Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, depending on when you happen to be listening. This is the Paul Truesdell Podcast, and I am Paul Grant Truesdell—the Elder, Senior, or the oldest of the two with this name.
Today I want to talk about something that sits at the heart of everything I do and, frankly, everything you should expect out of people who claim the title of scientist, professional, or even advisor. I want to talk about the scientific process. Not science as dogma, not science as politics, not the COVID-19 pseudo science that was pushed with government scare tactics and, yes, in many cases, outright criminal behavior. Not the kind of “research” that comes out of gender studies departments where biology gets bent to fit ideology. Not the woke science and DEI mandates that elevate slogans over data. And certainly not taxpayer-funded studies on the mating habits of extinct dodo birds. What I am talking about is science as a living, breathing system of thinking.
Let me begin with something Garry Nolan, a Stanford professor and one of the brightest minds in cancer and immunology research, said in a way that I think is worth repeating. He said, “Good science is being right today and wrong tomorrow.” Think about that. “Good science is being right today and wrong tomorrow.” Here’s the root of many problems. You, me, we, and the man in the moon often want certainty, we demand conclusions, we crave the final answer. And we want it now, with little if any effort, at no cost, and with maximum benefits. But the truth is that science, when done correctly, is provisional. And by provisional, I mean temporary—it’s the best working answer we have at the moment, subject to change as new facts roll in. It is about being as right as you can be with the data you have today, knowing full well that tomorrow better data, better instruments, or better insights might prove you wrong. And that is not a weakness—that is the strength of science. It’s well worth remembering a famous statement by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who said: “There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns—there are things we do not know we do not know.”
If you take nothing else from what I am saying today, take this: the scientific process is not about winning arguments or propping up egos. And that’s a problem. A problem that has always been around, but one that has gotten entirely out of control in the academic world, regardless of the academic or scientific discipline, both hard and soft science—but far worse in the soft sciences. It is about curiosity. It is about constantly looking for the piece of data that does not fit—the anomaly, the result that sits off the curve. I have always used the phrase “connecting dots.” It’s a simple two words with powerful impact if you think about it, and those are three words that I also use repetitively. Now speaking of Garry Nolan—he said it directly: “The advances in science come from the data points that don’t fit the model.” That is where discovery happens. If you only ever pay attention to the averages, you will never see the breakthroughs.
Now, how does that process actually work? Let’s strip it down to the basics. Here are the key words: observe, hypothesis, test, repeat. That is the cycle. That is the engine that drives discovery.
First, you observe. You notice something in the world that is worth asking about. It might be a pattern, a behavior, an outcome—anything that raises a legitimate question.
Second, you form a hypothesis. This is your tentative explanation, your best guess based on what you know at the moment. It is not truth; it is a proposal.
Third, you test. You stress that hypothesis against data, against experiments, against reality. And when the data breaks it—as it often does—you throw the hypothesis away.
And then comes the most important part: you repeat. You go back, refine your thinking, adjust your approach, and run the process again. That is how progress is made.
It is ruthless in the best sense. It is not personal. It is not political. It is procedural. And here is something people often miss: those who have piled it higher and deeper, who have spent years, decades, even an entire lifetime researching only to find out they were wrong—those people have not failed. They have given us clarity. They have shown us a pathway that does not work, which means we do not have to waste time going down it again. That is not failure; that is achievement. That is contribution. That is science doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
But there is a problem. Human beings get in the way. Yes, good old humans have a way of messing things up. And so, let’s be honest about this. Ego is one of the biggest obstacles in science. People do not want to be wrong. They build careers, reputations, and even empires around a theory. And when new evidence threatens that theory, the instinct is to defend the castle instead of opening the gates. That is not science—that is religion. That is the opposite of what the process demands.
And that same ego problem is what we saw with COVID. It is the problem with how the pyramids in Egypt are still explained. And it is the problem with those who only view mankind through a progressive lens, ignoring the reality that history is filled with both progress and regression. You see, sometimes things have, are, and will occur that drive us backwards. And by backwards, I mean this: we cannot replicate the construction of the Egyptian pyramids today. So how did so-called near knuckle-draggers, as the PhDs of archeology and history would have us believe, manage to do it thousands of years ago? That is the contradiction. That is where ego and dogma collide with reality.
Now let’s talk about tools. You cannot underestimate how much tools drive science forward. There was a time when surgery was true butchery—painful, messy, and more often than not, fatal. Smoking during surgery, unheard of, right? Wrong. It was common practice until the Mayo brothers came along in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They introduced sterile techniques and insisted on cleanliness, thus revolutionizing surgery into something survivable. Think about that: within just over a century, surgery moved from a death sentence to a discipline capable of heart transplants and joint replacements. That transformation was not because people suddenly got smarter; it was because the tools and the methods improved. Cutting open bodies has been replace more often my precision inserting of tools that clip, insert, remove, or zap, this, that, and the other. 
