Welcome to the nonprofits again. For the third and final segment this week, we set aside the active combat zone that is the American educational system and look at something a little bit more concrete, global population. There can't be any disagreements on that, Ken there, Eli Slack, Please tell me there are some things in this world we can all agree on absolutely, And.
Now it's time for the song of My people. Science Josiah Slang Ridder, a postdoc researcher from Alto University in Finland, and some others are suggesting that the Earth might contain
significantly more humans than we think. Ridder's paper, published in Nature Communications, took data from rural dam projects, where companies know exactly how many people they displaced to build the dams because they had to pay each of them for displacing them, And then they compared that data to official estimates of populations and found that official estimates undershot the more precise damn project data by between fifty three to
eighty four percent, depending on the area. Now, on the surface, this seems to me like solid reasoning, but experts are cautiously skeptical, noting that wow, there's good reason to invest more research. Into rural populations. Having a correction on the order of a few billion people is a little bit outside of the realm of reality for the first preliminary data. This story is from Popular Mechanics by Darren Orf on June twenty first, twenty twenty five.
All right, and we're going to come right back to you with the questioning beginning with Eli, the science guy, Eli the Chris.
Where the hell is Eli's theme song Scott, Get out of your dream World? You know we don't have the budget for that kind of a thing.
All right, all right, well, Eli, anyway, as a fellow nerd, what's your take on this?
It's interesting that that was a bad joke.
Sorry, continue, It's interesting to me. I like the method. I think he knows or suspects at least that the damn prod that the companies building the dams are going to have more precise and verifiable, honestly records about how many people were there because they had to pay them, so, they needed bank accounts, they needed addresses, they needed to know how many people were in each home, and all
things like that. So when you compare that to estimates from organizations like World pop or GWP, grump, land Scan and GHS pop which.
Sounds like international.
Yeah, grump sound like international like pop bands in a way. But he found the discrepancy, he said, he said, hey, look, and it was significant, and so it got published. And it does matter because we allocate funds to rural areas based on their population densities. So for underrepresenting them, we are under serving them. But I think it is also a good representation of a scientific method, because we saw in the article. He had some criticism from Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology. A researcher named Stuart geigle Baston said, essentially, I'm kind of, you know, extrapolating from what he said, but just because it's compelling, that doesn't mean that it's true. You know, it's something, it's it's it's it's common for it's common to find something and think like, oh, like this is you know, if this
is true, this changes everything. And the first step in that is follow that data, see why you have that discrepancy before you start making like grandiose claims.
Right, yeah, exactly, Stephen, what's what's your take on this?
I I think that you have a slightly less enthusiastic perspective here than Eli.
So what can you add that as a counterpoint?
Yeah, No, I think this is really good science for when you're sitting on the shitter. I think it's really entertaining for.
It when the best science happens anyway, Right, isn't that kind.
Of where you guys read for the show?
No, like you know, like again like this isn't this isn't my field of expertise. But it seems to me that there are snags, there are unaccounted shortcomings in this approach, whether you're looking at areas that are specifically affected by dam so that isn't a fair representation of the global rural population, right, areas where there's going to be dams or areas where there is going to be water and there's going to be already an abnormally large number of people.
So that kind of tracks with the data, it seems, and like thirty five areas is really a niche area, and especially when it's like yeah, like river based areas thirty five across the global Like, that's that's not a very in depth So you.
Want to bigger you like a big sample size, is what you're saying. Steven Harder loves a big example.
Size.
The bigger the better. Absolutely, that's right, That's what I'm all about here, right to know, Yeah, like and if like and again like, I'm I can be an expert in everything. I can be an expert in many things. And if so, I rely on experts who actually have
dug into the material to know their shit. And if the experts aren't convinced, then I find I'm like, I trust them until they have when they when they have good reason to, you know, draw a red flag around it, then then that's I think is a great time to draw more conclusions, not to start investigating, but to yeah, let's let's get a more robust understanding.
