June 4, 2024 • 56 mins
Hello, Tangled Minds, and welcome to Season Two! Harry and I felt like we needed to revamp and get back to a little structure in the podcast and we decided to do that by addressing two controversial topics and challenging our own preconceptions and biases. Doesn’t that sound like a safe relaunch? We hope so! Today, Harry and I talked about the book What If We’re Wrong by Chuck Klosterman and each a topic to discuss how we’d react if we proved we were wrong about our held beliefs. More importantly, we talk about how we benefited from considering other perspectives and “being wrong.”
Link to “But What If We’re Wrong?” https://www.amazon.com/dp/0399184139/ref=cm_sw_r_as_gl_api_gl_i_1J1VRY3NR52RB00Y3022?linkCode=ml2&tag=ourtangledmin-20
Email us at ourtangledminds@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Harry Weidner (00:04):
All right, welcome back to our tangled
minds.
Jack Weidner (00:08):
Welcome to our tangled minds.
Harry Weidner (00:10):
I'm Harry Weidner.
Jack Weidner (00:12):
I'm Jack Bagnato.
And
Harry Weidner (00:13):
welcome back.
This is season two,
Jack Weidner (00:17):
I was gonna say we're not actually walking. Are
we welcoming them back? Or Arewe welcoming them to Season Two?
Harry Weidner (00:22):
Welcome to Season Two.
Jack Weidner (00:24):
Welcome to Season Two.
Harry Weidner (00:25):
This is the revitalization of the podcast as
I texted Jack, I don't know whathappened toward the end of last
season, but I got tired. I wasfinishing your graduated. Yeah,
I got tired. Joe,
Jack Weidner (00:37):
you ran a marathon.
Harry Weidner (00:39):
And who cares about that? Welcome to Season
Two.
Jack Weidner (00:42):
We have you asked what happened? It doesn't
matter.
Harry Weidner (00:46):
The only thing the only thing that matters now
is going forward. Welcome toSeason Two,
Jack Weidner (00:53):
the terrible mindset. Should we start again?
No, I think this is fine. It'svery nice. It's very vintage
podcast. You know how I knowthis is back towards the
beginning of the podcast,because I am nervous as hell to
record this podcast. I amsweating. I'm in a white t
(01:14):
shirt. And I'm sweating. Bothbecause I want to deliver
because I get this text from yousaying that we need to
revitalize the podcast. And I'mlike, yes. So I want to deliver
that. Also, our topic isstressful. And I thought all day
about how to articulate it. Iwrote nothing down, which is so
(01:35):
stereotypical of me. I'mnervous. Well, I'm excited. I
like I used to get this like,tense feeling in my chest before
we would record like, I feellike look at myself in the
mirror and be like Jack, you cando this. It's an hour with me
and God the church.
Harry Weidner (01:55):
And so I just want to explain. I don't know, I
felt like the past coupleepisodes haven't been our best.
We did the Seinfeld. I agree.
And then we actually recordedanother episode at home with
you, my mom. And I didn't put itout because I just didn't like
it. Like we talked about summeras adults and what the fuck is
that? So I
Jack Weidner (02:14):
think there's a lot there talking about summer
as adults. I don't think we didit copes. Like I don't think we
I don't know that we formed in anarrative. No, we had no I'm not
saying that. There's the I don'tthink the topic was bad. I think
it was the narrative structure.
Harry Weidner (02:28):
Yeah. We're back.
This is a 2.0 are tangled mines.
We have new podcast cover art.
Hopefully you can see that. It'snot done yet. But it will be
done by the time this comes out.
Jack Weidner (02:44):
What if we do our tangled mind squared?
Harry Weidner (02:48):
No, because it because if we have another
season, I'm not going to berolling out our tenure of minds
to the 72nd hour. Jesus
Jack Weidner (02:56):
Do you think we're gonna have settled? We're not
stopping 72 seasons? Oh, my God,I'd
Harry Weidner (03:01):
started. We're gonna keep going until we die.
Jack Weidner (03:04):
Jesus Christ.
Okay.
Harry Weidner (03:06):
What do you let's just do you just want to get
into it.
Jack Weidner (03:09):
We usually we could do like a little bit of
brief like, how have you been? iWe actually haven't spoken very
much about the podcast.
Harry Weidner (03:18):
All right. Well, tell me what's new.
Jack Weidner (03:22):
Oh, see, this is I shouldn't have said that.
Because nothing's new with me.
Nothing's
Harry Weidner (03:25):
new with me either. Okay, and that's us
catching up.
Jack Weidner (03:33):
Is how it goes?
Let's
Harry Weidner (03:35):
get into it.
Jack. Okay, a couple of weeksago, brought this up. And I'm
not sure why I'd like to hearabout why. But he essentially
said we should do an episode onbased on the book. But what if
we're wrong by Chuck Klosterman?
And we can all talk a little bitmore about the book and its
(03:56):
history. But I wanted to hearabout your motivation for doing
this episode.
Jack Weidner (04:01):
Well, you told me see now this is like where I got
scared because I'm like, Howmuch do I want to reveal?
politics that are in my mind?
I'm okay. You sent me You saidyou got to read this book.
Because I arbitrarily questioneverything, I think to quote you
or paraphrase you, thatarbitrary question everything
(04:22):
and you should read this book,Jack, and I finally got around
to reading it. It totally, atonce, like, reaffirmed my
questioning of absolute truth,and terrified me into an
existential crisis all in onereading, which I feel like it's
really good at doing that. Likeif you feel like you have some
(04:44):
sort of stable footing, it kindof shakes you up, but then
allows that to be very freeing,which is what I was looking for
in a book, but it did scare me alittle bit because I'm really
good at giving myselfexistential crises. And I read
it a Round the time of and see,this is what you might have to
cut this, of all of this. Theprotests on college campuses,
(05:06):
okay, which I think werecomplicated. And I was listening
to a lot of podcasts, a lot ofinterviews, reading a lot of
stuff on it. And there were alot of thoughts on both sides.
And I thought, wow, both ofthese are so the sides are so
(05:29):
passionate about their issue.
And I am weary of saying thatone, like something is 100%.
Correct. And I was thinking,what would I do if I were on
campus right now? And what wouldI do? If I were presented with
(05:53):
facts from the opposite side?
That contradicted,fundamentally, my perceived
truth? How would I handle that?
How are we supposed to handlethat? Are we supposed to grow
into handling that? And thenthat kind of got me thinking one
of my New Year's resolutions wasto be wrong, and Warren assume
(06:14):
that I'm wrong, less. So it waslike, oh, like, what if I were
to challenge one of my heart setbeliefs? How would I change? How
would that change me? And I kindof just wanted to talk with you
about the idea of what it meansto be wrong. And how do we
accept that were wrong? Youknow, we have these hard
principles. The Socratic methodis to keep asking questions
(06:36):
until you prove that we actuallydon't have that fundamental
grasp on a topic that we thinkwe that we do. And yeah, that's
kind of.
Harry Weidner (06:46):
And I think it's interesting that you gravitated
to this book will link thisbook. Again. Yeah. by Chuck
Klosterman, the book waspresented to me, junior senior
year of college, from ProfessorAndrew bomonti. And Andrews,
Eric simmering. And mathprofessors. And they just, you
(07:08):
know, they're they're not onlymath professors, they're very
well read. And they were justtalking about this book, opening
their minds to other concepts.
And it really sort of reflectedtheir, their willingness to see
the world from differentperspectives. So that's when I
got this book. And that's, I
Jack Weidner (07:27):
think, when I told you about it, you told me about
it after you finished it. Okay.
So 22 Yeah, yeah, it was it wasthat time, I'm just saying, like
you, you weren't like, Oh, Ijust got this book, you got to
read it. You were like, I justread this book, you have to
read? Okay. Two differentpeople. And
Harry Weidner (07:44):
the main premise of the book is essentially to
challenge you to think aboutyour current beliefs and
assumptions. Almost as if futuregenerations. Were seeing that,
you know, how, how can we lookback on our time right now, from
2000 years into the future. Andit talks about literature and
(08:06):
music and science and sports,
Jack Weidner (08:09):
and philosophy, gravity.
Harry Weidner (08:11):
And it was a lot of physics. You know, it opens
up with gravity, which was anice way to open it. And it sort
of serves as a, I don't know, acritique of cultural certainty,
which is, yeah, that's a goodway. So I'd like that you found
this book again, now, a coupleyears later, because I've had
(08:34):
time to sort of marinate onGoogle how I feel about the book
are fresh, you're fresh, and Ididn't reread it. But I remember
that I really loved the way thatthat it was written. But I'd
like to start with your but whatif we're wrong, Jack and I each
(08:56):
picked up a topic for this. AndI'm interested to hear Jack. And
I'm going to before we even gointo this, I am going to predict
how it's going to go andsomething that's going to
happen. So many times that youand I talk and get this crust.
You love the uncertainty. Yeah,right. And I love the
(09:21):
uncertainty less. So you willhave picked a topic about which
you are uncertain. And you arejust driving farther into that
uncertainty. Correct. Andsomething something that I did,
and that I think will happenhere is I've picked something
that I'm relatively certainabout. I'm challenging it. And
(09:44):
I'm trying to arrive at a clearanswer at the far end of
complexity. If that makes sense,you know, so you, you take
complexity and you just make itbigger and And I tried to drum
say, chaos chaos. And I drivethrough complexity, and try and
(10:05):
make it a little more clear. AndI really think that's what's
gonna happen here again,
Jack Weidner (10:11):
but we'll see.
Yeah, I kind of disagree.
Harry Weidner (10:14):
Okay, I'm excited.
Jack Weidner (10:18):
Okay. So essentially, I'm, you know, I'm
gonna have to frame this intowhy I am thinking about this.