Not that long ago we could only look at a handful of immune cells at once. That meant entire patterns of disease and health were invisible. Then came new instruments that could measure 50 or 60 proteins in a single cell, and suddenly the fog lifted. We could see what was there all along, and science moved forward.
And so today, tools exist that dispel what is now considered junk science and outdated procedures. Those clinging to dogma, refusing to use the tools that expose reality, are the true enemies of scientific progress. And let’s be blunt—Anthony Fauci belongs in that mix, along with Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson. These are pop-science performers, not truth seekers. They spew whatever line keeps the money flowing and their media relevance intact. That is not science. That is theater.
That point cannot be stressed enough. Science is not just about ideas; it is about the marriage of ideas with technology. Microscopes, sequencing machines, artificial intelligence—each new tool opens the door to questions that were once impossible to ask. The questions are always there. They will always be there. What too often does not change is our ability to apply common sense when those who are schooled in science violate their legal or implicit oath to truth, choosing professional self-preservation instead. The ability to hear the truth, and to act on it, is more difficult than many are willing to admit.
Let’s elaborate a bit on artificial intelligence. Many have described AI as a sleuth—capable of reading 22 million scientific papers and pulling out patterns no human being could possibly see in a lifetime. AI in scientific research is now doing the work that once required dozens of graduate students grinding away for years. And it is not just science. In the legal profession, document review—once the bread and butter of junior associates—is rapidly becoming obsolete. The biggest law firms are being forced to adapt or die.
The same principle applies in science. AI does not make the human obsolete; it makes the human indispensable. Let me repeat that: humans must decide. And always remember and never forget, junk in equal junk out. As a result, humans must decide which of the thousands of AI-generated hypotheses are worth testing. Again, humans. Without human judgment, discernment, and experience, AI is just noise. And note, AI is nothing more than machine learning, and like humans, teach junk, you end up with a junkie. 
And so, when it comes to immunology I call it “an immunologist in a box.” What once took months now takes hours. Think about what that does for the process. It accelerates discovery, it democratizes access, and it strips away wasted time. That is progress. But there is a catch. When science and health care are run by insurance companies, when checking the box is more important than true investigative analysis, we all suffer. AI can provide the tools, but if the system values compliance over curiosity, the potential is lost. Because of its importance, let me repeat that, if the system values compliance over curiosity, the potential is loss. And that is not just a missed opportunity—it is malpractice on a societal scale. And again, think of Covid and the forced inoculations without a proper scientific method. And as for the failure to properly warn society of negative outcomes, well, that was outright criminal. 
But science is not just about discovery. It is also about application. In the 1980s, commercialization was a dirty word at nearly all universities. Researchers were expected to stay in the lab, publish papers, and let someone else worry about real-world use. Science is worthless without real-world applications. Those who create are different from those who apply, and the same distinction holds for those who do and those who adapt. That separation has finally begun to change.
The shift toward what is called “bench to bedside” means that ideas could actually leave the ivory tower and become treatments, therapies, and even cures in far less time than decades past. Artificial purity is artificial. This is the point where you should be hearing Gomer say “Shazam” or “Golly.” Patents, companies, IPOs—these are not the corruption of science. They are the mechanism by which science fulfills its promise; however, when government funds the research, the government, which means “we the taxpayers,” deserve a cut of the profits. That’s only fair. 
And this is where investment and wealth advisors play a critical role. We are the front line for implementation, funding, expansion, and support. Discovery alone does not create progress. Capital, structure, and disciplined management turn ideas into products, therapies, and services that actually reach people. Without the flow of money, resources, and guidance, and yes, the aha moments during a casual cocktail conversation, even the best discoveries in decades or centuries remain locked in journals or university basements. With the right planning and funding, however, those same discoveries scale into industries that change lives, create jobs, and improve standards of living. That is where science and finance intersect—where imagination meets execution, and where theories become reality. That is where science and finance intersect—where imagination meets execution, and where theories become reality. It makes you wonder, in the same way movies like The Da Vinci Code or even a visit to the National Archives in Washington, D.C., make you wonder, just what does the Catholic Church hold behind closed doors, and what does the United States government keep locked away. And take the movie National Treasure: Book of Secrets, the second film in that series—was it purely fiction, or was it fictionalized truth? From Buck Rogers, Dick Tracy’s wrist watch, and Arthur C. Clark’s 2001 Space Odessey, each should cause one to pause and think about it. Think about what? All of it. The who, what, where, when, why, how, and which. 
Still, there must be discipline. Science cannot survive without it. On one side, you have peer-reviewed, reproducible evidence. On the other, you have the circus atmosphere of television specials about UFOs, ancient mummies, or miracle cures. The circus sells, but it is not science. Science cannot live in a carnival tent. It requires rigor.
Evidence is not the same as proof, and it takes humility to admit the difference. Correlation is also not causation. Just because two things appear linked does not mean one causes the other. A claim, no matter how flashy or exciting, does not become science until it passes through the crucible of controlled testing, reproducibility, and peer review. That is the standard. Without it, you are selling stories, not building knowledge.
