Council of the Canceled with Eric Weinstein, Jay Bhattacharya and Mike Benz (X Content): Difference between revisions

So the way that I think we can start with this conversation and you said, let's just have one council and then hopefully we don't have to have it again. In our brainstorm for this live session, we already started talking about how deep and how powerful these mechanisms are. And I just want to propose that I think we must continue these councils. It'll be different people, different voices, different backgrounds, different opinions that we will be convening until there is a proper reseating of experts. And so, I want to lay that groundwork that we're trying something right now in this format. That is my hope being is something that last, and many different iterations were open sourcing this format if others want to, to engage in it. But the ideal is, is that we either invite the institutions to reform themselves, in the way that they ought to be reformed or we will be restarting our own institutions, and our institutions will be based on principles, on how we reach expert consensus and infrastructure for reaching expert consensus. So, Eric, I want to turn this one over to you. We talked about what this infrastructure should look like, it how it has looked in previous formats. and, and the risk of what happens if we don't.

Sure. I mean, one of the things that I think I was most moved by was your concern that, by creating consensus, consensus in this new way of taking the dissenting portion of the expert community and deciding that they suffer from some strange psychological malady or, incompetence or that they're bizarrely self-serving, the institutions have been running their own credibility into the ground. And you can see this across different disciplines, in different fields through the polling data. How much confidence do you have in medicine, in journalism, etc., even science in particular, with disastrous public health under Covid. I think that what you're trying to do is you're trying to say each time you buy a consensus by doing character assassination against dissenters, you're actually destroying the long-term respect in that institution. How many people still feel the same way about UPenn, Harvard and MIT, my three universities, after those disastrous testimonies before Congress? So what you what you're seeing, I think, is, I think this is your plan. Your plan seems to be to offer the institutions a way back by saying, here's how we would come up with a protocol for figuring out who are the stakeholders and the representatives of the public in the expert community that are being silenced, or being maligned or debunked or whatever crazy terminology we'll get?