Okay. As you said, I am not abig certainty guy. I often. I
don't know, if I don't, I don't,it's not that I don't want
certainty. It's that I am socautious of assuming anything
(10:43):
with certainty that I live in avery chaotic space, because I
try to frequently challenge mythought process. So this idea of
objective truth, really what I'mgetting at is I'm questioning
(11:04):
is, I don't believe that thereis objective truth. And that's
not a new theory for you. Andthat's not new. So I, because of
what you just said, me going andbeing like, what if I'm wrong
about objective truth was toobig for me to talk about? Yes,
Harry Weidner (11:22):
thank you for not taking so I said, What
Jack Weidner (11:26):
on earth? What is something more tangible in my
life? That, like, it would be away for me to kind of approach
this question in a more in amore, you know, focused way. And
then I thought, who believesthat they have objective truth,
that they're made of objectivetruth, the Catholic Church. They
(11:50):
Catholics wake up, if you askthem why they get out of bed in
the morning, they are likeauthority, which is a joke, but
it's true. The Catholic Churchpreaches authority, and they
preach objective, they haveobjective truth. And that is
what they base a lot of theirclaims on. I famously not
(12:11):
believing in objective truth andvery cautious of this, yet I
find myself constantlysurrounded by the mindset of the
Catholic Church. There were afew ways that I could have taken
this. Again, I thought one ofthem was easy. Okay. So I a few
fundamental principles ofCatholic church that I think
(12:31):
that they are objectively wrongabout our, let's say, their
stance on same sex marriages,and LGBTQ people being
fundamentally what did they sayat all? It's like something at
odds with nature or, you know,against the principles of God,
whatever. So I could say, whatif I'm fundamentally wrong about
(12:53):
that? What if the CatholicChurch has objective truth and
they're correct about it? Ithink it's easy for me to be
like, Okay, I'll burn in hell,because I don't agree with the
Catholic Church's teaching I, ifeven if I learned that the
Catholic Church was wrong, thatgoes so against my morals that I
had been brought up with that.
It's just I wouldn't change mylife. And then I say, Okay,
(13:13):
well, I'll just burn in hell.
And one, I don't know if that'sactually true, because I think
faced with eternal damnation, Iwould love to be able to say, I
will take that to stand up forwhat I believe is morally right
in this life. And the other it'sjust so easy for me to say that
(13:33):
because I'm not actually facedwith that reality. And I could
never, I won't say anythingelse. And I could never actually
understand that reality. So Ifeel like those personal truths
are very hard. Um, I hesitatedpicking something very specific.
(13:54):
And I think I am going to talkabout abortion. I was hesitant
to talk about it, because of thecurrent threat to women's
reproductive, the currentegregious threat in this country
and worldwide but especially inthis country, to women's
(14:15):
reproductive rights andreproductive health. I picked it
because I think a nuancedconversation is I want to have a
nuanced conversation about it.
And I am scared to have anuanced conversation about it.
(14:37):
Purely because it is sopolitical. So I am going to
start by so what if I am wrong?
I am a pro choice, white man andfor many reasons. I think some
(14:58):
of that is because I I have beensure, growing up, our mother was
very open about the importanceof reproductive rights for
women, our grandmother was aswell. I think also, as I have
gotten older, I realized that asa man with no health care, under
(15:24):
no healthcare knowledge or notintimate healthcare knowledge
that I don't belong in thatroom. So I picked a stance of I
arrived at the stance of prochoice, for many reasons. And I
firmly believe that that is theright place where I should sit,
(15:45):
you know, supporting women'sright to choose in many
different situations what theydo with it. So, I ask the
Catholic Church has a differenttake on this than I do. Right.
And they defend it with moraland they defend it with
(16:09):
certainty. Last summer, I wasreading an Atlantic article that
essentially stated theparaphrase it, it said the
argument against abortion is oneof nuance, and like, definitive
medical terminology, and a highlevel of empathy and compassion.
(16:35):
The argument against abortion isa sonogram. And that stayed with
me that this is potentially acomplex issue. We live in the
post roe world. And, yeah, so Iwould, I began exploring, when
(16:55):
we talked about this, I kind ofdebated if I wanted to talk
about it. But what if I amwrong? About the Catholic
Church's stance on abortion? Andwhat if a collection of cells a
fetus or you know, what have youat different stages? Is a quote
(17:23):
unquote, lie life with a soul?
And is a full in? I'd see I evenhave problems articulating this
argument because I, it's, it'sreally hard. It's like, what if
that that collection of cells isa human being as an I just can't
(17:48):
understand that and I'm wrong. Ithink that's something that I
want to discuss. I don't know ifI'm gonna regret this. No, I
Harry Weidner (17:59):
that's I think that's brave of you. I think
that's brave. And I appreciatethat you brought it up, I wasn't
expecting you to.
Jack Weidner (18:08):
It's just so easy for me to talk about religion
like, Oh, what if I'm wrong, Iburden How do I treat anyone
different? Absolutely not. And Ijust, I just kept arriving at
that, like, what if I'm wrongabout the Catholic Church? When
I'm standing, looking at thegates of hell? Do I change the
(18:29):
way I interact with people? AndI like, according to like,
knowing that like, knowing I'llbe condemned, how do I change?
And like I said, like, I don'tbelieve that I can actually
answer that, because that is notthe reality for me. But I think
from an ideological standpoint,it's very easy for me to say,
No, I don't because I if theAmerican Catholic Church is
(18:50):
right, if these hard stancesthat they're taking, is correct.
We, I must ask myself if that,even if that's correct. Meaning
like, God, you know, this iswhat God created? Is that a god
and a world in which I wouldlike to serve? And I think the
(19:12):
answer would be no. But this isthe abortion arguments a little
bit more complicated. It isbecause involving a lot of
factors. Yeah,
Harry Weidner (19:22):
I mean, it's a much more ethical argument. And
it's a much more ethical andscience based argument, rather
than, you know, pure theology.
Right. So you've got you'vetalked about how sort of
cultural background influencesyour individual and locationally
(19:42):
Speaking collective views onabortion. Yeah. But how, and I
don't know the answer to this,but how have it advancements in
sort of medical technology andfrom this Atlantic article and
(20:03):
terminology influenced theabortion debate.
Jack Weidner (20:09):
Ooh, that's a great question. Um, there are so
many ways to discuss this, Idon't even know if I'm qualified
to be discussing. But I'vedefinitely contended with the
issue for a lot of reasons. Whenthe when, essentially when the
(20:33):
state's decided or when, whenRoe was decided, and the
following cases, they kind ofthe court added this kind of
weird sliding scale, where asmedical advancements increased,
the viability stage got longer,so they kind of made it so when
(20:59):
viability when fetal viabilityoccurred, it was kind of legal
to outlaw abortions, which is avery, like, almost a black and
white way of looking at it.
Looking at the issue, like whereif the fetus is viable, outside
of the womb, then the state hasan interest in that baby in that
fetuses life, right? Wherethat's not the argument that I
(21:24):
think the Catholic Church makes,where you said, it's, it has to
do with science. But theCatholic Church does not. The
catheter surely does not engagein that kind of idea. They don't
engage with science, they rejectthat science has a place in that
argument. I don't know if youknew that I didn't
Harry Weidner (21:47):
I really have stayed out of the Catholic day
if this, right,
Jack Weidner (21:51):
sure. No, of course, they reject that
scientists can tell you when ahuman being as a human being,
and not the idea, the presenceof a soul, which I'm not here to
say if that makes a human beingor not. They say that that is
purely a theological. And what'sweird is they don't even say
(22:12):
that it's a theological debate.
They believe that they haveauthority, which goes back to
this kind of idea that they cansay things with certainty. And
that because it's been taughtthat way, they pass that down,
and that they've arrived at thisright answer. And they say that,
you know, the, that human lifebegins in the womb.
Harry Weidner (22:33):
And how do you feel about the Catholic Church
stance on that?
Jack Weidner (22:37):
Obviously, I don't like it. Yeah. But I think that
it is got my question.
Harry Weidner (22:44):
You are in the process of converting to
Judaism, what you whether you'regoing through with that or not,
I'm not sure. But what is theirstance on it? What is Judaism
have to say about abortion? They
Jack Weidner (22:57):
have a little bit, it depends, like, again, this
complicated question. There'sdifferent types of Judaism. They
all have different views on it.
And it's a more personal thing.
The thing about Judaism is it isless Lok, small locus of central
objective truth that is thenpassed out and decreed for all
(23:20):
of its people. That is not howit works. It is you have the 10
commandments, you have differentinterpretations of the many
laws. But there is not a centralgoverning body in Judaism.
There's not a papel presents, toquote yesterday's Wordle that
(23:40):
can decree something to be true.
Okay. So it is I you know, it'skind of a case by case. You
know, there are a lot of liberalJews out there who are
incredibly pro choice, right?
Yeah, I'd say that's more of thefamiliar stance of at least
(24:06):
American Jews should but theCatholic Church says things with
authority and they say this withauthority. And when I am
presented with the question ifmy if you know, if I'm wrong
about them being wrong, if theyif the Catholic Church is right.
(24:29):
To be pro choice is to deny lifeto a quote unquote, full like
living human being and livingthing that is against my morals.
(24:51):
So you could say, Okay, well, ifI am proven, you know, 100%
would I change my beliefs? Thereis a second part of this, that
it's like easy, you know, maybeI should say, Yes. I don't know,
the part where I think itbecomes very complicated. Is
(25:14):
there is a another aspect ofthis? Where Yes, there is, I
think, saying like that there isa limit like this is a living
thing you're killing a thingreally simplifies that issue, to
where there are so manydifferent factors, that also
(25:34):
would go against what Icurrently believe to be true.
That isn't really impacted bythe Catholic argument. Basic is
that abortion is healthcare,right? There are women who die
because they cannot have thatthey do not have access to
(25:55):
abortion, right, there are womenwho get very, very close to
death, there are women thatbecome very ill. And that is a
requirement to their healthcare. They need to they need
that as healthcare. denying thatis also fundamentally against
(26:19):
what I believe to be true thatis outside of the Catholic
Church's stance, and I thinkoutside of the Catholic Church's
stance on the well being ofpeople. What you are then
asking, is, which life do youvalue more? Which is such a hard
(26:39):
question.
Harry Weidner (26:45):
It is a hard question. And it's it's
something I should considermore, but it's something I tend
not to consider.
Jack Weidner (26:52):
Do you have to consider that in public health?
Harry Weidner (26:54):
What the Catholicism argument?
Jack Weidner (26:57):
Yeah,
Harry Weidner (26:57):
sure. Life, do you value more? Yes, you do. But
this isn't this isn't where thisisn't my wheelhouse.
