	Like uh truth is truth is independent of our minds.
	Uh well, I I wouldn't put it that way.
	But truth refers to things that are independent of our minds.
	So truth doesn't exist out there in the world like a tree does or a rock.
	But truth is the relationship between ideas and the mind and things in the world.
	So if I look if I look at a penguin and say That's an oak tree, I'm incorrect.
	Now, that incorrectness is a mismatch between what I'm saying or what I believe and what is.
	So there is a reality that's out there that exists independent of our consciousness, of course, right?
	And everyone accepts that who has a debate.
	So there's a reality that exists out there independent of our consciousness, and if we say something that's true, we're saying that the contents of my mind accurately refer to real things in the universe.
	No, no.
	This is making sense.
	Okay.
	So it is not the consensus of experts that is the highest standard of truth.
	It is measuring ideas against empirical reality that is the highest standard of truth.
	Some experts do that well and may gain trust.
	Some experts do that badly.
	I'm sure you're aware of the replication crisis in academia, particularly in psychology, but also in cancer research and so on.
	For those of you who don't know, the replication crisis is I I was talking about this years ago on the show.
	I think I interviewed someone about it.
	The replication crisis is that academics are fucking liars and cheats and scum.
	And they they hoover up tax money to produce politically correct bullshit and steal and lie and cheat and delude and lead astray, particularly the young.
	I mean, I I honestly cannot have strong enough language, so I won't burn everyone's ears off.
	But they are liars as a whole, frauds, cons, and cheats.
	And the replication crisis is that significant portions of generally accepted truths in academia are just lies.
	And the numbers, you know, for those of you who aren't aware, and you know, I'm not necessarily saying that you would be aware, but the numbers are just uh like astonishing how bad all of this stuff is.
	And a Landmark 2015 study by the Open Science Collaboration attempted to replicate a hundred studies from top psychology journals, only 39% were successfully replicated, with effect sizes on average being only half the original size.
	So two-thirds of them were bullshit, and even the ones that weren't bullshit were overstated by 100%.
	It's absolutely beyond appalling.
	Because people have been taxed into the grave to pay for these assholes to lie.
	To lie and to lie and to lie and to lie.
	And it's not just in psychology, it's in a wide variety of fields.
	So I have a challenge, and and you know, uh Sokov, Professor Sokov, of course, uh was a physics professor who wrote a complete nonsense paper and got it published in a social science journal and uh invited everybody to do it the other way back, and all of that sort of stuff, right?
	So in uh in medicine, they took 49 medical studies from 1990 to 2003 that had more than a thousand citations.
	92% found that the studied therapies were effective.
	Of these studies, 16% were contradicted by subsequent studies, 16% had found stronger effects than in subsequent studies, 44% were replicated, and 24% remained largely unchallenged.
	That's appalling.
	That's appalling.
	And let's see, let's look here at economics.
	Um a 2016 study in the Journal Science replicated 18 experimental studies published by two leading economics journals, the American Economic Review and the Quarterly Journal of Economics, between 2011 and 2014, it found that about 39% failed to reproduce the original results.
	Appalling.
	Forty percent failure rate.
	After peer review.
	After peer review.
	A 2016 study by Nature on over 1,500 researchers found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experimental results.
	87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% medical researchers, 64% of Earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others.
	And more than half are failed to reproduce their own experiments.
	But fewer than 20% have been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work.
	In 2010, there was a study that found that 91.5% of psychiatry and psychology studies confirmed the effects they were looking for.
	Concluded that the odds of this happening were around five times higher than in fields such as astronomy or geosciences.
	This argument is that this is because researchers in software sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases.
	Early analysis of result blind peer review, which is less affected by publication bias is estimated that 61% of research blind studies in biomedicine and psychology have led to null results, in contrast to an estimated 5 to 20% in earlier research.
	Failed.
	And that's three, uh that's um ten well three to ten times higher than was expected.
	So again, we won't sort of get into this, it is a brutal, brutal uh field, but if this was uh anywhere in business, uh, these people would have been sued for fraud.
	Uh, these people would have been sued for fraud and would be living in their fucking cars.
	Because if you pay for something in the business world that has a 40 to 60% failure rate, you sue people for being liars and cheats and frauds.
