Complexity science has been a revelation for me. The system that matters is the interactions between the elements of the system, not the elements themselves. If you're measuring neurons, you're missing the interactions between the neurons. That interaction is consciousness.
Similarly, the interactions between people is "society". The interactions between labour and capital is "the economy". If we model systems as a static equilibrium, we're missing all the dynamic interactions between the elements, which are actually the systems that we really care about.
In today's world science as been politicized..."Follow the Science"....or "The Science is Settled" seems to be the mantra of those that want to squelch debate or investigation or challenge the orthodoxies... I would like to see a return to the principles of the Enlightenment Era..
Thank you Gaz. The “science isn’t settled” line when it comes to the sex binary has been catastrophic. Nature magazine debased itself cow towing to these views.
Agreed a fascinating discussion and pleasant for an occasional diversion from politics. Intersecting both worlds, I would be interested in Professor Ball’s take on climate change, especially the man-made genesis of it.
Wow, the humility of the man is inspirational, and gives one hope. This guy organized his life to point his considerable intellectual horsepower (a pretty rare amount) at whatever he thought were the most interesting and important subjects to study. Well done (and lucky)!
His perspective seems not the cultural norm at universities around me, which is too bad. Too much unjustified certainty foisted upon us by mediocre academics who haven't the courage to say, "I don't know", or "we hold as contingent..." when both would be the right answer, maybe especially in the social sciences? (I might have a hate on for them right now for what they've done to my community.)
Science is what we think we know today, and changes continually, without pausing. Why would we think that today, just because it's us thinking it, that we're nearer the truth than any time over the last XXXX years?
Excellent and enjoyable interview/discussion. Have a few more in coming weeks...
One comment that is particularly germane in these febrile times is the one of public discourse on science matters. As noted by Jen there are not squads of science journalists challenging scientists and attempting to bring scientific discoveries and topics into common discourse. As a result science for many is akin to religion: something unanswerable brought down from on high to be accepted, forgive the word choice, as gospel. It is not easy to do this as you require well trained interlocutors between the world of science and the world of journalism. Often scientists are very poor public speakers and have great difficulty in expressing complex matters in understandable ways and very few journalists are equipped to meaningfully challenge whatever the scientists might be presenting.
Relatedly, with regard to vaccine scepticism and disparagement of expertise in general, I find it quite odd that people with no knowledge whatsoever on a topic, opine with totally unfounded certainty on the subject. As a generality all people have an expertise in their skill set by which they earn their bread and cheese - plumbing, truck driving, bookkeeping, historical analysis, writing, financial analysis, tax law, or whatever it might be - and who, typically, are offended when an outsider challenges that expertise on some, to them, specious ground. Yet this perspective is often not considered when they go to battle in someone else's area of expertise. Sure they can do 'research' but they don't know what they're reading, don't know how to interrogate what they're reading, are selective with what they're reading, and on it goes, and then do a lot conclusion leaping and frantic hand waving.
For myself, I am well aware of what I don't know. I have zero mechanical skills and so rely on experts to do such things for me for which I happily pay. As a minor quip along these lines, when house hunting in the past, I have told the realtors that I'd pay a premium for a house that the owners have not done any work themselves but have always got an expert to do it properly.
We are witnessing the fruits of these issues to our south with know-nothings driving public policy in harmful ways. I guess the fever will eventually break, quicker if you use Tylenol.
"Relatedly, with regard to vaccine scepticism and disparagement of expertise in general, I find it quite odd that people with no knowledge whatsoever on a topic, opine with totally unfounded certainty on the subject."
I was a stock broker for 15 years, fortunate and successful, and had the loyalty of, and responsibility for, over 300 families. Academics are well-known (teachers, engineers, lawyers and doctors as well) to be among the most difficult of clients because they struggle to accept advice from others on complex topics. There are exceptions, but this proved to be true in my experience. Time and again I found myself repeating the comment quoted above. I suspect the reason is that some folks are conditioned by their profession, their most oft-repeated activities, to be the "authority" and cannot be comfortable otherwise.
It should prohibited for anyone who immerses themselves in a research topic, especially for a meaningful amount of time, to make declarative statements. One person is so many unhelpful, messy filters that without public criticism, peer review, the processes that establish any credibility... no-one should believe it.
Still, humans are kind of amazing. My experience developing and executing policy taught me many things, including: 1) everyone understands more about what's happening than leadership tends to assume (unless they're being actively manipulated), and 2) some will go with you out of loyalty, some will never change because it's change, most will wait and see how it works out.
Complexity science has been a revelation for me. The system that matters is the interactions between the elements of the system, not the elements themselves. If you're measuring neurons, you're missing the interactions between the neurons. That interaction is consciousness.
Similarly, the interactions between people is "society". The interactions between labour and capital is "the economy". If we model systems as a static equilibrium, we're missing all the dynamic interactions between the elements, which are actually the systems that we really care about.
Yes.
"As above..."?
I can't like this enough 🤓 such a fascinating discussion! I will be buying some of Phillip Ball's books for myself for Christmas, it seems!
