This is a machine transcription and therefore it may contain inaccuracies, errors, or mispronunciations. Notice an error you think needs changing? Please contact the Bitesize Bio team using this form: https://bit.ly/bsbtranscriptions

Intro/Outro (00:08):
This is The Happy Scientist podcast. Each episode is designed to make you more focused, more productive, and more satisfied in the lab. You can find us online at bitesizebio.com/happy scientist. Your hosts are Kenneth Vogt, founder of the executive coaching firm, Vera Claritas, and Dr. Nick Oswald, PhD bioscientist and founder of Bitesize Bio.

Nick Oswald (00:38):
Hello, and welcome to another addition of the Happy Scientist podcast. This is the place to be if you want to become a happier, healthier, and more productive scientist, I'm Nick Oswald the founder of bitesizebio.com. And today we will be drawing on the wisdom of Mr. Kenneth Vogt, the Bitesize Bio team coach, and the founder of the executive mentoring company, Vera Claritus today. And in, in all other Happy Scientist podcast episode, you get the benefit from Ken's Yoda-like words of wisdom to help you increase your performance, enjoyment, and success in the lab. And today we will be discussing how to reason with the unreasonable, okay. Ken, take it away.

Kenneth Vogt (01:23):
. Okay. So I'm, I'm sure you've encountered plenty of people that you needed to reason with it's it's gotta be a big part of the job. And sometimes it involves explaining things that are, are hard to understand, or sometimes it's things that are not popularly understood and, and maybe you have to convince people of things that they wouldn't normally be open to. And so you encounter all kinds of different reactions to that, and I'm gonna break it down into three different possibilities. Now, now the title was, how to reason with the, with the unreasonable, but that that's just one type the, the fact is you have to know how to reason with people who are reasonable. Also, if you intend to succeed at it, then there's the next, probably next largest group or the unreasonable or maybe they're the largest, depending on your environment. but there's a third group that I'll call the unreasoning.

Kenneth Vogt (02:24):
So it's a little different than the unreasonable. And we'll, we'll break that down on as to why that is, and, and there's a way to deal with all of 'em. So you know, not to despair, you may sometimes feel like the only thing, the only way to be you can be successful is with reasonable people. And that's not true. You, you can, you can get places with people that are unreasonable and even unreasoning so long as you approach them in the right way. So let's, let's begin with talking about the reasonable. So it, some of this may seem kind of obvious, but, but if you don't put it into practice, even reasonable, people will not come along with whatever you're trying to present. So it begins with, you gotta detail the facts, reasonable people care about facts. They care about what's true, what's demonstrable, what's evident.

Kenneth Vogt (03:21):
So you gotta give that to them and you need to use deductive reasoning. And when I say deductive reasoning, think Sherlock Holmes the idea is, you know, there's this there's this, therefore there's that. And I, I love something that is ascribed to Arthur Conan Doyle talking, you know, speaking in the voice of Sherlock Holmes, that when you have examined all the possibilities and, whatever is left after you've discarded, all the ones that are impossible, however, improbable must be the correct position. And I realize that was dreadfully paraphrase, but , you know, that's the point. Sometimes it's the conclusions you draw from the facts that are even more important, and they will be very important to reasonable people, especially if you've established that you are reasonable. And that, that you're someone who, who reasons who uses their, their thinking apparatus.

Kenneth Vogt (04:26):
Now, another thing you have to do too, in these situations is more than just lay out the facts. You, you actually have to speak out loud, the conclusions you've drawn, you might look at it and say, well, anybody would figure that out. Yeah. Maybe not. dude, you know, give yourself some credit for being smart and, and give people a chance to catch up on. I have to jump through the hoops you got to, to get to your end conclusions. So share your conclusions and, and show your work as it were, you know, give them, give them the backup for those conclusions. You're, you're also allowed to appeal to authority. And when, I say authority, I don't mean authority. Like who's in charge. I mean, authority like authority in, in the knowledge space. So if something's already been well established by people who have been very reasonable and dug in deep, by all means reference that authority.

Kenneth Vogt (05:17):
So you don't, you don't have, have to ignore everything that went before you, you can stand on the shoulders of giants. And then, and finally, when you're talking to somebody reasonable, try to draw out their curiosity, get them engaged in what you got interested in, that'll help bring them forward. And maybe they will draw some further conclusions that will be even, even more beneficial than the ones you've already got to. And maybe, maybe they can then reason with you. so it's good for you. So Nick, you do encounter a lot of reasonable people in the lab.