Jack Weidner (27:06):
There's a there's another aspect to this that I
think is interesting here.
Because I heard people put ajudge talking. And he said that
he was not in favor of anyabortion restriction. And at
first the crowd gasp, I think Imight have been a little
surprised because I'd neverheard anyone articulate that
argument. And he said, when awoman has carried a baby into
(27:30):
the third trimester, bydefinition, that woman intends
to carry that baby to turn thosecases when abortion is brought
up. That woman that is a veryhard conversation that likely no
one wants to be having, right?
(27:56):
So this idea of like, so youtalk about health care, right?
I'm talking about like the sixweek pregnancy thing, or that
even gets really complicated.
But we're talking like, let'ssay 36 weeks, and you find out
something is wrong with the babythat impacts both its health,
and the mother's health. That isthen a public health question.
Harry Weidner (28:18):
I think it's a public health question even
before that. Okay, so it's apublic hydrogen. I think it's a
mental health question. Oh, myGod. Yeah. as well. Of course.
Yeah, of course, you know, andthat needs to be considered. And
I think
Jack Weidner (28:33):
where I get so caught up on this, and why I
have such a problem with theCatholic Church saying things
with this kind of authority. ispeople are always like, men
don't have a place in thisconversation. And God dammit, do
I agree with you. God dammit. DoI not think you and I should
(28:59):
even be fucking talking aboutthis. Because we we don't have a
goddamn right to be in the samebuilding. When these Congress
because we are. We can talkabout these questions abstractly
all the time. Yeah. Where Ithink you and I fall is a lot of
(29:19):
these are talking about control.
Where do we like we're talkingabout? Not like what the woman
should have like that. Ofcourse, the one should have a
right to choose. But when theseissues come up, of course, not
everyone agrees with me. Somewomen don't agree with me. To
me, that makes a logical sense.
(29:43):
But I think what it comes downto, really is this idea of
control. And when I vote, I amvoting for that level of control
depending on who I vote for. AndI'm voting on can trolling other
people? And I think that is whatmakes me so uncomfortable.
(30:10):
Telling someone what else to do.
Right. I think that is why Ihave a problem with many of the
arguments that the CatholicChurch puts out. And, and and
anyone that speaks with a levelof authority that seriously
impacts other people. Yeah, Ithink that a nuanced
(30:35):
conversation should be had. Ithink everything deserves a
nuanced conversation. I do notthink, at the end of the day,
people should be makingdecisions that kind of control
other people's well being bothmental and physical, and control
(30:58):
their actions. I have a lot ofproblems with that I at least
have a problem being the onemaking that just Yeah. Well, and
that's where I'm interested inyou yet. Because public health
policy is telling people what todo.
Harry Weidner (31:15):
i That's why I'm smiling. Because So wait, let
Jack Weidner (31:18):
me let me serve it up. Let me so I guess, if I'm
wrong about the CatholicChurch's stance on abortion in
America, I just can't look at itas such a black and white, this
is this life for versus thislife? Because I think it's just
(31:43):
too complex. And it comes downto making a decision that I
don't have the right. So I don'tthink presented with that
information. And I was wrong.
Just on that aspect, that Iwould change my viewpoints or
thoughts. Because it is so hard.
(32:05):
It goes it just goes againststill so many things that I just
don't even think are actually atthe core of that argument isn't
so that's kind of where I'vegone with it. And it was really
hard for me to articulate that,because I think it's so hard.
Harry Weidner (32:19):
No, well done.
Thanks. Sorry. Thank you.
Jack Weidner (32:22):
Please, please tell me about public health.
Well,
Harry Weidner (32:24):
I was talking I in a in a similar way. But funny
opposite. I chose vaccines forAI. But what if we're wrong. And
vaccines are a hot topic thesedays. The control comes from a
public health standpoint, and itdoes not come from a church
(32:45):
entity. So we could talk aboutvaccine mandates. And that being
Jack Weidner (32:52):
control, right, of
Harry Weidner (32:55):
people's actions.
But I really just generallywanted to talk about vaccines,
and I am very pro vaccine. Ilove vaccines. I study vaccines,
I care about vaccines, and Itruly think vaccines are the if
not the one of the mostimportant public health
(33:16):
inventions in ever. They havesaved millions of lives over the
course of their development.
They have completely eradicatedsmallpox, which was a terribly
feared disease. They have damnnear eradicated polio. And they
(33:37):
have saved again, millions oflives and waterfall of water for
wrong about vaccines beinghealthy.
Jack Weidner (33:45):
Shit, you by the way, we have both accidentally
touched upon some of the biggestHIPAA like some of the claims of
hypocrisy in both parties. Yeah,it's hard. This is nuts. How did
he do this?
Harry Weidner (34:03):
So coming from the side of science that relies
on data. And mine's a littlemore clear cut, because there
are numbers to back these. Andbut, yeah,
Jack Weidner (34:20):
go ahead. And then I have a clarifying question for
you, actually. So go ahead,finish it. There
Harry Weidner (34:23):
are numbers to back vaccine efficacy data. And
there, I mean, it's it kind ofis black and white. Vaccines
save lives. But what if the longterm health so CWLA may be
(34:44):
negative for a vaccine? Shouldwe be mandating Vaccines for
Children in schools? And theissue becomes more complicated,
as well. Not right now. Butlifespan increases and longevity
(35:05):
increase increases. We we maynot know the very long term
effects of vaccination, becausewe haven't survived that far
yet. It's it's terriblyunlikely. But fosse just to play
(35:25):
along with with this episode.
Jack Weidner (35:27):
So what you're saying is, there's
Harry Weidner (35:29):
a chance because there you are inducing an
immunomodulatory compound intoyour body that may have systemic
effects down the road, andthat's a lot of the anti Vax
movement, their their arguments,then that's their arguments now
(35:51):
in the history of it goes backto Andrew Wakefield, where he
published the paper, proposing alink between MMR vaccine and
autism. And he fabricated thedata. And it was retracted I
think in 2010. I'm not quitesure. completely false data,
(36:12):
wrong, incorrect. And then theanti Vax movement that sort of
catalyzed the anti Vax movement,and then it moved to other
things. And now the anti Vaxmovement is on this sort of wild
goose chase between findingvaccines and something going
wrong. They changed to someadjuvants in that were in
(36:38):
vaccines, then they moved alongto, oh, people are getting too
many vaccines. And now they'reon. Well, the COVID vaccine and
the mRNA vaccine. They talkabout the long term side effects
of that, which
Jack Weidner (36:54):
not even long term, they're talking about
immediate side effects ofpeople's hearts.
Harry Weidner (36:58):
Yeah, so there is what is it myocarditis? Yeah,
yeah. But you know, what else isa side effect of COVID
myocarditis markers. So I don'tknow, that's a little bit. Their
arguments are searching, but notfinding anything. And
Jack Weidner (37:22):
that is a famous conspiracy. That is a trait of
conspiracy theories. I forgotthe technical term. But it's
interesting
Harry Weidner (37:30):
because all of the papers and and subsequent
studies that are done for theanti Vax movement by people who
may potentially be anti Vax.
They they're not interested inwhat actually causes autism. And
(37:50):
they're not actually interestedin what causes chronic
illnesses. They're justinterested in seeing that
vaccines cause this, and thatthat's a generalization on the
publications. But there's a lotof bad science out there. That's
looking backwards. It's aretrospective type. Like, we
know, we think this happens,let's find it. It's simply
(38:14):
finding a needle in thehaystack.
Jack Weidner (38:18):
That being said, Well, it's getting it's getting
data, right, and then saying, Ilike knowing your conclusion and
justifying it right based onwhat's already caught not like
looking at it and arriving at aconclusion. You start with a
conclusion, and then you workbackwards backwards.
Harry Weidner (38:33):
So the anti Vax movement. There concerns are not
completely unfounded. It's it'sa matter of the parents desire
to do what's best for theirchildren, and people's desire to
be as healthy as possible. It'simportant to sort of
(38:57):
respectfully address thoseconcerns rather than dismiss
them. And so you can't becompletely dismissive of people
who are anti Vax, in publichealth, it's better to reach
them and have thoseconversations. Now that being
said, how would I mean I'm sopro vaccine and I understand the
(39:17):
regulatory aspects of thingsthat that go into producing a
vaccine and it's so hard andthere's post licensure
surveillance that happens andand these things are constantly
being monitored foreffectiveness and safety.
Vaccines are so well researchedand understood before they're
put into the public. Thatreally, oh my god, so
Jack Weidner (39:42):
even. Okay, sorry.
I said really? Like I didn'tbelieve it. I'm just curious.
COVID felt like it came out theCOVID vaccine felt like it came
out very fast. Yeah.
Harry Weidner (39:52):
Works. How do operation warp speed?
Jack Weidner (39:55):
How do you know what it was? 10 and I don't
know. Okay. How do you contendwith people? So we're used to
like, vaccines a very long time.
How do you contend with people?
You just said that the process?
It's a very strict process? Ifwhen they how do you contend
(40:17):
with someone being like, well,how the COVID won't come out so
fast.
Harry Weidner (40:22):
It was a lot of work by a lot of people at the
FDA and the CDC. And it washundreds of 1000s of smart
people collaborating together,saying, How can we get this to
work. And a lot of it came fromthe US government with a lot of
money, right? They said, We'regoing to do the Phase One
(40:42):
trials, and then we're going toramp up production, whether or
not those phase one trials weresuccessful, so that they could
immediately move from phase one,practically to phase three. It
was a very expedited and directlaser focused effort for these
COVID vaccines that were indevelopment to go through the
(41:04):
process as quickly as possible.
And people at the FDA workedaround the clock tirelessly.
Many of them have now left,because they were exhausted. But
they worked around the clock tomake sure these vaccines were
safe and effective before theycould be put out there. And you
know, government work, itusually doesn't move that fast,
slow. And so
Jack Weidner (41:26):
unless there's money and important and and then
it can move as fast as it needsto this
Harry Weidner (41:31):
was at Money in importance. That's that's kind
of how we landed on the mRNACOVID vaccine as quickly as we
did. And the technology was wasa novel technology. It wasn't
completely new. They knew how todo it. In theory, there had been
no approved vaccines using mRNA.
before. But what if we're wrongabout all
Jack Weidner (41:55):
that virus? Just gonna I was just gonna ask what
if we're wrong about 2000 yearsin the future? You for humanity
has been forced to bevaccinated. And people are
limited living to 120. Yeah.
