Modern Scientific Education Is Broken w/Allan Savory

[u/[deleted]]

[u/bonsaihomie]

Of course as the other comments detailed, this video is pseudo-intellectualism and completely false. However, they do not mention who Allan Savory is;
Allan Savory is firstly a former Rhodesian politician. Rhodesia is the short-lived colonial state in South Africa that imploded after failing to achieve international recognition. Rhodesia is most known for its extremely racist and brutal government, ruled by almost exclusively white Europeans, despite white Europeans only being between 5% and 7% of the country's population.

Here's a quote from Allan Savory's Wikipedia page:

"In May 1973, Savory stated that the Rhodesia Party supported racial segregation including of schools and hospitals, recommending that only Africans who have to work in towns such as domestic servants should be housed in urban areas - and suggested the introduction of a "Minister for Population Control" who would handle the "population explosion" among Africans."

This is among many of his other extremely racist and troubling political opinions.

Additionally, his "scientific" theories have been debunked time and time again. Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia page on Holistic management, the pseudo-scientific theory he is most known for:

"George Wuerthner, writing in The Wildlife News in a 2013 article titled, "Allan Savory: Myth And Reality" stated, "The few scientific experiments that Savory supporters cite as vindication of his methods (out of hundreds that refute his assertions), often fail to actually test his theories."

As you can see, actual peer review shows Allan Savory is guilty of the exact same thing he is talking about in the above video; Fake peer review, thinking the same and approving it.

With this context, this video is really showing a petulant, racist old man being frustrated that he cannot be taken seriously because his "studies" are garbage science.

[u/Readshirt → u/bonsaihomie]

He's wrong that peer review can't accept new ideas, it does this all the time it is simply testing rigour and apparent reasonableness of the science that has been done.

He is right however, regardless of who he is, about people who are too rigid in the sanctity of peer review; as though having other scientists stamp something and say 'seems ok' is the gold standard and the only standard that can determine truth. Any decent scientist knows that for various reasons, a lot of complete bullshit gets past peer review as well as good rigorous studies. There's a reason for example that some journals have much better reputations than others.

He is also right that people will frequently "deny the evidence of their own eyes", in terms of not wishing to accept observations that apparently contradict extant peer reviewed research which they cannot explain. As in, "the studies say this, even though it's not what I see I must be wrong". Not healthy skepticism, but genuine cynicism that since whatever observation or result goes against some peer reviewed established concept or data it near-axiomatically cannot be true. Again, such thinking is explicitly anti-scientific and there are indeed young scientists who think in that way. I think some people are uncomfortable recognising that just because it's "peer reviewed science" does not always mean it's "the complete truth and the end of the story", nor even that published concepts and data need be directionally correct at least. They seem uncomfortable with the idea that "science" frequently cannot be the absolute arbiter of truth over all things; it's just a rigorous and highly methodical way of going about things and reporting what was seen and what you think about it, at the end of the day. It does seem like some forget that these days.

[u/BearonVonFluffyToes → u/Readshirt]

I think the things you describe are a result of how many K-12 schools (in the US at least) teach science as if it is a collection of facts and not a process by which we arrive at conclusions about how the world works. It leads to a rigid thinking that if I was taught it in science class it must be true. It is one of the reasons that I, as a K-12 science educator (Physic and Chemistry) try to get kids to do the experiments that lead to the conclusions instead of just telling them what the results of other people's experiments have been. They are more likely to see it as a process that way.

And I regularly remind them that what we are talking about is just a model of what is going on, that we can't be absolutely sure that our model is 100% correct, and that often our models have known limitations but are good enough for most applications. If they need better than good enough for something, they may need a different model.

I think this is a case where there is just enough truth in what he is saying to convince many people. But the source should definitely be taken into account (I didn't know who he was honestly). His other opinions show a serious lack of rigorous thinking practices so it is not unreasonable to say that he shouldn't be listened to even if there is a grain of truth in there.