Fair point, fair point. I have to have to hand that to you.
So as a math teacher, of course, this article is really like just gold for me.
Right.
It was basically we're talking about people that messed up the math because they were making incorrect assumptions. And I love throwing those kind of problems out to my students to not only show not only to practice the math and then they have to use math to justify their arguments, but then to realize that we all make assumptions in all cases and so we need to make sure that we are aware of the assumptions that we're making, and
we need to test those assumptions. So here's a situation where we had a lot of money and effort and science has gone into things like predicting world population and we discover a flaw in our system based off of faulty assumptions. That is just the math teacher mother load right there. It's just perfect learning opportunities. So I'll ask Eli here first, So what lessons can we learn from this, either generally about you know, being good scientists, or specifically
about this issue. What do you think we can learn here?
I think, in part, we can't always trust our measurements, and it's either because you know, these international pop bands are incorrect about the world population, or because language.
I can't trust an international pop band. Who can you trust?
I'm maybe maybe Josiah's lang Ritter. Maybe he's got the right answer, but.
Maybe he's got Grump backing him up.
Though well no, he he disagrees with Grump all right.
The discrepancy.
But that's what I think is when you find a discrepancy between your data and other data, somebody got it wrong. Don't assume that it's not you. I think it's it's just as it's just as plausible for it to be you as it is for it to be the other guy. And when it's you or everyone else for the past several decades, you have to realize that it's more likely for it to be you. That is wrong. But like I said earlier, find why there's a discrepancy. Find like, what what would I expect to see if there was
fifty percent more people on the earth? Then I think that there are, And then go out and look for that. And if you can't find that, you know, let's reconsider.
Right maybe or maybe ask me why we didn't find.
It exactly exactly? Why why wouldn't we find it? Is there some reason we wouldn't have found that? Is there something else that might that I might see in the result? Like you, you can keep investigating it, but it's not quite time yet to start making, you know, drawing conclusions and like rerouting resources based on one stud.
Right, Right, I think one of the themes that Eli was just talking about is the idea of intellectual humility.
Right.
We need to be open to the possibility that we've made mistakes because our.
You know, human, we're human beings. We have egos, we have predispositions, we have biases, and so forth. Steven, I wonder if you could comment briefly on what what are your thoughts on the role of intellectual humility and that kind of thing in the scientific community and in just in general as we as the human species learn about our world and our universe. Yeah, just a tiny little question there for you.
Great Like I one of the best parts about deconstructing and stepping away from the faith is the humility that I was able to tap into because when I was a Christian, I didn't need to be too too, too humble because I had all the motherfucking answers. Uh and yeah, And that was and what was interesting about you know, the looking at this article from a meta perspective is how it reminded me of that that desire to be to feel like, oh, yeah, I know something that other
people don't. I understand this world the way that the world in a way that the rest of the world doesn't understand. I'm a little bit special, right, And I think that's what what makes an article heading like this one extra alluring, extra appealing. It's just like I have this information that what the rest of the world doesn't know, like we've been doing this wrong the whole time. Like I just as a sucker for that, And that was a big draw for me, and and my spirituality was
just the fact that I had special wisdom. So yeah, like humility and being able to understand why we're wrong and is a huge thing. That's the only way that we can move forward.
Yeah, and the way that you were phrasing that just just triggered something in my brain. So I'm going to ask Eli this additional question here conspiracy theories, So how can we link that We've been talking about intellectual humility. Stephen was talking about having being privy to inside information or having the inside scoop on the quote unquote real truth. DM, how is this kind of thing do you think this
would be? Is this fuel for conspiracy theory or is this going to maybe debunk a conspiracy theory or how is that going to link in there?
I've already got one as soon as you said conspiracy theory. Between then and now, I've got one, So yeah, absolutely, like it could. I Mean I don't believe it, but you can come up with one that easily the extra four billion people are the ancient race of aliens that built the pyramids and went underground to hide, and now they're coming back up like humans naturally. That's why we didn't find them over the past decades worth of data.