They are seeing horrible sideeffects at the age that 120 is
(42:17):
the average. So So I guess I'mpresenting is think of 120 is
like, what's the average? Lifelike? 68? Now, I think 70
Something for 7077. Whatever. Sothink of 102 is like 727? Yeah.
People are seeing terrible sideeffects from vaccines, let's say
(42:40):
100?
Harry Weidner (42:44):
Yeah, again, I want to put out that this is so
unlikely that yeah, oh, it'salmost laughable that we're
considering it, but I'm playingalong.
Jack Weidner (42:55):
Because I guess mine was mine was a little more
complicated.
Harry Weidner (42:58):
Yeah, yours was way more complicated. But say we
see should have picked iteasier, say they have studies
that you can make a very clearcausal inference from
vaccination at one year old, towhen you're 120 years old, this
vaccine on this day, caused thisillness or is highly associated.
(43:24):
I don't know how that studywould be done, it would be
horribly difficult. But say ithappens, and there's good data
to support it, then publichealth and health care in
general takes a massive hit. Ittakes a massive public trust
hit. And we're dealing with thisnow hard to imagine it being
(43:46):
worse than it is now. We'redealing with this now. But then
public health takes a massivehit. People don't trust the
science that is coming out. Andfrankly, I think we see a
decrease in healthspan andlifespan. I think we see many
more people die as a result ofthe distrust in the very smart
(44:10):
people that are putting outincredible medicine in public
health campaigns.
Jack Weidner (44:16):
This is very interesting. You have taken
something where you are prolocus of control and pro and
authoritative presence andpresented it and how important
that can be for the bettermentof society. And I think I who am
a little bit more anti authoritythan you on the regular or at
(44:38):
least anti institution and waryof that in a different sense.
But with vaccines, I'm totallyon board. Because and I don't
know why this is and I thinkthis hits on the what I had
alluded to earlier, where if weintroduce political parties to
(44:58):
this A particular parties havedifferent views on what you
talked about, which is vaccines.
And when I talked about which isabortion, right, often, they are
contradictory positions. And soI'd say like, again, we're
generalizing, but to speak aboutsomething, generally you you
(45:20):
kind of your hands are tied, youmust jump. So I'd say we find a
large majority of people, ifthey are anti abortion, or pro
life as it's been coined, theyare often so pro life is often
vaccine skeptical, right, let'ssay. And people who are very pro
(45:45):
choice are often very much alongthe lines of vaccines. It's
going on.
Harry Weidner (45:57):
Hello, man. This is so weird, right? So
hypocritical. But
Jack Weidner (46:03):
I want to go back from that for a second. I want
to not just write it off ashypocritical. I'm curious as to
why you think that is? Becauseobviously, it's hypocritical if
we look at it from a controlstandpoint, but it's not
necessarily hypocritical if welook at it from a medical
standpoint. No. Right. So yeah,like, right, it's hypocritical
(46:27):
if we look at it from anauthoritative control
standpoint, of course, which isoften an argument that people
say, because we're talking aboutgovernment, sorry, I'm getting
not heated, but I'm justpassionate. I'm curious. I'm
passionate. So we're talkingabout this? And, yeah, it's not
hypocritical from a medicalstandpoint. And so like, is it
(46:51):
it's not, but it is kind ofhypocritical. A little bit.
Again, if you go through, like,what if I'm wrong? Like, it's,
it's, I don't want to say this.
It's kind of inconsistent alittle bit with this idea that
you are protecting human life.
(47:11):
And if you do a gross overgeneralization of the pro choice
movement. So I don't want tojust say it's hypocritical,
like, how do you look at it? Youknow, like, how do you look at
from a pro from a public healthstandpoint? How do you look at
these two issues?
Harry Weidner (47:35):
Public Health generally, is pro choice and pro
vaccine.
Jack Weidner (47:40):
But like, what I'm asking you wire I know where
they stand, but I
Harry Weidner (47:44):
just I just wanted to say that and I, I
just, yeah, let me just let meadd my disclaimer, right. Yeah.
And I am in public health. Soyou can guess which side of the
court but but why is that? Andand I think it comes down to
(48:08):
I've talked about it before, butallowing people to live the
healthiest lives that they can.
Jack Weidner (48:16):
I, it's so interesting that you use the
word allow, because you are insome ways, you are opening doors
for them to open its
Harry Weidner (48:30):
languages. So it's your very tactful to use
the word allow? Yep. Because
Jack Weidner (48:34):
just like the pro choice, you're like, Oh, I'm pro
choice. I'm pro life, you know,like, those are both two
positive sides of differentcoins. Yeah.
Harry Weidner (48:44):
It's, it's, it's our job to give people the
resources to live the healthiestand happiest lives, that they
can live. And that they want tolive. So giving them the
resources involves giving themthe education and giving them
access to the health care andaccess to the information that
(49:08):
will let them make informeddecisions about the life that
they want to live.
Jack Weidner (49:13):
On know, we're going long, but I think we would
be remiss if we did not concludewith it sounds like presented
with information presented thatwe were brought you and I would
not change our stances on ourgiven topics for different
complex reasons. No, I wouldnot. I would not i I'm
Harry Weidner (49:36):
too much of a firm believer in the benefits
outweigh I mean, okay, I'm gonnajump back to vaccines. There was
a rotavirus vaccine that wastaken back. And it was a vaccine
that was introduced to thepublic. And there were some very
small amount of cases ofinnocence option, which is
(49:59):
essentially your smallintestine, it's a small
intestinal blockage. And in somechildren got enough deception
from this rotavirus vaccine, andthe CDC picked up on it almost
immediately, there was a crazyamount of research. And I think
they took it off the shelveswithin a couple of months. And
so that that is the power ofthese surveillance systems at
(50:23):
work, saying the authorities andthe people in charge of these
vaccines are monitoring them,and they're willing to take them
back and make these harddecisions. Now, that being said,
even though they took it back,they could have saved many,
many, many lives fromdehydration and diarrhea, had
(50:43):
they kept that rotavirus vaccineon the market? And I think it
was one and 10 to 30,000vaccines resulted in a case of
interception. But the CDC saidno, that's too many.
Jack Weidner (51:00):
Which, which that's a really good point. And
to put out there, I did not knowthat story. Yeah, they
Harry Weidner (51:05):
they have taken vaccines, the only one I know of
is this rotavirus vaccine, butno, there are definitely more.
They have taken vaccines off themarket. And so given my current
understanding of vaccines, howmany lives they save, in this
instant that we are issuing them120 years down the road, if the
(51:28):
evidence is different than we dowith that, but the life saving
power of vaccines. I believe inwholeheartedly right now.
Jack Weidner (51:35):
This is a now thing for you. Yeah, what about
you? I mean, things that wedidn't get into are, you know,
tied to the abortion debate, youknow, abortion conversation is,
you know, care for mother'scare, Mother mortality in this
(52:01):
country, which is abysmal femalemortality in a worldwide, which
is, you know, like, there's alot of detail bad or so, so
terrible. So like, to forcesomeone to give birth, you know,
and also like, raising childrenin this country here. Not
everyone is so fortunate. Noteveryone is so fortunate to have
(52:23):
the financial resources. It's areally, there are so many
implicate other implications.
And that's why I think like,when we asked this question,
what if I'm wrong about theCatholic Church? Pop, maybe I
think the Catholic Church isasking the wrong question.
(52:44):
There's zero sum game doesn'tallow for nuance. And maybe
that's my problem. And that'swhere I want to end this, where
I want to say, what? You and Ididn't change our beliefs? No.
But I think I at least reallystruggled with thinking about
(53:05):
this. And I'm curious if youstruggled, but I'm curious what
you think. Did you think thatthis exercise was helpful? And
what did you think a positive tocome out of it was? What do you
think? Even if you don't changeyour mind? What do you think
considering that you're wrong?
does?
Harry Weidner (53:26):
I think it does exactly what your New Year's
resolution is, you come atthings with less conviction. And
it tries to help put you in theshoes of others who don't
believe what you believe?
Jack Weidner (53:41):
Do you think that that helps. So you say like, you
guys, have you you, as publichealth have arrived at how to
talk with people
Harry Weidner (53:48):
who have well, not me, but who are lots of
Jack Weidner (53:51):
what I'm talking about you like you in the gang?
Right? You Fauci your bestfriend's like, whatever. You
guys have arrived at how you'vedone a lot of psychological
research, how to talk to peoplewho are anti Vax, and how to
engage with them. Do you thinkdoing something like this helps
with that?
Harry Weidner (54:09):
Yeah, absolutely.
I think that's the only way youcan figure out how to
communicate with those who mightnot believe you.
Jack Weidner (54:18):
Adding a little nuance to the conversation,
adding a little nuance
Harry Weidner (54:21):
to the conversation because nuance
opens doors.
Jack Weidner (54:24):
Nuance open. I love that quote. I swear I
actually want that on a fuckingt shirt. Well, you're welcome
nuance open stores. I love that.
Yeah,
Harry Weidner (54:32):
Nuance open stores to have the conversations
that the productiveconversations that need to be
had
Jack Weidner (54:41):
and needed to be out in the first place. Yeah, I
think we found ourselves. Wedon't when we talk about
polarization. We've built a lotof walls and this is not this is
nothing new. But to be closedoff on both sides of the aisle,
you know to be so I think tohave so much conviction with
(55:07):
where you are. Maybe that kindof adds blinders to what you're
doing.
Harry Weidner (55:13):
Well, I'm glad that you brought up this book
and I'm glad that you brought upthis topic.
Jack Weidner (55:19):
And I hope it's a good episode.
Harry Weidner (55:21):
I had fun. I had fun,
Jack Weidner (55:24):
but I'm gonna get cancelled. by who? I don't know.
The scam scared. These thoughtsout there in the world.
Harry Weidner (55:33):
I think it'd be fine. Okay, but thank you. Thank
you for tuning into Season Twoof the season two, one. What if
we're wrong? In Jack, you wantto roll this out for the first
time to season two.
