Are there any good science podcasts, ideally with some nice pleasant voices to listen to? I used to listen to the old Science Friday with Ira Flatow back in the day, great stuff, well before the whole world got so hyper politicized. Any good podcasts that are just like, fuckin particles and space and chemistry and fossils and shit, and not like "here's how mongolian gender stereotypes affect blah blah" ?
sabine hossenfelder
>>16885892Oh yeah I remember seeing her here and there, thanks anon
>>16885891Yeah too bad science Friday lost all its funding due to big bad trump taking away USAID propoganda slush fund. I guess PBS was just straight up lying to us when it said over and over that 99% of its funding was private.
>>16885891Long, long ago, I used to listen to This Week in Science, which was then part of the TWiT Network. Dr. Kiki had a pleasant voice. Her co-host was meh but not distractedly annoying. Turns out they're still making podcasts each week but I can't vouch for the current level of quality. https://www.twis.org/broadcasts/
>>16885891I have one but im gatekeeping.Following them since they were only 300 subscribers.Life has thought me that finding good service (or a podcast in this case) is like finding gold, you keep it to yourself.
What does /sci/ think of Theory of Everything with the jet?
>>16886011you mean jaimungal i think he is smarter than lex fridman, sorry not sorry, also jaimungal is up to date with research and ask the right questions even if they are banal where lex just throwin random bs for no reason, i can listen to curt, i have a hard time with lex
>>16886020Are you smart or retarded?If the former, would you recommend him as a way to learn the basic ontology of physics without knowing much of the math?
>>16886029i would not recommend "learning" from either, they are interviewers, it's a chance to see how a famous person think about things, like penrose, he was famous in my day, or knuth, also a giant of his time, but you are better reading their works separately if you want to learn their ideas, interview is a window into their personhood, so they are not just names you remember
>>16885891Andrew Huberman is unironically really good. Initially he discusses a lot of bread and butter things from his field that he basically teaches like a crash course in basic neurology, neuroscience and metabolism. Then for a while he dabbles with topics he's not really specialized in, with some interesting discussions but also some really glaring misinterpretations. Eventually he settles in a really perfect balance between being informative yet still reserved about the subject matter. At heart he is a genuine researcher and it shows in how well he's adapted to his role and his responsibility to convey specialist data in a digestible format.
The New Scientist put out a weekly podcast called "The world, the universe and us". It's a summary of some of the science stories of the week. It's very broad, but the stories they focus on tend to be surprisingly interesting. They speak to actual experts, rather than just winging it. And usual hosts are quite nice to listen to.
I used to listen to.. sigh.. "The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe". Honestly it was pretty comfy for a long time because it was just 3 brothers with distinct personalities (the accomplished elder neurosurgeon, the super autistic nerdy details guy, and the dumb joey from friends who wants to learn guy) plus random girl. I stopped around the time that, you know, everything went to shit. Specifically their girl got into a #METOO fight with Richard Dawkins and the whole thing became obnoxious idpol shit like everything else did.and I don't even care about the -ism of skepticism anymore, material determinism is lame and the past decade has shown the ineffable failure and collapse of trust in the scientific "community". i've had just about enough incessant "uhakshooally"s as I ever need anymore in my life. i'm done hearing that i'm not allowed to trust my own senses and shared cultural experiences anymore. i'd say i'd rely on scientific methodology when i want to find out if a drug works to treat a disease but you can't even do THAT anymore, can you? it's all a load of fuck
>>16885985I doubt that's true.
>>16885891Big Picture Science is good and has been around for years and they dont get bogged framing everything with woke speak like some podcasts.
