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.
LISTEN AS A PODCAST
The art and science of changing our collective conversation. This critical thinking project highlights the people who are smart enough to see the problem AND brave enough to expose it. The show pays homage to those who dare to challenge conventional wisdom.
Support the Broken Science Initiative.
Subscribe today →
One Comment
recent posts
Metabolic health, medical education, and the case for bringing clinicians and coaches together
At the 2026 Unbreakable Health Retreat in Miami, Emily Kaplan hosted a panel with Bob Kaplan, Professor Thomas Seyfried, and Dr. Derek Lee on what it means to treat cancer as a metabolic disease. They discussed the glucose-ketone index (GKI), nutritional ketosis, and strategies aimed at restricting the fuels cancer cells depend on while considering how metabolic therapy can fit alongside standard cancer treatment.
The conversation also addressed the practical realities patients face when trying to pursue a metabolic approach within the conventional oncology system, including questions about nutrition, repurposed drugs, inherited cancer risk, and how to evaluate different treatment options. Seyfried and Lee connected these clinical questions back to mitochondrial dysfunction, fermentation, and the metabolic vulnerabilities that may offer additional targets for cancer treatment.
An abbreviated version of this discussion is available here, for free.
At the 2026 Unbreakable Health Retreat in Miami, Professor Thomas Seyfried presented the case that cancer is fundamentally a mitochondrial metabolic disease rather than primarily a genetic one. He contrasts the dominant somatic mutation theory with a metabolic model in which impaired mitochondrial respiration drives a shift toward fermentation, dysregulated cell growth, and the mutations commonly associated with cancer.
Citing the work of Otto Warburg and research from his lab at Boston College, Seyfried explains how cancer cells rely heavily on fermentable fuels—particularly glucose and glutamine—and why mitochondrial dysfunction sits upstream of many of the genetic abnormalities seen in tumors. He also discusses reactive oxygen species, altered cellular signaling, and the role of mitochondria in regulating cell growth and behavior.
The presentation then turns to the therapeutic implications of this model. Seyfried explains strategies aimed at placing tumor cells under metabolic stress by restricting the fuels they depend on, including ketogenic metabolic therapy and approaches targeting glucose and glutamine. For Seyfried, the therapeutic target follows directly from the biology: restrict the fuels cancer cells depend on, exploit their metabolic weaknesses, and treat mitochondrial dysfunction as the central feature of the disease.
An abbreviated version of this discussion is available here, for free.
MetFix and BSI Members can view the full 54-minute video.
I think that the main reason we are beginning to ask about the differences between good or bad science is that there is an overriding agenda that wants to maintain specific narratives, paying and promoting specific results, which can only be called dishonest corporate science. We use to have mostly honest science and honest scientists and now we find a large amount dishonest science, so of course this creates “bad science”. In fact, I would argue that that all the major world problems we see today are because of dishonesty. Before, even if 1 dishonest scientist would try to get away with dishonest science, you would have the peer review process that would mostly put him in his place. Now, corporations pay the scientist and the Journal’s and the press so they can control the narrative and make it look like “good science”. It would be great to do some scientific research on how to fix this problem.