Nick Oswald (05:57):
Uh, yeah, you would hope so, It's an, it's an interesting one. This actually the way that, the way that you, that, that you, and maybe this is, this is just one side of how you're looking at it. And I'm, I'm just trying to check whether I'm gonna just, no, I don't think I am I'm going to give away what you're about to say anyway. but the one thing that I think what you said all makes perfect sense. It's all very reasonable. One thing is that you're starting off by assuming that you are right though, you know, that, that's what it sounds like. And so my sort of like slight addendum to this would be to the, the, as in reasoning with any of these people, you have to, you have to be willing to listen as well to their, to their side of the of the equation sort of thing.

Nick Oswald (06:59):
If it's because even in, I've seen in science and elsewhere, even people who are experts in the same thing, they have looked at the same facts and they've come up with different conclusions and they'll belligerently argue the point and not listen to each other. And and again, lot of the problems that you see in the world are people not listening to each other and whether one is right, or one is wrong, it matters, but it's, it also matters that you listen and respect each other. Cause when you lose respect, things start to disintegrate, right.

Kenneth Vogt (07:37):
And you cut yourself off from a lot of, of useful input too, then things that could make your position stronger.

Nick Oswald (07:45):
Yeah. So, I mean, my, I just wrote down a couple things here that, you know, you have the fact and you, and you reach conclusions from the fact, again, as scientist, you're always you're always battling against the, the, that the fact that your beliefs cloud your, how you convert the facts into conclusions your opinions, who, who you listen to in the world and so on. And again,

Kenneth Vogt (08:15):
And those are, those are required things cuz yeah, of course we couldn't get through life if we didn't do that

Nick Oswald (08:20):
Exact, but the danger is that in, I hope I'm not derailing the whole subject here. But the danger is that not to use reason to create division.

Kenneth Vogt (08:34):
Right? Right. Well the, when I wrap up, we're gonna come back to, to this.

Nick Oswald (08:39):
I knew you would've done that. Okay.

Kenneth Vogt (08:40):
it's all right. No, none. You didn't give anything away that shouldn't be given away and, and, and you've opened, you've opened the door. So everybody keep, keep listening. There's gonna be more coming so, oh, let's go to the next group. Now I say the next group of people, I wanna be clear here, any individual can in the moment be reasonable or unreasonable or unreasoning. So it, it isn't like, oh, this, this person is reasonable. Therefore I'm gonna do this maybe. And maybe on this particular topic, they're unreasonable, you know, they've got deep, deep opinions or beliefs about it or it triggers them in some way that, you know, you may not even know why, but you know, it does. So, so it isn't a matter of, of, you know, pasting somebody is this person's unreasonable. Well, just in this setting, if they're, if they're demonstrating to you that they're unreasonable in this, this particular conversation, well then you're gonna have to switch up your tactics a bit. So the first thing you have to do with somebody that you consider to be unreasonable, and remember, this is very much a value judgment. The first thing you have to do is you have to be open minded.

Kenneth Vogt (09:53):
They, they have a different position than you that that's obvious. So you want to hear what it is. You wanna do your best to understand it because even if you completely don't agree, you know, even if they're just totally just totally off their rocker, as far as you're concerned, you wanna know how they're off their rocker. you wanna get how they, you wanna understand how they got there. Then once you've got that, got some semblance of, of understanding of where they are, no matter how much you disagree with it, then the thing you gotta do is you gotta search for some common ground and chances are there is some if you're willing to see it now, if you, if you just again, if you're just gonna paste them as unreasonable and I just don't wanna engage with that, I don't wanna deal with that.

Kenneth Vogt (10:44):
Well, you're not gonna get very far, but if, if they feel really off the reservation from your viewpoint, if you can find some things you have in common, well now you got a place to start and you can reference those things. You can go to those things. And now, instead of just here's the facts, and here's the obvious conclusion. You start with an as with a proposition as a possibility. So we I've cons considered these, these facts as a possibility, and I've considered this outcome as a result and you're not presenting it as the one and only truth. You're not claiming that, you know, you have, you have the absolute perfect vision of what it all is. You're just saying, well, this is what it looks like from this position. If you, if we agree on these facts and if we agree that this is a reasonable position to draw from those facts, that's, this is where we would end up right now.