	And the fact that academia is just sailing on despite this immense crisis means that they're just a bunch of state sucking taxpayer leaching liars and frauds, with exceptions, of course.
	I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but this is a catastrophe, and the fact that academics haven't sat there and said, holy shit, balls Batman, we've got to scratch this whole thing and start again because this shit doesn't work, and we feel incredibly guilty for taking all of this money from taxpayers and providing them a bunch of fraudulent bullshit in return.
	It just shows you that there's no there's no crisis in academia.
	They're fine.
	They're doing great.
	They're having a blast.
	I mean, good lord, they only have to work a couple hours a week, get paid 150, 200,000, 250,000 a year.
	Nice, sweet gig, man.
	Sweet gig, they get uh sabbaticals, which is every couple of years, they get to take a year off and fart around right reading a book that nobody will read.
	It's uh it's a sweet gig.
	They are uh the new aristocracy, it is absolutely appalling.
	So I have an issue with the idea that experts are right, or that that is the highest possible way to get things.
	So let me just uh, and one last one, because all of this stuff you could say, well, you know, it's just academia, who gives a shit.
	Well, how about cancer?
	You know, uh, I take this stuff quite personally, of course, for obvious reasons.
	So this is from 2021, December 7, 2021.
	The initial aim of this project was to repeat 193 experiments from 53 high impact papers, using an approach in which the experimental protocols and plans for data analysis had to be peer-reviewed and accepted for publications before experimental work could begin.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	They were only able to repeat 50 experiments from 23 papers.
	They couldn't obtain data for 68% of the experiments.
	Isn't that wild?
	They said, moreover, despite contacting the authors of the original papers, we were unable to obtain these the data for 68% of the experiments.
	Isn't that wild?
	Almost three-quarters of people wouldn't hand over their data.
	Why not?
	Why not?
	I mean, the the reproducibility of cancer findings is wild.
	More than half of high impact cancer lab studies could not be replicated in controversial analysis.
	This is again 2021.
	Cancer reproducibility project couldn't assess many papers because of uncooperative authors and other challenges.
	Isn't that wild?
	I mean, that's life and death for people, man.
	That's life and death for people.
	So they wanted to reproduce some of these, right?
	The project staff soon ran into problems.
	All the original papers lacked details such as underlying data protocols, statistical code, and reagent sources.
	When authors were contacted for this information, many spent months tracking down details, but only 41% of authors were very helpful, about one third declined or did not respond.
	Additional problems surfaced when labs began experiments such as tumor cells that did not behave as expected in a baseline study.
	The project ended up pairing the initial list of 53 papers comprising 193 key experiments to just 23 papers with 50 experiments.
	They completed all replications for 18 of those papers and some experiments for the rest.
	And this all cost about 1.5 million dollars.
	Results from only five papers could be fully reproduced.
	Other replications yielded mixed results, some were negative or inconclusive.
	Overall, only 46% of 112 reported experimental effects met at least three of the five criteria for replication.
	That's staggering.
	And of course, that's only the people who responded.
	What about all the people who didn't?
	Do you think that they were on the up and up?
	I don't know.
	I would have my doubts or my questions.
	But that's appalling.
	This is like people are fucking dying in agony because of this stuff.
	And is there a freak out?
	Is there like, oh my God, are they having emergency meetings?
	This is an absolute crisis.
	We have to rejig the system for the ground up.
	How could this possibly be happening?
	People are getting sick and dying because so many of our experiments are total bullshit.
	No, they're not they're not.
	I don't I don't remember.
	I'm sure some people are troubled, don't get me wrong.
	I'm sure some people are troubled.
	But Lord above, if that's the best we'd got, we're fucked.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	So this introduces like uh a general skepticism for the experts, right?
	So I mean, what follows is that you have to rely on yourself uh almost exclusively and your ability to analyze and interpret um evidence and data that is probably pretty confusing,
	and how can you how can you trust yourself to to be able to make uh um to form an opinion on these complex on these complex topics as somebody that doesn't have uh years and years of of training in the in these complex fields.
	I I completely agree with you.
	It is a it is a big old challenge.
	Would you like at least some of my answers?
	Yes, please.
	Right.
	So there's things that I look for when people are making claims.
	And I'm not I'm not saying you're suggesting this, but I would reject as false the dichotomy of either we trust experts or we become experts.
	We don't need either of those positions.
