Lex, as always great episode. Thank you.<br><br>Philip was complaining about the term New Age, the same applies to the words like Scientism and Woke, just saying. Interestingly he uses the term scientism exactly the same pejorative way in the next few paragraphs as he was complaining about the use of the word New Age. Interestingly though it is likely he will agree with the observation about the word Woke.  These are shorthand words that are used to dismiss arguments without really giving any counterarguments. Let us not kid ourselves. Having said that it is also both-sideism type situation. How many New Age theories pan out compared to how many scientific arguments pan out? I think you will agree that scientific ideas have been stable and building on top of previously established science for most parts. Of course, there are zig-zags and course corrections. That in fact is built into the scientific method. <br><br>Lex was talking about humility and science and scientists. I do not know about specific scientists making a specific comment about a specific item. it may be that Francis Collins dismissed it as he is also an administrator trying to address the public health issues in the short amount of time available to get ahead of the virus. In the case of theoretical infinite time and resource situation of course we could look at every claim made by every human on the internet, study it rigorously, and make a judgment after that. But you will agree there is a priority order in which we should do it. In the case of covid, we lost a lot of time in relation to Covid because of Govt inaction and in some cases outright malpractice.  Aso, know that GOVT policy is like a tanker and has a lot of inertia and cannot be reactive on unverified claims. And Francis's action has to be seen in that light.<br><br>The scientific method says - these are the theories/models to the best of our knowledge and observations. We will enhance, modify or even replace our current theories based on additions and sometimes contrary observations and data. This in fact has been practiced to more or less great success. Kepler's theories of orbits and platonic solids were corrected when better explanations came along. Newton's theory of gravity was shown to be a special case of the General Theory of relativity. To me, that is the definition of humility. I think the scientific approach is humble as opposed to know-it-all-and-only-what we-say-is-true religions. I think people confuse the confidence of science (which is well earned IMO - after all our modern societies are based on applied science ie. technology) with arrogance. Having said that it may be that some scientists may be arrogant and dismissive. Sure.<br><br>I also disagree about complaints about experts. If we want to complain as to why experts (and not all experts are equal - but generally) dismiss random claims, we should also first ask how much rigorous hard work the person making a random claim on the internet has put in. Anyone can say anything on the internet without revealing the background work they put in. Some economics may be at play here as the consumers of podcasts like this are those multitudes on the internets.<br><br>We cannot and should not be open-minded for open-mindedness's sake. In the fast, modern culture and societies and with limited time and resources we have to prioritize. We can be open-minded to the extent we can afford to be and not be infinitely open-minded - at least in practice in the real world. Be openminded itself may have become a cliche and its merits should be discussed open-mindedly, no?,(reply>), @MR COLLECTOR I don't see how that's relevant to the points I was making (in my last comment here, at least). I try not to make my thoughts on consciousness rely on Bell and the realism vs non-realism debate.. as I see it, science is a game of abstraction and language, about rules, not about any substantial nature of things, not about "the substrate", if you will.,(reply>), @Erick Check out Bell's inequality violation and legget's inequality violation,(reply>), @Sandip Chitale well I concur to an extent. I mentioned gatekeeping and inefficient institutions precisely because a good counterargument or response is often made impossible through the mainstream. I understand what people mean about science not even possibly explaining consciousness. The problem isn't science (or "scientism", meant as an exaggerated reliance on mainstream science and resistance to counterarguments. Scientism is thus understood as antithetical to science). <br>The position that seems totally inconsistent with phenomenal consciousness, i.e. qualia, is physicalism... metaphysical physicalism strips away all substance from the real world and claims that what really exists are the abstracted mathematical laws that we generalize from physical systems by means of language. This is ludicrous. You might not call the nature of the physical world by the name "consciousness", but it has a substantial nature which must be more like what we know to exist, right under our noses, than what we imagine through abstraction, formalism and computation (which, so far as we know always require a substrate, i.e. a substance to implement).,(reply>), @Erick Well, I have seen people using the word "Scientism" without giving counterarguments. I have not seen Scientism used against Pharmaceutical companies. People should produce contrary data if a Pharmaceutical makes a wrong scientific claim. I have seen it used against things like the statement that science MAY one day explain consciousness. Or even against Theory of Evolution. Yes even if the word MAY is being used.,(reply>), @Sandip Chitale You make good points but can't overlook that "scientism" can rob and harm people under the guise of true science as well, through institutional inefficiency and gatekeeping, etc., and also mislead. Pharmaceutical companies are a great example of gaming science for this sort of purpose... just sayin'.