| Text I responded to can be seen here: https://sgcarney.substack.com/p/whats-wrong-with-hubermans-science My comment: “I think there is a bit of misconception going on here. Huberman is doing a podcast, not science here. Popular science, in a way communicating science to the public. Personally I think he is doing a terrific job. Is he a saint, super natural creature, without any mistakes, contradictions or errors? Nope. I think millions of people have gotten great information from him, me included, on importance of sleep, exercise etc. And I think world is a better place for it. So thanks for your criticism. It is important, just like scientists attack each others ideas, journalists are doing something similar. But I will continue to listen to Huberman podcast, in a critical way, not accepting everything he says as golden truth. I am open to change, have dropped previous podcasts when they stared spreading nonsense like Rogans podcast for example.” This article on Slate by Scott Carneys podcast guest is a pretty strong critique though: https://sgcarney.substack.com/p/whats-wrong-with-hubermans-science My conclusion: doing science is hard, doing science communication perhaps even harder. Seems Huberman does have some questionable ideas: fluoride, anti wax etc. Will see. Time will tell. |
Short response to Substack author criticising Huberman podcast
Leave a reply
Sasha's blog 