Historically, physicists like Ed Jaynes and his predecessors championed probability theory as an essential tool in scientific inquiry. Garrett argues that scientists are often better positioned than statisticians to innovate in statistical methods because these methods are meant to be practical tools rather than theoretical endpoints.

Contrasting the Bayesian and frequentist approaches, Garrett advocates for Bayesian methods, explaining that they allow scientists to incorporate prior knowledge, which is crucial for practical applications, like estimating probabilities in drug trials or climate science. Unfortunately, frequentist methods dominate, partly due to historical momentum but often fall short in high-stakes or complex fields where a nuanced understanding of uncertainty is needed. Kaplan and Garrett touch on real-world examples, like the insurance industry’s implicit Bayesian methods and the successful use of Bayesian techniques in finding submarines.

Touching on the broader implications of “postmodern” science, Garrett identifies meta-analysis and underpowered datasets as culprits for non-replicability, especially in biomedical sciences. He contrasts this with the relative rigor of physics, which benefits from fewer variables and more mathematical control.

In this bonus episode James Franklin interviews Anton Garrett about his connections to major figures in probability theory, particularly E.T. Jaynes and David Stove. Garrett used Jaynes's work on probability to solve problems in statistical mechanics during his doctorate at Cambridge and Jaynes led him to the work of R.T. Cox. Cox showed that the rules of probability are essential for true-or-false propositions, providing a foundation for objective probability theory.

Garrett knew Jaynes as a shy but brilliant physicist who applied the "maximum entropy method" to astrophysics, leading to significant advancements in deblurring images. He also recalls Jaynes’s love for music and his quiet demeanor, contrasting with his confident academic writing.

The two also discuss David Stove, whom Garrett met at the University of Sydney. Stove criticized Karl Popper’s philosophy of science, arguing that Popper's rejection of inductive logic was flawed. Stove believed that induction, when done correctly, aligns with probability theory and is essential to scientific reasoning.

Garrett also reflects on Stove's concerns about political correctness (or "woke culture") in academia, which he believes is damaging free thought.

In Episode 7, Emily sits down with James Franklin, an Australian philosopher and mathematician. James was a student of David Stove in the 1970s, and later, a close friend. Emily and James dig into Stove’s work on logical probability and philosophy of science, particularly his critique of David Hume's skepticism regarding induction.

During the left-wing activism of the 1970s David Stove's politically conservative views led him to be an outsider, with it taking years for his ideas to gain recognition. His polemical book, Popper and After (https://www.amazon.com/Popper-After-F..., criticized influential philosophers like Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, calling them "irrationalists." Popper’s idea that scientific theories could only be falsified, not confirmed, was particularly targeted by Stove, arguing that this undermined the rationality of science, reducing scientific progress to sociological factors rather than evidence. Franklin elaborates on how Stove believed this probabilistic reasoning was essential in fields like science and law.

In addition to discussing Stove, Franklin talks about his own academic work, particularly in logical probability, philosophy of science, mathematics, and ethics. He has written extensively on the objective basis of these fields, arguing for the existence of absolute truths in areas ranging from scientific reasoning to moral philosophy. Franklin’s latest book on ethics, The Worth of Persons: The Foundations of Ethics (https://www.amazon.com/Worth-Persons-..., asserts that ethical truths are grounded in the inherent value of human beings, rejecting relativism in favor of objective moral necessity.

In this episode of Emily Unleashed, Dr. Edward Calabrese discusses his research on hormesis and the flawed origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model, which has shaped regulatory policies on radiation, chemical exposure, and cancer risk for decades. The LNT model assumes that even the smallest doses of radiation or carcinogens can cause harm, with no safe level of exposure. Dr. Calabrese argues that this model is based on a flawed understanding of biology, particularly the failure to consider the body’s ability to repair damage from low-dose exposures.