Kenneth Vogt (11:48):
But what do you think? And again, it's like what Nick was talking about earlier, you gotta be open, open minded and you gotta listen. You gotta hear what they have to say. Cuz a lot of times what you're considering to be unreasonable is in reference to the facts you possess, but it is quite possible. They have additional facts that you aren't yet aware of. Now, when you add those facts in all of a sudden, what unreasonable a moment ago can change to being completely reasonable. Now I'm not talking about the, the nutjob thing of, of the idea of alternative facts. You know, the facts are facts. You know, that, that alternative fact as a phrase is an oxymoron, but often there, there is more to a picture sure. Than what, what we we ourselves see and

Nick Oswald (12:37):
See, see, here's, here's another way to look at this though, as well. So in science, this one works as well. Is that now let's see, make sure I get this right. So you're talking about, so I, I I'm coming from a position of, I have facts that I'm basically my conclusion on and other person disagrees and and that person may not have, may not have may or may not have facts that mean that they, that they that are driving that disagreement. If we, if I was back in the nineties and I was saying my, of be saying from what we know, the the re the regions on the genome between genes are junk DNA. Right. Okay. And that there, there were no facts. Well, there probably were threads of facts assembling that, that sort of voided that conclusion, but you wouldn't be able to give a definit rationale a definitive counter to that, apart from the fact that, again, that thing I mentioned before is that as you know, from, as far as we can tell so far with the data we have so far, this is what it looks like.

Nick Oswald (13:53):
This is the, the, this is what it is. And I think that's something that we, that that happens quite a lot is that we harden those, those those into, into facts, into laws rather than being the, the, the latest, best opinion based on the facts that we have so far. Sure. Does that make sense? Yeah, definitely. I think that's a trap. We fall into a lot in science where we harden that into something, and then we make everyone else unreasonable because we, you know, that's, that's extreme cases, but you always have to be aware that those edges of the scientific know of scientific knowledge, the leading edge is always quite soft, I think.

Kenneth Vogt (14:36):
Right. Well, and I'm using the word facts somewhat loosely. I mean, there's such a thing as data now, data is just black and white, but data is also, you know, very sterile, you know, we have to turn data into information and perhaps we turn information into facts. So it's, it's several steps down the line

Nick Oswald (14:56):
Is the semantics are important though, because yeah, you, you you're, you're saying, you know, we, we talk about as soon as you convince yourself, you're talking about facts, you use the word facts, you're, you're, you're you, you convince yourself, it's easy to convince. This is factual. It's not just the latest information that we have. And then it's, then you talk about this person being unreasonable. Cause they don't accept the fact when really the, the more accurate description is they seem unreasonable to me from this position, right. And then it's a small step to start you know, calling them stupid, giving them labels, making it so that their opinion is, is so devalued that it's never worth listening to them again. And then you just start creating rifts. Anyway, I'm saying the same thing again.

Kenneth Vogt (15:43):
But well,The, I would like to point out this particular conversation, this is, this is a good example of this. You, you basically listen to what I had to say and then felt it is unreasonable to describe facts this way and, and you gave your case for it. And you know, and then, then I elucidated a bit more about what I meant by facts and I, so we're having a reasonable conversation as a result, even though you might have found some of my state means to be less than perfectly reasonable. That's awesome. That's what we want. And that's what we have to have.

Nick Oswald (16:18):
But the, again, the, the thread of what I'm that I'm coming at is that the, the, the ingredient that can never be missing here is respect. And you, you mentioned finding common ground. Well, you know, I, if nothing else, you're both human beings, so sure.

Kenneth Vogt (16:35):
Yeah. yeah. I would imagine in most cases in the lab that you've got lots of common ground, I mean, you probably don't have too many people that you think are just absolutely enemies out there, you know?

Nick Oswald (16:49):
No, no, no, no. Although there are quite, you do get the the head to heads

Kenneth Vogt (16:55):
Well, you know, there, there's nothing lot wrong with spirited debate, you know, as, as long as, as you say, you stick to being respectful at the end of the day, like it's like you, when you watch two fighters, get into a boxing ring who are actually friends when they're in a boxing ring though, they're having a boxing match, but afterward there's a hug and a handshake, you know,

Nick Oswald (17:16):
Yeah. I, I, I just, I, I think I'm commenting because I've seen it go to the, to, to the extreme of that. Guy's an idiot. I'm never listening to him again. That hardly an argument,

Kenneth Vogt (17:26):
Is it? Yeah, exactly. That's a very, if you're, if you're going there, your argument is very weak Yeah.

Nick Oswald (17:33):
Well, you, you miss in the possibility, because what if this person comes up with some really great, you know, data that, that adds to what you're both studying, cuz generally it'll be, you're both studying the same thing or whatever, and yeah.

