Sep 18, 2026 · 20 min · 9 segments
In this short biweekly monologue, I examine how humans decide what is true—and whether modern science is the only reliable way of knowing. Science is an extraordinary tool, but it can be…
Chris BurcherHost
How do we know if we really know what we think we know? In modernity, reductionist science is really the only way we allow ourselves to come to any sort of firm conclusions.

Because we throw these terms around as if they weren't human-derived connotations about reality.

Is there an absolute truth? Is there something that's absolutely true beyond comprehension? Absolutely, I believe so.

And whether or not that is available to us... with our human senses, I think is a matter of debate.

While most other die-hard reductionist scientists have already decided that humans are the absolute knower of all things, therefore, not only can we know the truth, but we can prove the truth.

I also dislike the word proof because I don't ever think we truly, see what I did there, prove anything.

We prove it in human terms, by definition, which sounds a lot like a circular argument to me.

There is a lot of evidence for, uh, the fact that chlorophyll is the mechanism inside a plant leaf that utilizes sunlight and oxygen or, and carbon dioxide to generate glucose and give off oxygen.

There could be elements to that system that we don't understand, that we can't understand.

I like to leave room outside the realm of proof and truth that says, but we might be wrong.

How do we know if we really know what we think we know? In modernity, reductionist science is really the only way we allow ourselves to come to any sort of firm conclusions.

Because we throw these terms around as if they weren't human-derived connotations about reality.

Is there an absolute truth? Is there something that's absolutely true beyond comprehension? Absolutely, I believe so.

And whether or not that is available to us... with our human senses, I think is a matter of debate.

While most other die-hard reductionist scientists have already decided that humans are the absolute knower of all things, therefore, not only can we know the truth, but we can prove the truth.

I also dislike the word proof because I don't ever think we truly, see what I did there, prove anything.

We prove it in human terms, by definition, which sounds a lot like a circular argument to me.

There is a lot of evidence for, uh, the fact that chlorophyll is the mechanism inside a plant leaf that utilizes sunlight and oxygen or, and carbon dioxide to generate glucose and give off oxygen.

There could be elements to that system that we don't understand, that we can't understand.

I like to leave room outside the realm of proof and truth that says, but we might be wrong.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.