A Social Media Response to TIME: Response to a claim that Andrew Huberman “Got America to Care About Science” (Ducharme, 2023)

Please perform a random sample study to confirm said “care about science” by performing a proper study before citing anecdotal evidence. If Huberman’s efforts worked, the journalist would enlist a reliable and valid method of evidencing said care. Besides, “care” would need to be operationalized in order to measure it as well. Using convenience samples of “all the news that’s fit to print” is a verifiably invalid and unreliable source of evidence. 

An attribution model would need to be also created to include limitless sources of information, but not limit attribution to Huberman or “popular” anecdotal sources of attribution. What about the shoes one wears, surely people encounter their shoes more often than Huberman, or any “popular” anecdotal source. By focusing on a convenience sample of “America” as measured by appearances on “popular” shows, please keep in mind that a “popular show” only comprises a certain percentage of daily experience, so how popular is a popular show if that show is only 1 hour over 168 hours a week? That is less than one percent (.6%) of an individual’s experience a week (inclusive of sleep). Assuming that less than one percent of an individual’s week is that influential over the remaining 99.4% of the week is a bit hyperbolistic. 

If you want America to listen to, but better yet internalize science, then get in here and apply it in daily conversation. So no, Huberman, most likely did *not* get America to listen to science. Besides, getting a population to listen to a perspective seems a bit one sided, and what exactly is science… to listen to? Do not mistake science for the products (i.e., objectivations) of its results and discussions produced.

To listen to science, is to listen to the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of science as a method, itself… a method that anyone, anywhere, anytime, regardless of social division, can apply right in this conversation itself.

A scientist is one who has been privileged by peers to survive without strains requiring them to compromise science itself through Mertonian strain adaptations (e.g., surviving off advertising etc.). A scientist does not write “from”, a scientist observes/measures, predicts/models, and explains/communicates exactly what is seen. “From” is a confound, and are controlled for.

Good luck… 


Ducharme, J. (2023, June 28). How podcaster Andrew Huberman got America to care about science. Time. https://time.com/6290594/andrew-hubman-lab-podcast-interview/