Jack Weidner (55:49):
All right, thank you so much for joining us for
this episode. Don't hate me. Ifyou have any questions or
thoughts, please email us at ourtangled minds@gmail.com Let us
know what you think of the newseason. If you have any podcast
ideas, topics you'd like toshare guests you'd like to be on
the pod including yourself. Besure to email us let us know
(56:13):
what you think of the newpodcast art and we'll see you in
two weeks to see how this messunwrapped.
All right, welcome back to our tangled
minds.
Jack Weidner (00:08):
Welcome to our tangled minds.
Harry Weidner (00:10):
I'm Harry Weidner.
Jack Weidner (00:12):
I'm Jack Bagnato.
And
Harry Weidner (00:13):
welcome back.
This is season two,
Jack Weidner (00:17):
I was gonna say we're not actually walking. Are
we welcoming them back? Or Arewe welcoming them to Season Two?
Harry Weidner (00:22):
Welcome to Season Two.
Jack Weidner (00:24):
Welcome to Season Two.
Harry Weidner (00:25):
This is the revitalization of the podcast as
I texted Jack, I don't know whathappened toward the end of last
season, but I got tired. I wasfinishing your graduated. Yeah,
I got tired. Joe,
Jack Weidner (00:37):
you ran a marathon.
Harry Weidner (00:39):
And who cares about that? Welcome to Season
Two.
Jack Weidner (00:42):
We have you asked what happened? It doesn't
matter.
Harry Weidner (00:46):
The only thing the only thing that matters now
is going forward. Welcome toSeason Two,
Jack Weidner (00:53):
the terrible mindset. Should we start again?
No, I think this is fine. It'svery nice. It's very vintage
podcast. You know how I knowthis is back towards the
beginning of the podcast,because I am nervous as hell to
record this podcast. I amsweating. I'm in a white t
(01:14):
shirt. And I'm sweating. Bothbecause I want to deliver
because I get this text from yousaying that we need to
revitalize the podcast. And I'mlike, yes. So I want to deliver
that. Also, our topic isstressful. And I thought all day
about how to articulate it. Iwrote nothing down, which is so
(01:35):
stereotypical of me. I'mnervous. Well, I'm excited. I
like I used to get this like,tense feeling in my chest before
we would record like, I feellike look at myself in the
mirror and be like Jack, you cando this. It's an hour with me
and God the church.
Harry Weidner (01:55):
And so I just want to explain. I don't know, I
felt like the past coupleepisodes haven't been our best.
We did the Seinfeld. I agree.
And then we actually recordedanother episode at home with
you, my mom. And I didn't put itout because I just didn't like
it. Like we talked about summeras adults and what the fuck is
that? So I
Jack Weidner (02:14):
think there's a lot there talking about summer
as adults. I don't think we didit copes. Like I don't think we
I don't know that we formed in anarrative. No, we had no I'm not
saying that. There's the I don'tthink the topic was bad. I think
it was the narrative structure.
Harry Weidner (02:28):
Yeah. We're back.
This is a 2.0 are tangled mines.
We have new podcast cover art.
Hopefully you can see that. It'snot done yet. But it will be
done by the time this comes out.
Jack Weidner (02:44):
What if we do our tangled mind squared?
Harry Weidner (02:48):
No, because it because if we have another
season, I'm not going to berolling out our tenure of minds
to the 72nd hour. Jesus
Jack Weidner (02:56):
Do you think we're gonna have settled? We're not
stopping 72 seasons? Oh, my God,I'd
Harry Weidner (03:01):
started. We're gonna keep going until we die.
Jack Weidner (03:04):
Jesus Christ.
Okay.
Harry Weidner (03:06):
What do you let's just do you just want to get
into it.
Jack Weidner (03:09):
We usually we could do like a little bit of
brief like, how have you been? iWe actually haven't spoken very
much about the podcast.
Harry Weidner (03:18):
All right. Well, tell me what's new.
Jack Weidner (03:22):
Oh, see, this is I shouldn't have said that.
Because nothing's new with me.
Nothing's
Harry Weidner (03:25):
new with me either. Okay, and that's us
catching up.
Jack Weidner (03:33):
Is how it goes?
Let's
Harry Weidner (03:35):
get into it.
Jack. Okay, a couple of weeksago, brought this up. And I'm
not sure why I'd like to hearabout why. But he essentially
said we should do an episode onbased on the book. But what if
we're wrong by Chuck Klosterman?
And we can all talk a little bitmore about the book and its
(03:56):
history. But I wanted to hearabout your motivation for doing
this episode.
Jack Weidner (04:01):
Well, you told me see now this is like where I got
scared because I'm like, Howmuch do I want to reveal?
politics that are in my mind?
I'm okay. You sent me You saidyou got to read this book.
Because I arbitrarily questioneverything, I think to quote you
or paraphrase you, thatarbitrary question everything
(04:22):
and you should read this book,Jack, and I finally got around
to reading it. It totally, atonce, like, reaffirmed my
questioning of absolute truth,and terrified me into an
existential crisis all in onereading, which I feel like it's
really good at doing that. Likeif you feel like you have some
(04:44):
sort of stable footing, it kindof shakes you up, but then
allows that to be very freeing,which is what I was looking for
in a book, but it did scare me alittle bit because I'm really
good at giving myselfexistential crises. And I read
it a Round the time of and see,this is what you might have to
cut this, of all of this. Theprotests on college campuses,
(05:06):
okay, which I think werecomplicated. And I was listening
to a lot of podcasts, a lot ofinterviews, reading a lot of
stuff on it. And there were alot of thoughts on both sides.
And I thought, wow, both ofthese are so the sides are so
(05:29):
passionate about their issue.
And I am weary of saying thatone, like something is 100%.
Correct. And I was thinking,what would I do if I were on
campus right now? And what wouldI do? If I were presented with
(05:53):
facts from the opposite side?
That contradicted,fundamentally, my perceived
truth? How would I handle that?
How are we supposed to handlethat? Are we supposed to grow
into handling that? And thenthat kind of got me thinking one
of my New Year's resolutions wasto be wrong, and Warren assume
(06:14):
that I'm wrong, less. So it waslike, oh, like, what if I were
to challenge one of my heart setbeliefs? How would I change? How
would that change me? And I kindof just wanted to talk with you
about the idea of what it meansto be wrong. And how do we
accept that were wrong? Youknow, we have these hard
principles. The Socratic methodis to keep asking questions
(06:36):
until you prove that we actuallydon't have that fundamental
grasp on a topic that we thinkwe that we do. And yeah, that's
kind of.
Harry Weidner (06:46):
And I think it's interesting that you gravitated
to this book will link thisbook. Again. Yeah. by Chuck
Klosterman, the book waspresented to me, junior senior
year of college, from ProfessorAndrew bomonti. And Andrews,
Eric simmering. And mathprofessors. And they just, you
(07:08):
know, they're they're not onlymath professors, they're very
well read. And they were justtalking about this book, opening
their minds to other concepts.
And it really sort of reflectedtheir, their willingness to see
the world from differentperspectives. So that's when I
got this book. And that's, I
Jack Weidner (07:27):
think, when I told you about it, you told me about
it after you finished it. Okay.
So 22 Yeah, yeah, it was it wasthat time, I'm just saying, like
you, you weren't like, Oh, Ijust got this book, you got to
read it. You were like, I justread this book, you have to
read? Okay. Two differentpeople. And
Harry Weidner (07:44):
the main premise of the book is essentially to
challenge you to think aboutyour current beliefs and
assumptions. Almost as if futuregenerations. Were seeing that,
you know, how, how can we lookback on our time right now, from
2000 years into the future. Andit talks about literature and
(08:06):
music and science and sports,
Jack Weidner (08:09):
and philosophy, gravity.
Harry Weidner (08:11):
And it was a lot of physics. You know, it opens
up with gravity, which was anice way to open it. And it sort
of serves as a, I don't know, acritique of cultural certainty,
which is, yeah, that's a goodway. So I'd like that you found
this book again, now, a coupleyears later, because I've had
(08:34):
time to sort of marinate onGoogle how I feel about the book
are fresh, you're fresh, and Ididn't reread it. But I remember
that I really loved the way thatthat it was written. But I'd
like to start with your but whatif we're wrong, Jack and I each
(08:56):
picked up a topic for this. AndI'm interested to hear Jack. And
I'm going to before we even gointo this, I am going to predict
how it's going to go andsomething that's going to
happen. So many times that youand I talk and get this crust.
You love the uncertainty. Yeah,right. And I love the
(09:21):
uncertainty less. So you willhave picked a topic about which
you are uncertain. And you arejust driving farther into that
uncertainty. Correct. Andsomething something that I did,
and that I think will happenhere is I've picked something
that I'm relatively certainabout. I'm challenging it. And
(09:44):
I'm trying to arrive at a clearanswer at the far end of
complexity. If that makes sense,you know, so you, you take
complexity and you just make itbigger and And I tried to drum
say, chaos chaos. And I drivethrough complexity, and try and
(10:05):
make it a little more clear. AndI really think that's what's
gonna happen here again,
Jack Weidner (10:11):
but we'll see.
Yeah, I kind of disagree.
Harry Weidner (10:14):
Okay, I'm excited.
Jack Weidner (10:18):
Okay. So essentially, I'm, you know, I'm
gonna have to frame this intowhy I am thinking about this.