	We can't just trust experts because so many of them are compromised liars.
	And no, I know that they're liars, because stuff has been around for a long time.
	Or at least know that a lot of their colleagues are liars.
	So what I look for when somebody's making an unusual claim, is I look for what system are they operating in.
	Now, let's say there's Bob and then there's Doug, right?
	Now, Bob and Doug both claim to have found a cure for an illness, but Bob has mortgaged his house and borrowed a million dollars to launch his business, and if he fails, he's gonna lose everything.
	Whereas Doug has published a paper and continues to cook away in his soft and cushy academic job, where it turns out, even if it turns out that Doug's paper is completely false or wrong or uh fraudulent or he's never going to get fired.
	Firing people in academia is like trying to fire teachers in New York or France.
	So it's virtually impossible.
	So if you had to guess, if you had to guess, it doesn't, and it could be 5149.
	And this is a real question.
	If you had to guess whose cure was more likely to be valid, would you guess the guy who borrowed a million dollars and would lose everything if it didn't work?
	Or the guy who is rewarded for claiming it works and not punished if it fails to work.
	Yeah, the former.
	That's assuming they know the spectral special circumstances like that of these scientists or these experts.
	Well, but the internet, it's pretty easy to find out, right?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So I look for if they have skin in the game.
	In other words, what I look for is what are the consequences of being wrong?
	Now if the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic, then I'm more likely to believe the person who's making the claim.
	If somebody suffers no negative consequences for being wrong, I don't care what they say.
	Because they don't really believe what they're saying.
	I mean, as I've mentioned before, when I was in the business world, I'd regularly get calls from people trying to hawk their junk bonds, their junk stocks and so on, right?
	And I didn't believe them.
	Because I'd say look, if you knew for sure that this stock was going to triple, you wouldn't be selling it to me, you'd be buying it yourself.
	Well no, we just want to share the like no you don't.
	Never mind.
	Don't be silly, right?
	So I listen to people who've got skin in the game.
	Now if people who are making claims get rewarded for making those claims and also suffer no negative consequences for being wrong, then they have a conflict of interest, right?
	If you read uh somebody who who's writing uh uh in some magazine right there uh oh you know company ABC is gonna go to the moon baby it's it's it's the greatest company ever it's gonna be bigger than Nvidia or whatever it is and then you look down and they say uh the guy who wrote this is the president and major shock stockholder of company ABC would you believe him?
	No.
	Right, because he stands to gain for what he's doing.
	Now you mentioned global warming so you know that the global warming models have never predicted accurately what happens right?
	Uh I wasn't aware of that detail no it's more than a detail I think it's more than a detail.
	Like there was uh what was it an 18 year pause in global warming?
	Right, yeah that's when they started climbing it up that was failed it was failed to be yeah it was failed not one of the models predicted it uh every twenty years China turns a country this uh China turns desert the size of Denmark into forests has that been predicted by climate models have climate models taken into account the fact that uh CO2 stimulates plant growth and how much extra CO2 the plants are going to absorb to exchange it out for
	oxygen and so none of the climate models at least that I've seen have accurately predicted future temperatures.
	Now has anyone been fired?
	No.
	Has anyone had their funding cut because their models have failed to produce uh failed to be accurate no right are they getting money for making climate models where are they getting their money from I think I I read that British petroleum is like funding a lot of these studies is that you know anything about that well mostly it comes from government.
	Sure.
	Now, why does government pay for climate models that don't work?
	It probably helps them consolidate power.
	Well, I mean, that's true in general, but why specifically?
	I mean, just look at it from a business standpoint, right?
	Help me.
	I'm sorry?
	Help me.
	Oh, sure.
	Okay.
	governments invest uh millions of dollars in climate research and they receive many many billions of dollars in the resulting carbon taxes because they fund climate scientists to say we're all gonna die because there's too much carbon and then governments have an excuse to tax carbon production and then they invest millions of dollars and they get back tens of billions of dollars in return.
	So it is a productive investment I mean from the government standpoint.
	They you're right, they get to expand control.
	But I mean, I'm not saying this is primary motivation, but you know, Al Gore spent a certain amount of money on his movie called The Inconvenient Truth, and then Al Gore made how much money from carbon credits.
	Right.
	So why would I believe people whose models were inaccurate, who are paid by governments that result in the governments being able to tax me more?
