.png)
.png)
.png)
No, science doesn’t have a problem with Joe Rogan
Dec. 02, 2024. 4 mins. read.
5 Interactions
In praise of the excellent work that Joe Rogan is doing to bring science and technology closer to little people like us.
Joe Rogan has been all over the news headlines recently. He played a role in securing the victory of Donald Trump in the recent U.S. presidential election with his interviews with Donald Trump, J.D. Vance and Elon Musk, and his last-minute perfectly timed endorsement of Trump.
Many people love Rogan for this, and many hate him. But this is nothing new; Joe Rogan has had his share of controversy over the years. Here I’ll focus on his interviews with scientists and technologists, which should be less controversial than politics. Should be.
One of Joe Rogan’s podcast guests, Roger Penrose, is as respectable as scientists get. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics 2020 “for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity.”
I’ve been reading a new biography about him titled The Impossible Man: Roger Penrose and the Cost of Genius by Patchen Barss (November 2024). Penrose appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast in 2018. “I had this interview when I was in the States with this chap called Joe Rogan,” says Penrose as reported in the book.
I recently watched the interview again; Penrose is always worth listening to, and Rogan asks interesting questions.
Patchen Barrs accuses Rogan in the biography of “providing a high-profile platform to pseudoscientists, conspiracy theorists, and other perpetrators of misinformation. Rogan mixes credible scientists in with crackpots, making it difficult for people to know which is which.” Barss sources this claim from an article published by the Office for Science and Society at McGill University titled Science vs. Joe Rogan.
Does science have a problem with Joe Rogan?
Here are a few of the tens of scientists and technologists who have been interviewed by Rogan: Sara Imari Walker, Ray Kurzweil, Michio Kaku, Bobby Azarian, Brian Greene, Aubrey de Grey, Richard Dawkins, Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Ben Goertzel, Lawrence Krauss. I’ve limited this list to those scientists whose work I know well enough to praise without the slightest hesitation.
These people have at least three things in common: first, they are all reputable scientists or technologists. Second, they are all interested in the Big Questions to which we all would like to hear answers. Third, at one or another time, they have all expressed ideas that go against the scientific (or cultural and political) consensus.
Sure, Rogan has interviewed people of less firm reputation as well, including people that some like to dismiss as crackpots or pseudoscientists.
Some people who call themselves scientists have accused Joe Rogan of promoting misinformation on COVID-19 and vaccines, platforming fringe theories and giving equal footing to pseudoscience alongside genuine science, giving airtime to conspiracy theories, and conducting interviews with scientists and technologists in a casual manner without pushback or fact-checking.
They have expressed concern about how Rogan could shape public opinion, especially among younger listeners or those who might take what they hear on his show as authoritative. They fear that this could lead to a general distrust in science or skepticism towards mainstream scientific consensus.
Some of them find Rogan’s approach to be anti-science, particularly when he mocks or dismisses scientific consensus or when he engages in or encourages scientific debates on fringe theories.
No, it is scientific dogma that has a problem
I think science itself has no problem with Joe Rogan. It is scientific dogmatists that have a problem. By scientific dogmatists I mean the zealots who want to protect the scientific establishment from the disruptive spirit of inquiry.
I have a problem with the dogmatists who have a problem with Joe Rogan. Open inquiry must be defended against scientific dogmatism. The soul of science is freedom to question theories and assumptions, and this must be protected against censorship and excessive backlash.
‘Misinformation’ and ‘pseudoscience’ are in the eye of the beholder. Often, ‘misinformation’ is information that the authorities don’t want the people to know. Often ‘pseudoscience’ is science that contradicts the scientific establishment and its paradigms.
I said often, which doesn’t mean always. But ‘often’ is enough to give Joe Rogan the benefit of doubt, and to praise his excellent work to bring science and technology closer to the little people like us.
Rogan brings a broad spectrum of views to the table, including those from scientists with different opinions, which can lead to a better understanding of complex issues. This can be beneficial in fields where there’s active debate or where the science is evolving.
By discussing science in a casual, accessible manner, Rogan makes science more approachable for the average person. This can demystify science, making it less intimidating and more integrated into everyday conversation.
Rogan’s style encourages listeners to question information, which can be a double-edged sword, but does promote skepticism and critical analysis. This can be useful in encouraging people to look into scientific claims independently, fostering a culture of inquiry.
Even more important is Rogan’s willingness to tackle controversial topics, and give a platform to new science or technology that the public is not yet aware of. Even if not all the information presented is correct, his ability to influence culture can stimulate public enthusiasm and support for science and emerging technologies.
Let us know your thoughts! Sign up for a Mindplex account now, join our Telegram, or follow us on Twitter.
2 Comments
2 thoughts on “No, science doesn’t have a problem with Joe Rogan”
Some of the guests on Joe Rogan show certainly have a problem with science. For example Rogan invited the actor Terrence Howard to promote his crackpot ideas about mathematics and physics, ideas he says he got from a being that visited him in a dream:
Terrence Howard insists that 1x1=2.
Terrence Howard insists that the very idea of the square root of 2 is nonsense.
Terrence Howard insists that 2 is not a prime number even though the definition of a prime number is a number that is only divisible by itself and the number 1.
Terrence Howard insists that the Luminiferous Aether exists, even though it's a theory that Einstein put out of its misery 120 years ago and that had been in intensive care for 50 years before that.
Terrence Howard insists scientists introduced uncertainty and "all this bullshit" because they were only thinking in 2-D but he found the truth because he was thinking in 3-D
Terrence Howard insists that "cartesian space don't allow curvature".
Terrence Howard insists that "Gravity is just electricities draft".
Terrence Howard insists that he was not the one who came up with all this stuff " I didn't invent it, an angel gave that to me"
John K C;ark
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩
Hi John, hood to see you here! So in Joe Rogan's show (like everywhere) there's some noise besides the signal. Terrence Howard is noise. But I hope you agree with me that Roger Penrose - a top level scientist who has been praised for decades despite some unconventional ideas , eventually winning the Nobel Prize in Physics - is signal.
The noise is the price that one has to pay for the signal. I think this is a fair deal, and I prefer to hear more noise if I can find important signals hidden in the noise.
Joe Rogan brings to the attention of the public the ideas of some scientists who do excellent work (think of our own Ben Goertzel) but might not reach the public at large otherwise. In these days of thought policing, cancel "culture" and forced political correctness, I think the Joe Rogans of the world are very much needed.
Back to Terrence Howard, I didn't watch the episode with him and don't intend to. I think what he says is BS, and why should I want to waste my time with BS? But given the choice between Howard AND Penrose, OR no Howard and no Penrose, I choose the former. And I think if many people want to listen to a person then, regardless of what you and I think of that person, that person must be given a platform.
🟨 😴 😡 ❌ 🤮 💩