The Fall of Huberman

Pseudoscience and Infidelity

scientist podcaster

It’s not a surprise that I don’t like Andrew Huberman, if you don’t know who that is read my article here.

A recent article talked about his apparent infidelity.

Why do we care about another rich successful older white man cheating with multiple partners?

It isn’t a new phenomenon, but I guess because of his reach and the fact he has given relationship advice… People are quick to point out his apparent hypocrisies.

The appeal to hypocrisy is a well-known fallacy, it denotes that the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

So, the concern around his apparent hypocrisy to denounce his claims outside of relationships is fallacious. Huberman can be a scummy partner but that doesn’t make his claims about other topics wrong except they are.

You can check out this article for the full breakdown of Huberman’s bad pseudoscientific claims.

My concern is this idea that we have to focus purely on his science-based claims or purely on his personal relationships, but this is a false dichotomy. Both dimensions of Huberman provide insight.

While appealing to hypocrisy is fallacious, understanding hypocrisy can be illuminating.

For example, Trump selling 60-dollar bibles yet he can’t even cite a bible verse. Hypocrisy in this case shows us that Trump’s claims are inconsistent with his actions and knowledge. If a person claims to love the bible, then why can’t they cite a verse from it? Perhaps the claim is a lie like so many others.

Hypocrisy can help us see the bullshit facade that people put up in order to grift and fool people.

This brings up another example of a popular wellness influencer, the Liver King. He is a guy who claims that eating raw meat gave him his current built physique, but then he was exposed for taking massive amounts of anabolic steroids. His steroid use contradicts the claims about his lifestyle leading to his looks. This would make a lot of folks who bought Liver King’s products or supplements rightfully upset.

This brings up an interesting problem, what does hypocrisy tell us about morality?

If Huberman can lie to his significant others, then who else and what else is he willing to lie about? That is a valid question because outside of the obvious psuedoscience Huberman positions himself as an honest and well-intentioned scientist who wants to help others.

Calling attention to his hypocrisy tarnishes that image a bit.

If Huberman can cheat on and with multiple women can he be trusted to give you accurate information? You might say one doesn’t have to do with the other, but does it?

Why are we so quick to compartmentalize moral actions from epistemic claims? As if values have nothing to do with science or knowledge.

I think this is the fault of science communicators and science enthusiasts who want to separate out moral questions from knowledge claims.

We have pretty strong arguments that moral values and judgments are connected to science and knowledge.

Huberman’s infidelity isn’t separate from his psuedoscientific claims. No one is immune from their actions and beliefs affecting what they know and how they know it.

This is a fault of depending on science and science alone as a way to know the world. To clarify, I am not anti-science nor am I trying to make excuses for Huberman, but I am calling attention to the propensity of online spaces to either reactively reject science or reactively accept it without much deep thought.

We want to avoid contrarianism while also avoiding scientism actively. Understanding contradictions is important for this aim.

Asking important questions about contradictions and what they mean exposes our own moral values and judgments ironically.

Being upset with Trump, the Liver King, or Andrew Huberman for their hypocrisy says a lot about us and what we value.

If we value transparency, cultural norms of monogamy, honesty, a certain expectation of public figures, etc., being mad at these figures makes sense. Because if we didn’t value these characteristics, attitudes, and norms we wouldn’t make this a big deal.

You simply cannot separate our moral values from science, especially in this instance.