Considered by many to be “Mr. Hormesis,” Dr. Calabrese has spent much of his career researching the phenomenon, which suggests that low doses of harmful substances like radiation or chemicals can actually have beneficial effects by stimulating adaptive responses in cells.

The more widely accepted LNT model traces back to the work of Hermann Muller, who won a Nobel Prize in 1946 for his research on radiation-induced mutations. Muller claimed that radiation caused mutations in a linear fashion, but Calabrese reveals that Muller’s findings were based on incomplete or flawed data, and Muller ignored or suppressed evidence that contradicted his theory, particularly the existence of DNA repair mechanisms.

The acceptance of the LNT model led to overly conservative public health policies and regulations, such as expensive cleanup efforts for contaminated sites and excessive fear of low-dose exposures. Calabrese argues that a paradigm shift that embraces hormesis could revolutionize treatments for diseases like cancer, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s, and could lead to more effective and less costly public health regulations.

Emily Unleashed shifts gears this week, featuring a guest from the art world. Josh Vietti, a violinist and music composer, shares his journey of blending classical violin with contemporary music genres like hip-hop. Emily covers his journey to music as a profession and digs into his creative process.

______

Growing up passionate about music and playing violin, Josh received a scholarship with the Los Angeles Philharmonic, but didn’t consider it professionally until after trying out various jobs. Beginning with busking on the streets of Santa Monica, he eventually started selling homemade CDs and built up a fan base.

He eventually made a career of his music, playing gigs at Carnegie Hall, opening at NBA games, and working with some of the biggest names in pop music. His cover of 50 Cent’s In Da Club, and other hip hop songs helped explode his popularity.

Josh emphasizes the importance of formal training and mastering the basics of music, but relishes in the creative freedom he finds in blending it with beats and modern sounds. The conversation touches on the broader music industry trends, the evolution of streaming, and the challenges of making a living as an independent artist.

Overall, the interview highlights Josh Vietti's innovative approach to music, blending genres, and navigating the changing landscape of the music industry as an independent artist.

In this episode of Emily Unleashed, Emily Kaplan sits down with Stanford professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to discuss his academic journey and how his background in economics shaped his critical approach to healthcare decision-making. They dive into his influential Santa Clara study, which revealed a much higher infection rate than initially reported, sparking controversy and leading to his outspoken opposition to lockdowns and other public health policies. Despite facing immense backlash and threats to his career, Bhattacharya continues to advocate for scientific integrity and reform within public health. Tune in for a candid conversation about standing up for truth, challenging the status quo, and the consequences that come with it.

Our release of Emily Unleashed episodes continues this week with its third episode, where Emily talks with Pashtana Durrani. Durrani founded the Non-Profit Organization, LEARN Afghanistan, which provides quality education for children, especially girls in Afghanistan.

Due to Taliban repression, Durrani was force to find ways around restrictions limiting the education of girls in Afghanistan. Her approach centers on collaborating with local tribal leaders to gain their support, making it a community-driven initiative. She emphasizes that Afghan communities are not inherently against educating girls but are often constrained by safety concerns due to the Taliban's bans.

Through radio programs, microbytes (short, downloadable lessons), and remote learning the organization is able to deliver education in areas where traditional schooling is inaccessible. She remains hopeful, believing that even though the Taliban holds power, Afghan women will continue to find ways to learn and work, especially through technology.

Durrani is currently unable to return to Afghanistan but remains hopeful for the future of Afghan girls and the resilience of her country.

In this interview Emily and Drew focus on critical thinking, especially among younger audiences. Dr. Drew elaborates on the current state of discourse in society, expressing his concern about what he calls a "pandemic of irrational certitude." He emphasizes that this certitude is often irrational, as it resists the natural uncertainty that comes with rational thinking. He points out that true rationality requires an acceptance of uncertainty and a willingness to engage in open, critical discussions.

To this day Dr. Drew maintains a private practice in addition to hosting several ongoing podcasts.