Okay. As you said, I am not abig certainty guy. I often. I
don't know, if I don't, I don't,it's not that I don't want
certainty. It's that I am socautious of assuming anything
(10:43):
with certainty that I live in avery chaotic space, because I
try to frequently challenge mythought process. So this idea of
objective truth, really what I'mgetting at is I'm questioning
(11:04):
is, I don't believe that thereis objective truth. And that's
not a new theory for you. Andthat's not new. So I, because of
what you just said, me going andbeing like, what if I'm wrong
about objective truth was toobig for me to talk about? Yes,
Harry Weidner (11:22):
thank you for not taking so I said, What
Jack Weidner (11:26):
on earth? What is something more tangible in my
life? That, like, it would be away for me to kind of approach
this question in a more in amore, you know, focused way. And
then I thought, who believesthat they have objective truth,
that they're made of objectivetruth, the Catholic Church. They
(11:50):
Catholics wake up, if you askthem why they get out of bed in
the morning, they are likeauthority, which is a joke, but
it's true. The Catholic Churchpreaches authority, and they
preach objective, they haveobjective truth. And that is
what they base a lot of theirclaims on. I famously not
(12:11):
believing in objective truth andvery cautious of this, yet I
find myself constantlysurrounded by the mindset of the
Catholic Church. There were afew ways that I could have taken
this. Again, I thought one ofthem was easy. Okay. So I a few
fundamental principles ofCatholic church that I think
(12:31):
that they are objectively wrongabout our, let's say, their
stance on same sex marriages,and LGBTQ people being
fundamentally what did they sayat all? It's like something at
odds with nature or, you know,against the principles of God,
whatever. So I could say, whatif I'm fundamentally wrong about
(12:53):
that? What if the CatholicChurch has objective truth and
they're correct about it? Ithink it's easy for me to be
like, Okay, I'll burn in hell,because I don't agree with the
Catholic Church's teaching I, ifeven if I learned that the
Catholic Church was wrong, thatgoes so against my morals that I
had been brought up with that.
It's just I wouldn't change mylife. And then I say, Okay,
(13:13):
well, I'll just burn in hell.
And one, I don't know if that'sactually true, because I think
faced with eternal damnation, Iwould love to be able to say, I
will take that to stand up forwhat I believe is morally right
in this life. And the other it'sjust so easy for me to say that
(13:33):
because I'm not actually facedwith that reality. And I could
never, I won't say anythingelse. And I could never actually
understand that reality. So Ifeel like those personal truths
are very hard. Um, I hesitatedpicking something very specific.
(13:54):
And I think I am going to talkabout abortion. I was hesitant
to talk about it, because of thecurrent threat to women's
reproductive, the currentegregious threat in this country
and worldwide but especially inthis country, to women's
(14:15):
reproductive rights andreproductive health. I picked it
because I think a nuancedconversation is I want to have a
nuanced conversation about it.
And I am scared to have anuanced conversation about it.
(14:37):
Purely because it is sopolitical. So I am going to
start by so what if I am wrong?
I am a pro choice, white man andfor many reasons. I think some
(14:58):
of that is because I I have beensure, growing up, our mother was
very open about the importanceof reproductive rights for
women, our grandmother was aswell. I think also, as I have
gotten older, I realized that asa man with no health care, under
(15:24):
no healthcare knowledge or notintimate healthcare knowledge
that I don't belong in thatroom. So I picked a stance of I
arrived at the stance of prochoice, for many reasons. And I
firmly believe that that is theright place where I should sit,
(15:45):
you know, supporting women'sright to choose in many
different situations what theydo with it. So, I ask the
Catholic Church has a differenttake on this than I do. Right.
And they defend it with moraland they defend it with
(16:09):
certainty. Last summer, I wasreading an Atlantic article that
essentially stated theparaphrase it, it said the
argument against abortion is oneof nuance, and like, definitive
medical terminology, and a highlevel of empathy and compassion.
(16:35):
The argument against abortion isa sonogram. And that stayed with
me that this is potentially acomplex issue. We live in the
post roe world. And, yeah, so Iwould, I began exploring, when
(16:55):
we talked about this, I kind ofdebated if I wanted to talk
about it. But what if I amwrong? About the Catholic
Church's stance on abortion? Andwhat if a collection of cells a
fetus or you know, what have youat different stages? Is a quote
(17:23):
unquote, lie life with a soul?
And is a full in? I'd see I evenhave problems articulating this
argument because I, it's, it'sreally hard. It's like, what if
that that collection of cells isa human being as an I just can't
(17:48):
understand that and I'm wrong. Ithink that's something that I
want to discuss. I don't know ifI'm gonna regret this. No, I
Harry Weidner (17:59):
that's I think that's brave of you. I think
that's brave. And I appreciatethat you brought it up, I wasn't
expecting you to.
Jack Weidner (18:08):
It's just so easy for me to talk about religion
like, Oh, what if I'm wrong, Iburden How do I treat anyone
different? Absolutely not. And Ijust, I just kept arriving at
that, like, what if I'm wrongabout the Catholic Church? When
I'm standing, looking at thegates of hell? Do I change the
(18:29):
way I interact with people? AndI like, according to like,
knowing that like, knowing I'llbe condemned, how do I change?
And like I said, like, I don'tbelieve that I can actually
answer that, because that is notthe reality for me. But I think
from an ideological standpoint,it's very easy for me to say,
No, I don't because I if theAmerican Catholic Church is
(18:50):
right, if these hard stancesthat they're taking, is correct.
We, I must ask myself if that,even if that's correct. Meaning
like, God, you know, this iswhat God created? Is that a god
and a world in which I wouldlike to serve? And I think the
(19:12):
answer would be no. But this isthe abortion arguments a little
bit more complicated. It isbecause involving a lot of
factors. Yeah,
Harry Weidner (19:22):
I mean, it's a much more ethical argument. And
it's a much more ethical andscience based argument, rather
than, you know, pure theology.
Right. So you've got you'vetalked about how sort of
cultural background influencesyour individual and locationally
(19:42):
Speaking collective views onabortion. Yeah. But how, and I
don't know the answer to this,but how have it advancements in
sort of medical technology andfrom this Atlantic article and
(20:03):
terminology influenced theabortion debate.
Jack Weidner (20:09):
Ooh, that's a great question. Um, there are so
many ways to discuss this, Idon't even know if I'm qualified
to be discussing. But I'vedefinitely contended with the
issue for a lot of reasons. Whenthe when, essentially when the
(20:33):
state's decided or when, whenRoe was decided, and the
following cases, they kind ofthe court added this kind of
weird sliding scale, where asmedical advancements increased,
the viability stage got longer,so they kind of made it so when
(20:59):
viability when fetal viabilityoccurred, it was kind of legal
to outlaw abortions, which is avery, like, almost a black and
white way of looking at it.
Looking at the issue, like whereif the fetus is viable, outside
of the womb, then the state hasan interest in that baby in that
fetuses life, right? Wherethat's not the argument that I
(21:24):
think the Catholic Church makes,where you said, it's, it has to
do with science. But theCatholic Church does not. The
catheter surely does not engagein that kind of idea. They don't
engage with science, they rejectthat science has a place in that
argument. I don't know if youknew that I didn't
Harry Weidner (21:47):
I really have stayed out of the Catholic day
if this, right,
Jack Weidner (21:51):
sure. No, of course, they reject that
scientists can tell you when ahuman being as a human being,
and not the idea, the presenceof a soul, which I'm not here to
say if that makes a human beingor not. They say that that is
purely a theological. And what'sweird is they don't even say
(22:12):
that it's a theological debate.
They believe that they haveauthority, which goes back to
this kind of idea that they cansay things with certainty. And
that because it's been taughtthat way, they pass that down,
and that they've arrived at thisright answer. And they say that,
you know, the, that human lifebegins in the womb.
Harry Weidner (22:33):
And how do you feel about the Catholic Church
stance on that?
Jack Weidner (22:37):
Obviously, I don't like it. Yeah. But I think that
it is got my question.
Harry Weidner (22:44):
You are in the process of converting to
Judaism, what you whether you'regoing through with that or not,
I'm not sure. But what is theirstance on it? What is Judaism
have to say about abortion? They
Jack Weidner (22:57):
have a little bit, it depends, like, again, this
complicated question. There'sdifferent types of Judaism. They
all have different views on it.
And it's a more personal thing.
The thing about Judaism is it isless Lok, small locus of central
objective truth that is thenpassed out and decreed for all
(23:20):
of its people. That is not howit works. It is you have the 10
commandments, you have differentinterpretations of the many
laws. But there is not a centralgoverning body in Judaism.
There's not a papel presents, toquote yesterday's Wordle that
(23:40):
can decree something to be true.
Okay. So it is I you know, it'skind of a case by case. You
know, there are a lot of liberalJews out there who are
incredibly pro choice, right?
Yeah, I'd say that's more of thefamiliar stance of at least
(24:06):
American Jews should but theCatholic Church says things with
authority and they say this withauthority. And when I am
presented with the question ifmy if you know, if I'm wrong
about them being wrong, if theyif the Catholic Church is right.
(24:29):
To be pro choice is to deny lifeto a quote unquote, full like
living human being and livingthing that is against my morals.
(24:51):
So you could say, Okay, well, ifI am proven, you know, 100%
would I change my beliefs? Thereis a second part of this, that
it's like easy, you know, maybeI should say, Yes. I don't know,
the part where I think itbecomes very complicated. Is
(25:14):
there is a another aspect ofthis? Where Yes, there is, I
think, saying like that there isa limit like this is a living
thing you're killing a thingreally simplifies that issue, to
where there are so manydifferent factors, that also
(25:34):
would go against what Icurrently believe to be true.
That isn't really impacted bythe Catholic argument. Basic is
that abortion is healthcare,right? There are women who die
because they cannot have thatthey do not have access to
(25:55):
abortion, right, there are womenwho get very, very close to
death, there are women thatbecome very ill. And that is a
requirement to their healthcare. They need to they need
that as healthcare. denying thatis also fundamentally against
(26:19):
what I believe to be true thatis outside of the Catholic
Church's stance, and I thinkoutside of the Catholic Church's
stance on the well being ofpeople. What you are then
asking, is, which life do youvalue more? Which is such a hard
(26:39):
question.
Harry Weidner (26:45):
It is a hard question. And it's it's
something I should considermore, but it's something I tend
not to consider.
Jack Weidner (26:52):
Do you have to consider that in public health?
Harry Weidner (26:54):
What the Catholicism argument?
Jack Weidner (26:57):
Yeah,
Harry Weidner (26:57):
sure. Life, do you value more? Yes, you do. But
this isn't this isn't where thisisn't my wheelhouse.
Jack Weidner (27:06):
There's a there's another aspect to this that I
think is interesting here.
Because I heard people put ajudge talking. And he said that
he was not in favor of anyabortion restriction. And at
first the crowd gasp, I think Imight have been a little
surprised because I'd neverheard anyone articulate that
argument. And he said, when awoman has carried a baby into
(27:30):
the third trimester, bydefinition, that woman intends
to carry that baby to turn thosecases when abortion is brought
up. That woman that is a veryhard conversation that likely no
one wants to be having, right?
