Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive May 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #2944 Segments
NewsReaction Media & Fake News

Back to episode — Episode 2944 CWSA 08/31/25

Context —

sound on YouTube, huh? Well, or no video on YouTube either. You know, there was something that looked like it was missing when I signed in, and maybe that was it. Let's see. Oops. Wait a minute. I don't know what just happened. It looks like we're healed. Yes, we're healed. Life is good. All right, everybody. Now we're going to have a show if you're ready for that.

← Previous segment →

Would you be surprised to know that there's a new meta-study on coffee and health? And guess what? Once again, for the millionth time in a row, coffee is good for you. It's good for your cardio, your diabetes, your cancer, your respiratory disease, your liver disease, your kidney disease, your cognitive decline, and your Parkinson's. Yeah, it's all from coffee. But don't add too much sugar and whatever crap you put in there. That will take away all your benefits.

Would you be surprised to know that there is yet another study on vitamin D and your health? How do you think that turned out? Vitamin D and your health. Do you think it's good for your health? Yes. They could have just asked me. Apparently your telomeres, which are those things which shorten when you're aging quickly, they don't shrink as fast if you're doing your vitamin D. So make sure you get your vitamin D, people. Yep. I like to put my vitamin D in my coffee while I'm exercising. Get it all.

You remember when we were told that the Great Barrier Reef and all the coral was going to die because of climate change, because it was just too warm for that coral to keep going? And then if the coral has a tough time, that affects the other stuff in the ocean, and well, the next thing you know, we're all dead. But it turns out that was a bunch of BS. According to the CO2 Coalition, the Great Barrier Reef, I mean it's had better times, but instead of going in one direction, it has recovered. And does anybody know why? Apparently it's one of those things that goes up and down and has been doing that for a long time. So it doesn't look like climate change is affecting the coral reef yet.

Well, Zero Hedge is telling us that half of American schools, they're doing what's called equitable grading instead of the usual kind. You know the usual kind: if you didn't turn in your homework, you would be graded down. But if you have something called equitable grading, then homework, some people turn it in, some people don't. And then apparently, let's see what else. You can also retake tests if you didn't do well. Gary the cat has decided to visit. All right, Gary. Give some... Oh, hello. Don't knock over the microphone. No, don't knock it over. Just purr into it. There you go. That's good. Are you picking up that purr? All right. All right. That's your part of the show, Gary. You're stealing the show. Gary, how am I supposed to follow a pet or a baby? You can't. They steal the show. If you're listening to this, I'm deeply sorry that you're missing the best part.

All right, but what I was going to say is that half of those schools have equitable grading. So how do you suppose the students in those schools do when they know they don't have to do the homework and they can retake all the tests? Well, it turns out that they all do terrible. So equitable grading is just another way that the, probably the teachers union, is destroying the country if not the whole world.

Well, there's a problem, as you know, with fake science. And part of it is that there's fake science, but there's also fake scientific journals. Did you know that? Especially useful for other countries where they don't have as much, you know, I guess, infrastructure built out for science. There are these fake publications that will say, "If you give us a thousand dollars, we will publish your paper and tell people it was peer-reviewed, even though they don't actually peer-review it." So a whole bunch of papers, like a lot of them, got published that were not peer-reviewed. They were just fake peer-reviewed. But a bunch of computer scientists figured out how to use AI to look for the sketchy ones. Now those would just be the ones who are outright fraud. What we also know is that the ones that are not trying to be a fraud, about half of them turn out to be not reproducible studies. So these are two separate problems. One is that even if everybody's trying to do the right thing, more than half the time they fail. So that a peer-reviewed paper is just BS. On top of that are these massive problems with frauds. It's not just like a little thing that happened a few times. It's massively integrated with the whole system that there's all these fake publications. So science is halfway to making itself look like guessing. And right now, honestly, science is worse than guessing because guessing is sort of a coin flip, you know, 50/50. But if you add together all the problems with allegedly peer-reviewed papers, probably more than half of them, you know, as in more than 50%, are fake. So if you think the science is better than guessing, it's the other way around. Guessing, if you flipped the coin, you'd be right about half the time that either the study worked or it didn't work or they proved their case or they didn't. You can't reach 50%. With the current scientific process, because there are too many frauds, it takes the average down below 50%. It's literally worse than guessing. Oh well.

Now, I don't think that's literally true. Somebody will argue with my statistical approach to that. But if you want to hear the good news, if you've done a fake scientific study and you knew it, you knew it was fake, and then you apply to one of the fake scientific journals, I think since both of you would be frauds in that case, it would be peer review because you're a fraud. So who better to analyze and review your paper? Another fraud. It's called peer review.

Well, there's an article in the Washington Times by Seth McLaughlin who's talking about, well the title is that feats of strength become the 2025 litmus in Trump's era of masculine politics, and it's giving a bunch of anecdotes that are not terribly persuasive but I think they lead in the right direction. You know, Pete Hegseth and Bobby Kennedy did the push-ups and the everything. So everybody's, in the Trump world, the idea here is that people are trying to be more masculine and other politicians are trying to keep up. So it's turning into a competition: who's more masculine? And that's true. But I would like to point out that the theme of fitness came from the MAGA voters and supporters, not from the top. So Trump is not really the driver of the manly stuff, although you know he goes to MMA fights and does manly things, but I think that a lot of his supporters were the pro-physical fitness people. And so I think it trickled up more than it trickled down. That's my take. I think that started at the bottom and just became a thing. I don't think it was a thing before. There were some just persuasive pro-fitness peop

Context —

le on the right. I tried to do my best there. Apparently Boston is experiencing more freed-up rental property than in recent times. So it's somewhat easy to rent a place in Boston now. And that would be mostly, they believe, because of all the foreign students who were sent back and maybe other immigration actions. So I wonder if that'll happen in all the major cities and could it be that Trump's…

Next segment → →