So yes, absolutely found to come up.
I mean it seems like it takes very little excuse, just a tiny little kernel of an idea and then somebody's making conspiracy theory about that.
Yeah, and archaeologists are like historians. Ten thousand years from now, we'll find that I was the one that started that because I'm the first one to say it on the internet. All Right, I'm going to be responsible for I'm like.
Man, right, right, that's your legacy, Eli, right, there is.
Of all the things I've said. But you know, I think, yes, it's absolutely it can be a breeding ground for conspiracy. But it's just another reason people say, you know, oh, you can't trust scientists. Scientists have an agenda. Scientists are controlled by their their benefactors. Donors is the word I was looking for. I don't know how benefactors can to me easier than donors, but it's this idea that the scientific community is they or them or like the government
and whatever they are saying can't be trusted. So like if if they are saying it's raining and you stick your hand outside and you feel the rain, you're gonna be like, No, they're probably just you know, spraying water on my house with a hose to make me think it's raining, because I may believe anything except weather manipulation.
I think is the words you were looking for, their weather manipulation. Yeah, because we know, of course that's a thing now right.
Yeah, they're changing my climate.
Exactly as Okay, So Stephen, I wanted to Eli was talking about how we might be undermining trust in in science, or at the very least, giving ammunition to those who want to foment that kind of distrust in science. Do you think I mean, because because when I look at this, I see that this as a as a strength of the scientific process, the idea that we can correct ourselves.
And you were mentioning earlier about how you had this unassailable you know, knowledge in your brain when when you were religious, and I mean, how, how, how how does that play into this? Is this going to be the the crack in the in the dam that's going to break and all science is going to come crumbling down. Or is this just a reassurance and reaffirmation of the
strength of the scientific approach? Is this a Is this a good or a bad thing for the scientific method and for those of us that care about that.
I think any like the the system doesn't need to be perfect. If there's if there are inconsistencies, if there's questions, that signs that this system is working. It's when when everything works out just accordingly, just right, just perfectly. That's when flags need to be going up and saying like, wait a minute, how do we falsify this? If everything is going just right, something isn't right, that's a sign of the matrix right there. Yeah, So I think no
like having being able to ask these questions. The only way to the only way science gets better is through more science, right right right, So yeah, bring on the questions and no question is too hard, because that's like we as a species are going to evolve and it's going to be through these kind of processes.
Yeah.
I really like the way that they presented that in the article itself. It wasn't a it wasn't a finger pointing, it wasn't a blame game. It was like here's what we did, Here's what was wrong about it, Here's how we can correct it. I mean, it was very practical and very straightforward it. I didn't get the impression that there was a lot of egos involved or anything like that. You know, it was just a straightforward problem solving approach, which really appeals to to someone like me.
We have a little bit of time left.
I knew that this we were going to have a little bit of time at the end of this segment here, so I have an extra question prepared here. I want us each to put some deep, deep thought into this.
This is very critical. So here's the question, from.
The standpoint of pure musicianship and skill with their instruments, what is the greatest rock band of all time? Defend your answer? Eli, the science guy.
Go done.
I already got it. I'm just going to go with a scientific consensus, Queen, and I don't need because of live aid, I don't need to justify that. But I can justify it without live aid. So we have obviously, first, of course, Freddie Mercury, if you're talking about mastery of an instrument, this is a guy with a four octave vocal range, which if he's not. I'm not confident enough to say that he's the only singer in like the
last century or whatever that could do that. But if he's not, he's like one of like five or something. So that right there by itself, and not only he, but the band itself has such a range of style from like arena rock will rock you, to like opera rock Bohemian rhapsody to like like proto Thrashers, and like, uh, I don't know, Want Somebody to Love was kind of disco or kind of like I don't really know. So they have a range they have.
He did the Highlander a soundtrack, right, the Highlander soundtrack, the whole thing all queen Absolutely.