Kenneth Vogt (17:47):
So there you go. So I wanna add one other, one other flavor to this on top of the idea of respect. And that is when you're, so when you're talking to someone where you feel like they're being a bit unreasonable and you can't really appeal to them based on facts any further than you already have, well, you can appeal to honor. And that, that brings them back to, you know, for the, for the for the sake of our, our lab, for the sake of our field, you know, for the sake of science that, you know, please engage with me, please listen. And, and I want to be clear here. This is very di different than trying to shame somebody into it. You're not trying to say, you know, if you don't act honorably, then you're a scumbag. You know, that's not the point. , you know, we, we wanna, we wanna, you know, you're, you're gonna catch more flies with, with honey than with vinegar. So, you know, go with the, the things that work.

Nick Oswald (18:51):
Yeah. It's like, it's like agreeing to the rules of the game. It's like for the sake of boxing, don't kick me in the nether regions. You know what I mean? Exactly starts being in the game.

Kenneth Vogt (19:02):
All right. So then to the third group and this one, I hope you don't encounter this too on a too often in your field. I'm sure it happens. And it definitely happens in your life. That is when you encounter the unreasoning people that are not using their power of reason. Well, that's because they're being motivated by something else and that something else is probably emotion. So when somebody who's unreasoning, what you gotta do is thing is you gotta uncover, what is the emotion behind what's driving them? Where did that? You know, where is it coming from? Why are they, why are they being this way? Why are they not willing to hear what you have to offer? So once you've uncovered the emotion, it's important that you acknowledge the emotion. You gotta make it clear that, look, I'm not making you a bad guy because you're coming from fear or you're coming from feeling disrespected or you're coming from anger or you're, whatever the emotion may be.

Kenneth Vogt (20:04):
If you acknowledge the emotion, it's understandable that based on your experience that you would feel that way. It it's, it's not a hard thing to say. That's never, I don't care how, how crazy they're seeming to you. You can, you can look somebody in the eye and sincerely say to them, if I were you, I'm sure I would see it that way myself. Well, you're not them. So don't worry about it. It's not gonna get on you. You're you're not gonna get dirty here. Yeah. But you know, if they're really coming from a place where they're totally unreason, you know, unreasoning and totally emotionally driven, then acknowledge that. Oftentimes people that, that operate that way in this moment, that's a big pattern in their life. And it's a part of their life that they think is right. That they think is correct. And they may be getting a lot of pushback from a lot of directions because of it.

Kenneth Vogt (21:03):
So to have somebody acknowledge it, you, it's not about validation here, just acknowledging it. I hear you. I hear what you are saying. And I understand that it's coming from this. That is very powerful. The next thing you can do with someone be like that then is start speaking to them in their own language. If you find them using phrases, you are using certain words to describe certain things, start joining them in that. And if you insist on your language, when somebody's being emotional, forget it, they're never coming along. So, you know, it, it's really, it's really powerful to use their language language, very you know, it's a, it's a very strong thing in human human experience. And, you know, it's, it's fairly unique to us. , you know, there's some argument that there's some animals that have certain amount of language, but no animals got language like humans. And this language has done a lot for building us into what we are and creating our cultures and creating the scientific advancement that we have. So, so use that language and use it to your advantage.

Kenneth Vogt (22:18):
The next thing you have to do is, you know, they've probably have revealed that they've got some kind of framework that they're seeing the world in. Well, stay in their framework. When you step outside of it, they're gonna have a hard time. Again, they're gonna go back to emotional responses, but if you can isolate that framework of how they see the world and speak to 'em in that framework. Now you've got, you've got some handles where, where you can get somewhere with them. Now I mentioned a moment ago that we, that you're not doing this to validate them. And validation is a very slippery slope and it's become very popular in some, some cultural settings these days that, you know, people need their feelings validated. Well, some feelings are not valid. not by any regular definition of that word valid. Now we're not saying that somebody's perspective is wrong because you know, no, everybody has a perspective. It comes from, from a unique place, but it isn't about saying that their perspective is the truth. And when you start joining into that, especially if you're doing it insincerely, you, you're gonna, you're not gonna make your case. You're not gonna, you're not gonna sway people to your way of thinking. At least not for long, they're gonna feel they're gonna feel tricked. They're gonna feel manipulated. And that never turns out well.