Thank you Jen. My inner geek is happier tonight!
In today's world science as been politicized..."Follow the Science"....or "The Science is Settled" seems to be the mantra of those that want to squelch debate or investigation or challenge the orthodoxies... I would like to see a return to the principles of the Enlightenment Era..
Delightful podcast and an amazing guest.
Hard to reconcile the "science is settled" with the "everything is in flux" message.
Sponsored by Universities Canada so putting your best foot forward makes sense. The other foot is not so good.
Discussed creationist versus evolution, but who knew some academies view them as scientifically equivalent?
https://quillette.com/2025/06/27/defending-science-in-new-zealand-matauranga-maori-podcast/
And closer to home, coercion of a scientist and perversion of science.
https://quillette.com/2025/09/03/an-uproar-over-facts-mcmaster-gender-trans-health/
Rot in Camelot.
Thank you Gaz. The “science isn’t settled” line when it comes to the sex binary has been catastrophic. Nature magazine debased itself cow towing to these views.
Indeed.
Agreed a fascinating discussion and pleasant for an occasional diversion from politics. Intersecting both worlds, I would be interested in Professor Ball’s take on climate change, especially the man-made genesis of it.
Wow, the humility of the man is inspirational, and gives one hope. This guy organized his life to point his considerable intellectual horsepower (a pretty rare amount) at whatever he thought were the most interesting and important subjects to study. Well done (and lucky)!
His perspective seems not the cultural norm at universities around me, which is too bad. Too much unjustified certainty foisted upon us by mediocre academics who haven't the courage to say, "I don't know", or "we hold as contingent..." when both would be the right answer, maybe especially in the social sciences? (I might have a hate on for them right now for what they've done to my community.)
Science is what we think we know today, and changes continually, without pausing. Why would we think that today, just because it's us thinking it, that we're nearer the truth than any time over the last XXXX years?
I'm enjoying Jen's efforts to dig into difficult metaphysical, philosophical, and scientific subjects.
Alchemy, and the history thereof, is absolutely fascinating. (Folks who reduce it to efforts to change lead into gold don't know anything about it.)
Excellent and enjoyable interview/discussion. Have a few more in coming weeks...
One comment that is particularly germane in these febrile times is the one of public discourse on science matters. As noted by Jen there are not squads of science journalists challenging scientists and attempting to bring scientific discoveries and topics into common discourse. As a result science for many is akin to religion: something unanswerable brought down from on high to be accepted, forgive the word choice, as gospel. It is not easy to do this as you require well trained interlocutors between the world of science and the world of journalism. Often scientists are very poor public speakers and have great difficulty in expressing complex matters in understandable ways and very few journalists are equipped to meaningfully challenge whatever the scientists might be presenting.
Relatedly, with regard to vaccine scepticism and disparagement of expertise in general, I find it quite odd that people with no knowledge whatsoever on a topic, opine with totally unfounded certainty on the subject. As a generality all people have an expertise in their skill set by which they earn their bread and cheese - plumbing, truck driving, bookkeeping, historical analysis, writing, financial analysis, tax law, or whatever it might be - and who, typically, are offended when an outsider challenges that expertise on some, to them, specious ground. Yet this perspective is often not considered when they go to battle in someone else's area of expertise. Sure they can do 'research' but they don't know what they're reading, don't know how to interrogate what they're reading, are selective with what they're reading, and on it goes, and then do a lot conclusion leaping and frantic hand waving.
For myself, I am well aware of what I don't know. I have zero mechanical skills and so rely on experts to do such things for me for which I happily pay. As a minor quip along these lines, when house hunting in the past, I have told the realtors that I'd pay a premium for a house that the owners have not done any work themselves but have always got an expert to do it properly.
We are witnessing the fruits of these issues to our south with know-nothings driving public policy in harmful ways. I guess the fever will eventually break, quicker if you use Tylenol.
"Relatedly, with regard to vaccine scepticism and disparagement of expertise in general, I find it quite odd that people with no knowledge whatsoever on a topic, opine with totally unfounded certainty on the subject."
I was a stock broker for 15 years, fortunate and successful, and had the loyalty of, and responsibility for, over 300 families. Academics are well-known (teachers, engineers, lawyers and doctors as well) to be among the most difficult of clients because they struggle to accept advice from others on complex topics. There are exceptions, but this proved to be true in my experience. Time and again I found myself repeating the comment quoted above. I suspect the reason is that some folks are conditioned by their profession, their most oft-repeated activities, to be the "authority" and cannot be comfortable otherwise.
It should prohibited for anyone who immerses themselves in a research topic, especially for a meaningful amount of time, to make declarative statements. One person is so many unhelpful, messy filters that without public criticism, peer review, the processes that establish any credibility... no-one should believe it.
Still, humans are kind of amazing. My experience developing and executing policy taught me many things, including: 1) everyone understands more about what's happening than leadership tends to assume (unless they're being actively manipulated), and 2) some will go with you out of loyalty, some will never change because it's change, most will wait and see how it works out.