	I would view them as collaborating in something that was pretty sinister as a whole.
	And has there been a general crisis in the climate change community where they're saying, I feel absolutely wretched.
	I'm gutted, as the British would say.
	I feel absolutely wretched because don't you know?
	We've taken hundreds of millions of dollars, and we're wrong.
	I fe I I I personally I would feel beyond wretched.
	If I had taken a huge amount of money and failed to produce accurate predictions, I would I would do everything I could to give the money back and I would feel wretched and gutted and all this sort of stuff, right?
	Right.
	Is there that crisis occurring?
	Do you hear anything about that?
	Any any tearful climate scientists going and saying, listen, man, we we put out these models, we justified all of these taxes, we increased government control over you, we we took all your tax money, and you know, boy, we're just not able to produce the kind of accuracy that is is valid.
	I mean, any any tearful apologies and restitution?
	No.
	If the company, ABC company that the the article was saying, oh, this is the greatest stock ever, you've got to buy the stock, let's say that they are making semiconductors, right?
	Now, if it turns out that the guy writing the article is the CEO and largest holder of ABC Enterprises, just made up name, then do I have to become an expert in semiconductors to just dismiss the article?
	No.
	Right.
	So I look for people who are compromised.
	I look for people where the incentives are all off.
	I look for people who are not being paid for a particular conclusion.
	I look for people who are taking risks.
	I look for people who are going to suffer negative consequences for being wrong, and who aren't going to get automatic money for being right.
	I mean, I'm sure you've heard these kinds of things where the researchers were saying, I mean, the own for a long time there, and maybe it's still the case, I don't know, but you couldn't get funding for a lot of stuff if you didn't include global warming.
	So if you wanted to study squirrels, you couldn't study squirrels.
	Unless you said, I want to study the effects of global warming on squirrels.
	Ah, then you get some money, right?
	So when people are bought and paid for, why would I listen to what they have to say?
	That's like expecting objective information about Coca Coca-Cola from a Coca-Cola advertisement.
	It's not going to happen, right?
	You can just discard it.
	And you don't have to become an expert at all.
	You just have to look for compromised people who are being paid to produce stuff and who suffer no negative consequences for being wrong.
	And even then you can forgive people to a small degree, but if, for instance, in academia, the replication crisis has not led to a massive soul searching and saying, oh my God, this is like we're taking all this money, a lot of what we're producing is garbage, and so on.
	Well, I mean, my God, I mean, the social science is the number one cited philosopher is Michel Foucault, who was a complete monster.
	Like tried to stab his classmate with a knife.
	Uh, he was into torture and bondage and sinister encounters with Algerian boys in graveyards.
	I mean, just an absolute monster of a human being.
	And they love him.
	So why like why would I listen to anyone who thinks that's a great moralist to cite?
	I mean, I just I don't I don't need to.
	Like, I don't need to listen to a fat guy tell me about dieting.
	I don't.
	Like he may be right, but I I'm just gonna I'm gonna listen to the thin guy.
	And and so even if we were to say, well, they didn't know, well, they know now, right?
	They know now that that these things don't work.
	They know now that uh replication crisis is real, and there's been no reckoning, no like, oh my gosh, this is so terrible, we've got to rewrite all of these rules, We've got to figure out how to root this stuff out.
	No, people are just continuing on like it didn't even happen, which means they're perfectly fine with all of these lies.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes.
	I appreciate it.
	You've given me some things to think about.
	Looking into the motivations of particular scientists and not necessarily becoming a total skeptic on experts, but looking into the backgrounds and motivations and perhaps moneyed interests that might be be behind certain experts.
	Yeah, I mean so one of the things I did in the business world was if I had an employee who said we should do X, right?
	I'd be like, fantastic, right?
	I said, this is fantastic.
	So you think we should do X, right?
	Yes.
	I said, okay.
	So if you do X and it works, I will split the profits.
	And if you do X and it doesn't work, you'll pay half the losses.
	Because that makes it real.
	Nobody wants to watch a sport when nobody can win or lose, right?
	There has to be a winning or losing, right?
	I mean, nobody's gonna watch a bunch of people do tennis warm-ups where they're not even counting the score, right?
	So I would say to employees, hey, if you want to you think we should have a web interface.