(27:56):
So this idea of like, so youtalk about health care, right?
I'm talking about like the sixweek pregnancy thing, or that
even gets really complicated.
But we're talking like, let'ssay 36 weeks, and you find out
something is wrong with the babythat impacts both its health,
and the mother's health. That isthen a public health question.
Harry Weidner (28:18):
I think it's a public health question even
before that. Okay, so it's apublic hydrogen. I think it's a
mental health question. Oh, myGod. Yeah. as well. Of course.
Yeah, of course, you know, andthat needs to be considered. And
I think
Jack Weidner (28:33):
where I get so caught up on this, and why I
have such a problem with theCatholic Church saying things
with this kind of authority. ispeople are always like, men
don't have a place in thisconversation. And God dammit, do
I agree with you. God dammit. DoI not think you and I should
(28:59):
even be fucking talking aboutthis. Because we we don't have a
goddamn right to be in the samebuilding. When these Congress
because we are. We can talkabout these questions abstractly
all the time. Yeah. Where Ithink you and I fall is a lot of
(29:19):
these are talking about control.
Where do we like we're talkingabout? Not like what the woman
should have like that. Ofcourse, the one should have a
right to choose. But when theseissues come up, of course, not
everyone agrees with me. Somewomen don't agree with me. To
me, that makes a logical sense.
(29:43):
But I think what it comes downto, really is this idea of
control. And when I vote, I amvoting for that level of control
depending on who I vote for. AndI'm voting on can trolling other
people? And I think that is whatmakes me so uncomfortable.
(30:10):
Telling someone what else to do.
Right. I think that is why Ihave a problem with many of the
arguments that the CatholicChurch puts out. And, and and
anyone that speaks with a levelof authority that seriously
impacts other people. Yeah, Ithink that a nuanced
(30:35):
conversation should be had. Ithink everything deserves a
nuanced conversation. I do notthink, at the end of the day,
people should be makingdecisions that kind of control
other people's well being bothmental and physical, and control
(30:58):
their actions. I have a lot ofproblems with that I at least
have a problem being the onemaking that just Yeah. Well, and
that's where I'm interested inyou yet. Because public health
policy is telling people what todo.
Harry Weidner (31:15):
i That's why I'm smiling. Because So wait, let
Jack Weidner (31:18):
me let me serve it up. Let me so I guess, if I'm
wrong about the CatholicChurch's stance on abortion in
America, I just can't look at itas such a black and white, this
is this life for versus thislife? Because I think it's just
(31:43):
too complex. And it comes downto making a decision that I
don't have the right. So I don'tthink presented with that
information. And I was wrong.
Just on that aspect, that Iwould change my viewpoints or
thoughts. Because it is so hard.
(32:05):
It goes it just goes againststill so many things that I just
don't even think are actually atthe core of that argument isn't
so that's kind of where I'vegone with it. And it was really
hard for me to articulate that,because I think it's so hard.
Harry Weidner (32:19):
No, well done.
Thanks. Sorry. Thank you.
Jack Weidner (32:22):
Please, please tell me about public health.
Well,
Harry Weidner (32:24):
I was talking I in a in a similar way. But funny
opposite. I chose vaccines forAI. But what if we're wrong. And
vaccines are a hot topic thesedays. The control comes from a
public health standpoint, and itdoes not come from a church
(32:45):
entity. So we could talk aboutvaccine mandates. And that being
Jack Weidner (32:52):
control, right, of
Harry Weidner (32:55):
people's actions.
But I really just generallywanted to talk about vaccines,
and I am very pro vaccine. Ilove vaccines. I study vaccines,
I care about vaccines, and Itruly think vaccines are the if
not the one of the mostimportant public health
(33:16):
inventions in ever. They havesaved millions of lives over the
course of their development.
They have completely eradicatedsmallpox, which was a terribly
feared disease. They have damnnear eradicated polio. And they
(33:37):
have saved again, millions oflives and waterfall of water for
wrong about vaccines beinghealthy.
Jack Weidner (33:45):
Shit, you by the way, we have both accidentally
touched upon some of the biggestHIPAA like some of the claims of
hypocrisy in both parties. Yeah,it's hard. This is nuts. How did
he do this?
Harry Weidner (34:03):
So coming from the side of science that relies
on data. And mine's a littlemore clear cut, because there
are numbers to back these. Andbut, yeah,
Jack Weidner (34:20):
go ahead. And then I have a clarifying question for
you, actually. So go ahead,finish it. There
Harry Weidner (34:23):
are numbers to back vaccine efficacy data. And
there, I mean, it's it kind ofis black and white. Vaccines
save lives. But what if the longterm health so CWLA may be
(34:44):
negative for a vaccine? Shouldwe be mandating Vaccines for
Children in schools? And theissue becomes more complicated,
as well. Not right now. Butlifespan increases and longevity
(35:05):
increase increases. We we maynot know the very long term
effects of vaccination, becausewe haven't survived that far
yet. It's it's terriblyunlikely. But fosse just to play
(35:25):
along with with this episode.
Jack Weidner (35:27):
So what you're saying is, there's
Harry Weidner (35:29):
a chance because there you are inducing an
immunomodulatory compound intoyour body that may have systemic
effects down the road, andthat's a lot of the anti Vax
movement, their their arguments,then that's their arguments now
(35:51):
in the history of it goes backto Andrew Wakefield, where he
published the paper, proposing alink between MMR vaccine and
autism. And he fabricated thedata. And it was retracted I
think in 2010. I'm not quitesure. completely false data,
(36:12):
wrong, incorrect. And then theanti Vax movement that sort of
catalyzed the anti Vax movement,and then it moved to other
things. And now the anti Vaxmovement is on this sort of wild
goose chase between findingvaccines and something going
wrong. They changed to someadjuvants in that were in
(36:38):
vaccines, then they moved alongto, oh, people are getting too
many vaccines. And now they'reon. Well, the COVID vaccine and
the mRNA vaccine. They talkabout the long term side effects
of that, which
Jack Weidner (36:54):
not even long term, they're talking about
immediate side effects ofpeople's hearts.
Harry Weidner (36:58):
Yeah, so there is what is it myocarditis? Yeah,
yeah. But you know, what else isa side effect of COVID
myocarditis markers. So I don'tknow, that's a little bit. Their
arguments are searching, but notfinding anything. And
Jack Weidner (37:22):
that is a famous conspiracy. That is a trait of
conspiracy theories. I forgotthe technical term. But it's
interesting
Harry Weidner (37:30):
because all of the papers and and subsequent
studies that are done for theanti Vax movement by people who
may potentially be anti Vax.
They they're not interested inwhat actually causes autism. And
(37:50):
they're not actually interestedin what causes chronic
illnesses. They're justinterested in seeing that
vaccines cause this, and thatthat's a generalization on the
publications. But there's a lotof bad science out there. That's
looking backwards. It's aretrospective type. Like, we
know, we think this happens,let's find it. It's simply
(38:14):
finding a needle in thehaystack.
Jack Weidner (38:18):
That being said, Well, it's getting it's getting
data, right, and then saying, Ilike knowing your conclusion and
justifying it right based onwhat's already caught not like
looking at it and arriving at aconclusion. You start with a
conclusion, and then you workbackwards backwards.
Harry Weidner (38:33):
So the anti Vax movement. There concerns are not
completely unfounded. It's it'sa matter of the parents desire
to do what's best for theirchildren, and people's desire to
be as healthy as possible. It'simportant to sort of
(38:57):
respectfully address thoseconcerns rather than dismiss
them. And so you can't becompletely dismissive of people
who are anti Vax, in publichealth, it's better to reach
them and have thoseconversations. Now that being
said, how would I mean I'm sopro vaccine and I understand the
(39:17):
regulatory aspects of thingsthat that go into producing a
vaccine and it's so hard andthere's post licensure
surveillance that happens andand these things are constantly
being monitored foreffectiveness and safety.
Vaccines are so well researchedand understood before they're
put into the public. Thatreally, oh my god, so
Jack Weidner (39:42):
even. Okay, sorry.
I said really? Like I didn'tbelieve it. I'm just curious.
COVID felt like it came out theCOVID vaccine felt like it came
out very fast. Yeah.
Harry Weidner (39:52):
Works. How do operation warp speed?
Jack Weidner (39:55):
How do you know what it was? 10 and I don't
know. Okay. How do you contendwith people? So we're used to
like, vaccines a very long time.
How do you contend with people?
You just said that the process?
It's a very strict process? Ifwhen they how do you contend
(40:17):
with someone being like, well,how the COVID won't come out so
fast.
Harry Weidner (40:22):
It was a lot of work by a lot of people at the
FDA and the CDC. And it washundreds of 1000s of smart
people collaborating together,saying, How can we get this to
work. And a lot of it came fromthe US government with a lot of
money, right? They said, We'regoing to do the Phase One
(40:42):
trials, and then we're going toramp up production, whether or
not those phase one trials weresuccessful, so that they could
immediately move from phase one,practically to phase three. It
was a very expedited and directlaser focused effort for these
COVID vaccines that were indevelopment to go through the
(41:04):
process as quickly as possible.
And people at the FDA workedaround the clock tirelessly.
Many of them have now left,because they were exhausted. But
they worked around the clock tomake sure these vaccines were
safe and effective before theycould be put out there. And you
know, government work, itusually doesn't move that fast,
slow. And so
Jack Weidner (41:26):
unless there's money and important and and then
it can move as fast as it needsto this
Harry Weidner (41:31):
was at Money in importance. That's that's kind
of how we landed on the mRNACOVID vaccine as quickly as we
did. And the technology was wasa novel technology. It wasn't
completely new. They knew how todo it. In theory, there had been
no approved vaccines using mRNA.
before. But what if we're wrongabout all
Jack Weidner (41:55):
that virus? Just gonna I was just gonna ask what
if we're wrong about 2000 yearsin the future? You for humanity
has been forced to bevaccinated. And people are
limited living to 120. Yeah.
They are seeing horrible sideeffects at the age that 120 is
(42:17):
the average. So So I guess I'mpresenting is think of 120 is
like, what's the average? Lifelike? 68? Now, I think 70
Something for 7077. Whatever. Sothink of 102 is like 727? Yeah.