Kenneth Vogt (23:49):
And yeah, that's the other slippery slope there. Manipulation. You're not in things to win, win arguments, or, you know, that's not the point we should be seeking the, the, the, the highest truth that we can, that we can come up with in science is all about that. O we can validly demonstrate, well, let's stick to that. Let's not make it about, well, I I'm clever so I can win the argument. And cuz clever, Clever's not the same as intelligent. In fact, it's rather, it rather has a devious over tone to it. And did

Nick Oswald (24:29):
You hear, did you hear there was a, there was a, a survey published here in the UK this week where they tested, they were trying to remove the, the perceived barrier to people going to be rocket scientists and neuroscientists, you know, the, the it's not rocket science mm-hmm and they did. So they did tests on all sorts of tests on a group of neuroscientists, a group of rocket science and, and different groups of members of the public. And while the skill sets were different, you know, the, the neuroscience were better, better at making last decisions than the average person on the street. And, and so on the, the overall level of intelligence was the same in the, in the different groups. It was quite, quite an interesting study. So there's different, you know, there's the, it's the just highlights the difference between club in intelligence and streaming and skill sets or something. Sure.

Kenneth Vogt (25:29):
Yeah. And we've talked before about the, you know, being arrogant and how damaging it can be. And if you're dealing with somebody that's unreasoning being arrogant is really not gonna work. , it's not gonna help. And even if you, you know, you, if you win the argument while you know, you win the battle, but you lose the, the war and it, it's not worth it now there's, there's two articles we'll have in the show notes that may be worth looking at one is entitled How to Escape the Trap of Reason. Because reason is like, it only gets you so far is we've discussed the, and the second one is You Can't Think Your Way Out of This and that one is talking about people that rely deeply on reason. And I want to point out here, reasonable, unreasonable, and unreasoning. This applies to you too.

Kenneth Vogt (26:23):
hard. God. Yeah. Might be hard to hear for some, but the fact that is all of us do all three of these things. Now, the sad part is if we spend most of our time being unreasonable or worse yet unreasoning, well, we're wasting a lot of potential skill there. And I think that might go back to your survey, you know, if you've got these training and skill sets, but you're not using them, what a shame that is what a loss it is for, for your field and for humanity. , you know, so we always, we wanna be as reasonable as we possibly can, but I, but we don't want to become sick, just stick in the mud that we can't be. Open-Minded sometimes being unreasonable on purpose is useful. It's like, I'm going to, what if we just

Nick Oswald (27:14):
Devil's advocate? Yeah. What

Kenneth Vogt (27:16):
If we just, you know what, there's no reason to doubt it, but maybe that isn't junk DNA there after all , you know, well, that's how, that's how this got found out that it's not so simple. .

Nick Oswald (27:29):
Hmm. So one other thing that kind of occurs to me is it's important to be aware that there's an edge of reason where it's not where it's not you know, beyond reason we're, we're a reasonable argument doesn't work anymore. And one example I was thinking of is to use a historical one because then it's a bit less yeah, less emotional is back in say the early two thousands, when we start work, when stem cells became start coming into their own. And the way that we the only way we were able to get stem cells was to harvest them from embryos and, or, you know, embryos that were that had been aborted. And so that, so the reasonable argument was we, we, we can do this research. We can work on these cells and then we can use them to cure diseases and, and so on.

Nick Oswald (28:34):
And there was no, you know, now we, now we can, we can make stem cells from other cells, so we don't need to harvest them from every, so, so part, a big chunk of this the, the opposition to this is gone now. But at that point, there, there was an argument about, you know, an argument about, yeah, okay. That's, that's all very reasonable. We can do that. We could cure children of all sorts of diseases, you know and, and people of all sorts of diseases, but the, the whole idea for some people, the whole idea of using that, using these about embryos as as a source for these stem cells was so in opposition to their world view, that didn't matter what the reasonable argument was. They couldn't. And then, then, so as a, scientist's tempting to just drive home the benefits argument more and more, but, but that, that you're talking a different language so that this is where the integration of science in a society becomes delicate and not just about reason. And it has to be respected, I think. And I, I, I think that, that that's one, one position that I I've seen and I used to be very arrogant and take this sort of thing where it's like, I can argue the benefit. Then all I have to do is argue that benefit louder, and you have to listen to me because I'm I'm right. And it, and, but the, the reality is much more nuanced. You know, that the,

Kenneth Vogt (30:16):
The, well, I, I love what you just said there. This is you have to listen to me because I'm right. That is so not true. well,

Nick Oswald (30:24):
Yeah. However, the idea I was right in one way that, you know, if I'm, if I'm taking this, the, this, that side of the argument of we can use this technology to, to, to save people's lives and make their lives better. That's correct. Right. But yeah.

