The Pros and Cons of String Theory

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

I'm pro string theory, but I think there's maybe a bit too much of it. As long as you have some other people doing experimental data or some ground truth, then you know, there's some kind of tension. William Hule used the developed as concept of conciliants of evidence and eo Wilson has popularized it again recently. We can feel pretty confident about our conclusions when we have lots of lines of evidence that stand alone independently.

Our climate is in the midst of dramatic changes, driven largely by human activity, with potentially enormous consequences for humanity and other species. That’s why science tells us, anyway. But there is an influential contingent, especially in the United States, who deny that reality, and work hard to prevent policy action that might ameliorate it. Where did this resistance come from, and what makes it so successful? Naomi Oreskes is a distinguished historian of science who has become, half-reluctantly, the world’s expert on this question. It turns out to be a fascinating story starting with just a handful of scientists who were passionate not only about climate, but also whether smoking causes cancer, and who cared deeply about capitalism, communism, and the Cold War. Support Mindscape on Patreon or Paypal. Naomi Oreskes received her Ph.D. in Geological Research and History of Science from Stanford University. She is now a professor of the History of Science at Harvard. She is the author of numerous books and scholarly articles, many on the public reception of science. Merchants of Doubt, co-authored with Erik M. Conway, was made into a feature-length documentary film. Harvard web page Wikipedia Amazon author page TED Talk on Why we should trust scientists Twitter See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.