	Okay, so let's say, let's say how much do you think we should sell that web interface for?
	We'd sit down, we go over the numbers, right?
	I say, okay.
	So if we sell, let's say we sell next year 100,000 worth of this web interface, and we will we make 100,000, then you get 50,000 of that.
	But if it costs us $50,000 to produce the web interface and we don't sell it, then you have to cut your salary or bonus by $25,000.
	So we got a $50,000 upside, $25,000 downside.
	And that way I know if they believe in it.
	It's very easy to spend other people's money and to have a wish list.
	But things have to be real for things to matter.
	So I I'm not going to sit there and say, well, I I've got to figure out all of the technical and market and this and that and the other.
	I've got to figure all of this stuff out.
	I'm like, no, no, no.
	I just put the incentives in place.
	And if I'm giving you double the upside based on your estimates and only half the downside, but you don't want to take that risk, then don't ask me to.
	Don't ask me to fund something that you won't take any risks on.
	So you don't need to become experts.
	You just need to look at the incentive structure.
	If the incentive structure is all wrong, no negative consequences for being wrong, and a lot of positive incentives for just producing whatever garbage there is, then I I don't I don't need to listen to anyone.
	I mean, why would I?
	Because the incentive structure is way off, which means anybody who's not addressing that incentive structure is kind of skeevy to begin with, if that makes sense.
	Because the climate scientists, are they saying, well, listen, we get a lot of money for producing these models, and we suffer absolutely no downside for being wrong.
	In fact, if we're wrong, we'll just get more money next year.
	I haven't seen one climate scientist, and again, it may be exceptions, I'm obviously not an expert in all of these things, but I haven't seen one climate scientist publish something and say, uh, here's the conflict of interest that I'm facing.
	I mean, a lot of times in psychology, you know, if you're getting a bunch of money from whatever pharma, then you have to usually say that.
	But I haven't seen, and again, I could be wrong, but I haven't seen a paper coming out from climate scientists where they say, by the way, um, if we'd had different findings, we wouldn't have got funded.
	In other words, if we found that man-made anthropogenic CO2-based global warming is not catastrophic, but in fact, human beings are saving the planet because we were running out of CO2 and it was gonna start endangering plant life soon, so we're actually helping by taking the CO2 that keeps getting dumped into the ground and putting it back into the skies, we're saving the planet.
	If we had said that, we would have lost all of our funding.
	So we only get funding by saying it's dangerous.
	And if we don't say it's dangerous, we don't get any funding.
	And if we say it's dangerous, but it turns out that we're wrong, in other words, if we say uh all the Arctic ice is gonna be gone by whatever year and it isn't, we face no negative consequences.
	That would be Honest, right?
	But I don't see that.
	Again, I could be wrong.
	I don't see it.
	And so because there is massive conflicts of interest that are unspoken, I don't believe any of it.
	If it's right, it's only right accidentally.
	That makes sense.
	Yeah.
	Well, again, Stefan, thank thank you so much.
	And I'll go ahead and step down now and uh get back to work.
	Appreciate you.
	All right.
	Well, thank you guys very much.
	I think I'll stop here.
	What have we got?
	Oh yeah.
	Like nice long old chat.
	Sorry for the two callers.
	You're one that name is horrible, and I'm not having you on.
	Uh Agartha, you you had your shot, and I'm afraid I I gave up.
	So uh I'm not about to get back on that horse, but I do appreciate you calling in.
	I thought it was very instructive.
	And yeah, just try to have gratitude and happiness.
	And if people are helping you out, show some appreciation.
	Otherwise you kind of look like entitled and selfish and kind of exploitive and you don't want to give that impression, because I'm sure you guys aren't that way, but you don't want to give that impression to people as a whole.
	So thanks everyone so much.
	Free domain.com slash donate to help out the show.
	All of this hard won knowledge communicated, I dare say, with a certain amount of expertise.
	We may differ as to how much, but I think a certain amount, a certain amount, spare to say.
	Certain amount of expertise.
	Free domain.com slash donate, if you can subscribe, that's really great.
	Uh donations are nice, of course, but subscriptions give me a base of income from which I can plan.
	So I really do appreciate that.
	Have yourself a glorious, delicious, lovely, wonderful day, my friends.
	Lusala from up here.
	I'll talk to you soon.

▲