Kenneth Vogt (30:42):
Oh, I didn't disagree that it was the statement. You could, you can be 100%, right. And it still doesn't require them to listen to you. Yeah.

Nick Oswald (30:53):
Yeah. And, and the whole you know, around that time, the whole idea of science communication was becoming more and more more and more of a thing. People were coming more and more of the way the need for it. And I think I, I, I, I hope it's getting better, but at that time it did seem to me anyway, and maybe that's just cause that's who of the way that I saw things at that time. Science communication was more about burgeoning became a little bit about bludgeoning people with these ideas and taking someone, you know, who has an unreasonable in quotes as an, a non reason based reason argument against the reasoned argument and, and saying that the reasoned argument should win just because it was reasoned. Does that make sense? Yeah. Well,

Kenneth Vogt (31:43):
Because that's the assumption then is that there is no higher way of, of assessing something than to reason on it. Yeah. And that's not true. And I realize for a lot of people that is a disturbing statement, but reason is just a foundation. It's not the end all be all there's more. And the emotional nature of humans is highly valuable. So, you know, let's, let's not forget to engage it. And

Nick Oswald (32:12):
The way to see it is, is, is that you, regardless of who you are, you have the E you have an edge where you don't think reason you, you know, where, where you're not prepared to go any further. You see, I mean, where, like, for example you know, human clon cloning that can be done, and it would potentially have benefits that I presume, but I would think you'd be very difficult to find people who wanted to do that well. And thus,

Kenneth Vogt (32:39):
There is such a thing as ethics and science,

Nick Oswald (32:41):
You know, well, well, this is what I mean. Yeah, this is, this is, and it becomes,

Kenneth Vogt (32:44):
It's a whole field now, too. Ethics

Nick Oswald (32:46):
Is really where science goes, starts bleeding out into the non reasonable and, and into the well, I, I'm not an expert in this, but this is the way that I, this is the way that

Kenneth Vogt (32:56):
I see it. Well, it's like to talking about earlier that it's not just about communication among scientists, you're communicating with nonscientists too. And it matters that you communicate with nonscientists it's the, the world is being benefited by scientists who are willing to, to bring things down to a level that a nonscientist can understand it's expanding humanity to do so. So it's a

Nick Oswald (33:22):
Wonderful, however, the trap, the trap is, and again, this is always acknowledged when you do scientific communication training. I think this is just a good angle on it, is that the trap is to, when you start becoming top down, when you think you're preaching to people about the way it should be, instead of offering in a, a here's a potential tool that, that, that society at large can use rather than trying to just bludgeon it. And because you, you think it should be there, if you see

Kenneth Vogt (33:47):
What I mean. Well, I was thinking about if you were a scientist that that helped create medical devices. For instance, you don't look at doctors like they're too stupid to understand you do have a different skillset, though, you know, see you realize, well, I gotta communicate in such a way that a doctor will understand how this will be useful to them. Excellent. Well, if you can do that with a doctor, you can do that with anybody. You can do that with you know, a high school student, you know, and I'm, , I was seeking an example, something nobody's gonna be offended you, but okay. You know, there are people that are less educated than you in the world, on your topic. Great. Figure out a way to communicate with them. And this, this approach, when it comes to reasonableness is, is one way of looking at it.

Nick Oswald (34:41):
Well, that was an interesting one. Yeah. So thank you again, Ken, for another, that was a really great topic. Again, you know how to get things going, don't you

Kenneth Vogt (34:53):
well, I love the way you got engaged with it too.

Nick Oswald (34:57):
So that's just leaves me to mention though that if you want to see any more of our episodes, they are at all at bitesizebio.Com/Thehappyscientist. and just as importantly, if you want to tell us, tell me I was all wrong there, that's fine. That could be correct as well. we are at facebook.com/thehappyscientistclub, and you can feel free to contact us or, or just join us up and look at what we're doing there. And yeah, it'd be good to see you there. So until that just leaves us to say goodbye until the next episode. So again, thanks Ken. You see you for the next one.

Kenneth Vogt (35:37):
Very good.

Intro/Outro (35:44):
The Happy Scientist is brought to you by Bitesize Bio, your mentor in the lab. Bitesize Bio features, thousands of articles and webinars contributed by hundreds of PhD, scientists and scientific companies who freely offer their hard one wisdom and solutions to the Bitesize Bio community.