People are seeing terrible sideeffects from vaccines, let's say
(42:40):
100?
Harry Weidner (42:44):
Yeah, again, I want to put out that this is so
unlikely that yeah, oh, it'salmost laughable that we're
considering it, but I'm playingalong.
Jack Weidner (42:55):
Because I guess mine was mine was a little more
complicated.
Harry Weidner (42:58):
Yeah, yours was way more complicated. But say we
see should have picked iteasier, say they have studies
that you can make a very clearcausal inference from
vaccination at one year old, towhen you're 120 years old, this
vaccine on this day, caused thisillness or is highly associated.
(43:24):
I don't know how that studywould be done, it would be
horribly difficult. But say ithappens, and there's good data
to support it, then publichealth and health care in
general takes a massive hit. Ittakes a massive public trust
hit. And we're dealing with thisnow hard to imagine it being
(43:46):
worse than it is now. We'redealing with this now. But then
public health takes a massivehit. People don't trust the
science that is coming out. Andfrankly, I think we see a
decrease in healthspan andlifespan. I think we see many
more people die as a result ofthe distrust in the very smart
(44:10):
people that are putting outincredible medicine in public
health campaigns.
Jack Weidner (44:16):
This is very interesting. You have taken
something where you are prolocus of control and pro and
authoritative presence andpresented it and how important
that can be for the bettermentof society. And I think I who am
a little bit more anti authoritythan you on the regular or at
(44:38):
least anti institution and waryof that in a different sense.
But with vaccines, I'm totallyon board. Because and I don't
know why this is and I thinkthis hits on the what I had
alluded to earlier, where if weintroduce political parties to
(44:58):
this A particular parties havedifferent views on what you
talked about, which is vaccines.
And when I talked about which isabortion, right, often, they are
contradictory positions. And soI'd say like, again, we're
generalizing, but to speak aboutsomething, generally you you
(45:20):
kind of your hands are tied, youmust jump. So I'd say we find a
large majority of people, ifthey are anti abortion, or pro
life as it's been coined, theyare often so pro life is often
vaccine skeptical, right, let'ssay. And people who are very pro
(45:45):
choice are often very much alongthe lines of vaccines. It's
going on.
Harry Weidner (45:57):
Hello, man. This is so weird, right? So
hypocritical. But
Jack Weidner (46:03):
I want to go back from that for a second. I want
to not just write it off ashypocritical. I'm curious as to
why you think that is? Becauseobviously, it's hypocritical if
we look at it from a controlstandpoint, but it's not
necessarily hypocritical if welook at it from a medical
standpoint. No. Right. So yeah,like, right, it's hypocritical
(46:27):
if we look at it from anauthoritative control
standpoint, of course, which isoften an argument that people
say, because we're talking aboutgovernment, sorry, I'm getting
not heated, but I'm justpassionate. I'm curious. I'm
passionate. So we're talkingabout this? And, yeah, it's not
hypocritical from a medicalstandpoint. And so like, is it
(46:51):
it's not, but it is kind ofhypocritical. A little bit.
Again, if you go through, like,what if I'm wrong? Like, it's,
it's, I don't want to say this.
It's kind of inconsistent alittle bit with this idea that
you are protecting human life.
(47:11):
And if you do a gross overgeneralization of the pro choice
movement. So I don't want tojust say it's hypocritical,
like, how do you look at it? Youknow, like, how do you look at
from a pro from a public healthstandpoint? How do you look at
these two issues?
Harry Weidner (47:35):
Public Health generally, is pro choice and pro
vaccine.
Jack Weidner (47:40):
But like, what I'm asking you wire I know where
they stand, but I
Harry Weidner (47:44):
just I just wanted to say that and I, I
just, yeah, let me just let meadd my disclaimer, right. Yeah.
And I am in public health. Soyou can guess which side of the
court but but why is that? Andand I think it comes down to
(48:08):
I've talked about it before, butallowing people to live the
healthiest lives that they can.
Jack Weidner (48:16):
I, it's so interesting that you use the
word allow, because you are insome ways, you are opening doors
for them to open its
Harry Weidner (48:30):
languages. So it's your very tactful to use
the word allow? Yep. Because
Jack Weidner (48:34):
just like the pro choice, you're like, Oh, I'm pro
choice. I'm pro life, you know,like, those are both two
positive sides of differentcoins. Yeah.
Harry Weidner (48:44):
It's, it's, it's our job to give people the
resources to live the healthiestand happiest lives, that they
can live. And that they want tolive. So giving them the
resources involves giving themthe education and giving them
access to the health care andaccess to the information that
(49:08):
will let them make informeddecisions about the life that
they want to live.
Jack Weidner (49:13):
On know, we're going long, but I think we would
be remiss if we did not concludewith it sounds like presented
with information presented thatwe were brought you and I would
not change our stances on ourgiven topics for different
complex reasons. No, I wouldnot. I would not i I'm
Harry Weidner (49:36):
too much of a firm believer in the benefits
outweigh I mean, okay, I'm gonnajump back to vaccines. There was
a rotavirus vaccine that wastaken back. And it was a vaccine
that was introduced to thepublic. And there were some very
small amount of cases ofinnocence option, which is
(49:59):
essentially your smallintestine, it's a small
intestinal blockage. And in somechildren got enough deception
from this rotavirus vaccine, andthe CDC picked up on it almost
immediately, there was a crazyamount of research. And I think
they took it off the shelveswithin a couple of months. And
so that that is the power ofthese surveillance systems at
(50:23):
work, saying the authorities andthe people in charge of these
vaccines are monitoring them,and they're willing to take them
back and make these harddecisions. Now, that being said,
even though they took it back,they could have saved many,
many, many lives fromdehydration and diarrhea, had
(50:43):
they kept that rotavirus vaccineon the market? And I think it
was one and 10 to 30,000vaccines resulted in a case of
interception. But the CDC saidno, that's too many.
Jack Weidner (51:00):
Which, which that's a really good point. And
to put out there, I did not knowthat story. Yeah, they
Harry Weidner (51:05):
they have taken vaccines, the only one I know of
is this rotavirus vaccine, butno, there are definitely more.
They have taken vaccines off themarket. And so given my current
understanding of vaccines, howmany lives they save, in this
instant that we are issuing them120 years down the road, if the
(51:28):
evidence is different than we dowith that, but the life saving
power of vaccines. I believe inwholeheartedly right now.
Jack Weidner (51:35):
This is a now thing for you. Yeah, what about
you? I mean, things that wedidn't get into are, you know,
tied to the abortion debate, youknow, abortion conversation is,
you know, care for mother'scare, Mother mortality in this
(52:01):
country, which is abysmal femalemortality in a worldwide, which
is, you know, like, there's alot of detail bad or so, so
terrible. So like, to forcesomeone to give birth, you know,
and also like, raising childrenin this country here. Not
everyone is so fortunate. Noteveryone is so fortunate to have
(52:23):
the financial resources. It's areally, there are so many
implicate other implications.
And that's why I think like,when we asked this question,
what if I'm wrong about theCatholic Church? Pop, maybe I
think the Catholic Church isasking the wrong question.
(52:44):
There's zero sum game doesn'tallow for nuance. And maybe
that's my problem. And that'swhere I want to end this, where
I want to say, what? You and Ididn't change our beliefs? No.
But I think I at least reallystruggled with thinking about
(53:05):
this. And I'm curious if youstruggled, but I'm curious what
you think. Did you think thatthis exercise was helpful? And
what did you think a positive tocome out of it was? What do you
think? Even if you don't changeyour mind? What do you think
considering that you're wrong?
does?
Harry Weidner (53:26):
I think it does exactly what your New Year's
resolution is, you come atthings with less conviction. And
it tries to help put you in theshoes of others who don't
believe what you believe?
Jack Weidner (53:41):
Do you think that that helps. So you say like, you
guys, have you you, as publichealth have arrived at how to
talk with people
Harry Weidner (53:48):
who have well, not me, but who are lots of
Jack Weidner (53:51):
what I'm talking about you like you in the gang?
Right? You Fauci your bestfriend's like, whatever. You
guys have arrived at how you'vedone a lot of psychological
research, how to talk to peoplewho are anti Vax, and how to
engage with them. Do you thinkdoing something like this helps
with that?
Harry Weidner (54:09):
Yeah, absolutely.
I think that's the only way youcan figure out how to
communicate with those who mightnot believe you.
Jack Weidner (54:18):
Adding a little nuance to the conversation,
adding a little nuance
Harry Weidner (54:21):
to the conversation because nuance
opens doors.
Jack Weidner (54:24):
Nuance open. I love that quote. I swear I
actually want that on a fuckingt shirt. Well, you're welcome
nuance open stores. I love that.
Yeah,
Harry Weidner (54:32):
Nuance open stores to have the conversations
that the productiveconversations that need to be
had
Jack Weidner (54:41):
and needed to be out in the first place. Yeah, I
think we found ourselves. Wedon't when we talk about
polarization. We've built a lotof walls and this is not this is
nothing new. But to be closedoff on both sides of the aisle,
you know to be so I think tohave so much conviction with
(55:07):
where you are. Maybe that kindof adds blinders to what you're
doing.
Harry Weidner (55:13):
Well, I'm glad that you brought up this book
and I'm glad that you brought upthis topic.
Jack Weidner (55:19):
And I hope it's a good episode.
Harry Weidner (55:21):
I had fun. I had fun,
Jack Weidner (55:24):
but I'm gonna get cancelled. by who? I don't know.
The scam scared. These thoughtsout there in the world.
Harry Weidner (55:33):
I think it'd be fine. Okay, but thank you. Thank
you for tuning into Season Twoof the season two, one. What if
we're wrong? In Jack, you wantto roll this out for the first
time to season two.
Jack Weidner (55:49):
All right, thank you so much for joining us for
this episode. Don't hate me. Ifyou have any questions or
thoughts, please email us at ourtangled minds@gmail.com Let us
know what you think of the newseason. If you have any podcast
ideas, topics you'd like toshare guests you'd like to be on
the pod including yourself. Besure to email us let us know
(56:13):
what you think of the newpodcast art and we'll see you in
two weeks to see how this messunwrapped.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.