I didn't know. I haven't seen Highlanders, so uh yeah, I am out of her. That's truth. There can be only zero me. But additionally, sir uh Brian Howard May, Yes, Sir Brian Howard May, PhD in astrophysics and Commander of the British Empire. Uh is another title that he has built his own guitar with his dad out of a
fireplace and a sewing needle. And that's like it's a simplification, but it's not like it's true, and uh then after the band became famous, he then later was like, I'm gonna finish finish my PhD In astrophysics, which he put on hold so that he could go be Brian May of Queen. I don't know a lot about drums or like rhythm.
Of Yah, and I noticed you're not a lot talking a lot about the rhythm section here, so we gotta.
I I feel you know, I know that you know each of the band members contributed to their songs. I know that Roger Taylor wrote I'm in Love with My Car. That was all him. He's got a pretty solid falsetto himself. Uh, powerful backing vocals for for Freddie Mercury, so that was a good pairing. John Deacon wrote another one Bite Sadus and I Want to Break Free. So two other fantastic
songs got tight bass lines. It's just they all they they genre hopped they I think I think they were masters of their instruments.
And the case strong case you make a very strong casey lie you you got us out of the gate with a big answer there, Steven, what are your thoughts best rock band pure musicianship and skill with their instruments, including vocals.
Like obviously the answer is the tragically Hip. But as two Americans, you have no idea what I'm talking about, So I'll try to speak in your language. The White Stripes, Jack and Meg White, they're divorced and they're still in a band together. That's huge. Meg she plays the drums and she just focuses on like keeping a steady rhythm. That's huge. And then Jack he plays guitar and other things, and he also sings like.
I'm a big Jack White fan.
You know, I think the weak spot in the band, if the if we would call it a weak spot, I think is Meg. Of course, I think, but you know, he's kind of the pulse there. Of course I could be wrong.
I could be wrong.
Maybe the.
Yeah right right right, Well, I'm gonna throw my answer out there, and although I might, I'm on the verge of changing my mind here after hearing you know, you can't.
It's hard to argue with Freddie Mercury. In fact, in my book he has he is in the you know, he has to be mentioned if you talk about best musician on any instrument at all, I think if Freddie Mercury is definitely in the discussion there, And of course Brian Mays, no slouch, I would say rush, of course, I think you know they're just you know, the holy, the holy Trinity. Right, we got speaking of bodacious vocalists, we got Geddy Lee with his very distinctive voice and
annoys the hell out of a lot of people. But you know he's got he's got a lot of skill there. You know, Freddie Mercury wasn't playing bass when he was singing, although he would, you know, mess around with the piano a little bit. But Geddy Lee's on vocals, on bass and on keyboard, all at the same time.
Right.
And then of course al Alex Liifs is routinely brought up when when discussing the top rock guitarists of all times. He's got such a huge range and the master of the of the lengthy solo. And so I love Alex Lifsen. But of course you have your Freddie Mercury. I have Neil Pert, and he is definitely a master musician, routinely thrown out as possibly the best drummer of all time. I don't want to hear about John Bonham today, but Neil Pert was he just mastered. He you know, he
would learn different styles. He learned how to play jazz drums, He learned how to play all different kinds of drums. He would rehearse even on concert nights. He would rehearse before concerts and so on. He would start working out weeks and months before they went on tour, just so he could have enough stamina. And my favorite Neil Pert song ever was in it was I was during an interview and they asked him, do you ever get sick
of playing Tom Sawyer? And he said, I never get sick of playing Tom Sawyer because every once in a while I play at per and I just love that. It just totally summed up his attitude towards towards music right there.
And so I love that. But you know, good effort, good effort from Stevens.
The white stripes, you know, that's pretty damn good white stripes there, Queen. Though you know you're you're definitely threatening for that top seat. But I still think Rush might might have pulled it out here. Let's hear it from all of you out there. Leave a comment below with what you think is the greatest band on pure musicianship and skill with their instruments ever of all time