And once again, because it is still fresh in our collective memory, COVID is the poster boy for what not to do—and what must never be done again. Flimsy evidence was presented as proof. Bio-weapon sourcing from communist China should never have been ignored. Correlation was dammed, twisted, and causation invented. Truth is the truth and if the truth hurts, the science and facts do not care. Models that should have been treated as provisional guesses were rolled out as unshakable truth. Fear was used as a substitute for rigor, and politics was dressed up as science. That is not just bad science—it is malpractice at a global scale. Heads should have rolled, but instead, innocent lives were lost and ongoing effects are without a doubt, plaguing many. 
Now, a metaphor is a comparison describing one thing as another, and one of the most powerful metaphors I can discuss in the ongoing study of science is the story of broken contracts between cells. Cells are supposed to cooperate. They are supposed to divide when asked, rest when told, and die when their time is up. When that cellular contract is honored, the body functions as it should. But when the contract breaks, when a cell refuses to follow the rules, cancer emerges.
The same is true in science. When scientists honor their contract with evidence—observing, testing, reproducing results—the system works. But when that contract is broken, when dogma or ego replaces discipline, bad science emerges. Just as free radicals in the body can trigger the chaos of cancer cells, radicals in thought—ideological, political, or financial—can trigger the chaos of dogma. Both spread, both corrupt, and both ultimately destroy the system they inhabit.
It is the same principle in biology as in human institutions. Agreements matter. Trust matters. Rules matter. And when they are broken, whether by a renegade cell or a renegade scientist, collapse follows. The body sickens, or the body of knowledge sickens. In both cases, survival depends on finding the breach, cutting out the corruption, and restoring order before the damage becomes irreversible.
Another point I want to underline is that anomalies should not be feared—they should be celebrated. They are signals that we do not yet understand something important. In my work, I call this exceptional management. Exceptional management is management by exception: you keep an eye on the normal functioning, but your focus is on what is performing above or below the norm. That is where the truth hides.
A scientist who ignores anomalies is like an investor who ignores outliers in a market—blind to the very indicators that point to change. If your data does not fit the model, you do not bend the data to protect your pride. You break the model and build a new one. That is courage. That is discipline. And that is the real process of science, business, and life. This is the essence as to how and why I created Fixed Cost Investing in combination with fractional shares, equal weighting, and consensus of the masses. 
And so, let’s look forward. Let’s look at the possibility of a post-scarcity society—one where artificial intelligence and automation free scientists from the grind of chasing funding, begging for grants, and maneuvering through politics, and instead allow curiosity to be the driver once again. And when I say “scientists,” I am not just talking about those with PhDs or tenured positions. I am absolutely including the autodidacts—the self-taught, the relentless tinkerers, and those who lack formal training but possess extraordinary capabilities. We should never reward the box checker over the true innovator. Real progress does not come from those who merely think outside the box; it comes from those who start by saying, “The box does not exist in the first place.”
That is an optimistic vision, but it hinges on discipline. The merger of human curiosity and artificial intelligence’s processing power is the defining opportunity of our age. And let me repeat that: the merger of human curiosity and artificial intelligence’s processing power is the defining opportunity of our age. But it will only fulfill its potential if we resist the urge to turn it into yet another ego contest or circus act. Without humility, AI becomes a toy for the powerful instead of a tool for progress. With humility, it becomes the engine that drives us further than we ever imagined.
I shall now begin to wrap this up, and I shall close with this. The scientific process is not a mystery, and it is not a trick. It is a disciplined cycle of curiosity, observation, hypothesis, testing, correction, and application. It is about being willing to be wrong, eager to be surprised, and humble enough to admit that what you know today may be overturned tomorrow. That does not make knowledge worthless—it makes it alive.
A true fiduciary-based investment and wealth advisor, one who has been around the block more times than they can count, understands this intuitively. Experience teaches you that what looks right today may prove wrong tomorrow, but that is not failure—it is growth. And for me, since I have said it, I will give myself an amen.
When you hear someone claim that the science has been settled, be skeptical. In fact, when you hear that phrase, think of one word: hogwash. Never forget, lobotomies were once considered a cure, and that “settled science” destroyed the life of Rosemary Kennedy, the sister of President John F. Kennedy. That is what happens when arrogance replaces humility.
When you see a scientist unwilling to test their own ideas, be cautious. When you encounter someone who celebrates anomalies, who admits when they were wrong, who embraces new tools and new data—pay attention. That is science in action. And it is also the act of a mature person, someone comfortable in their own skin, someone who understands that truth is larger than ego. That is how progress is made.
And that is the process I seek to describe to you as clearly and as succinctly as I can. Yes, this was long, but my style is to elaborate, to go into detail, and to drive the point home. That is why I wanted to spend this time sharing it with you. Because whether you are talking about cancer research, investment strategies, or simply living an informed life—or, as I like to say, a life well lived—the process is the same. Curiosity, evidence, humility, and courage. Right today, wrong tomorrow, and better for it.
With that, carry on. Get off the couch. Engage in life. And step away from that glowing screen, the modern idiot box and a longevity killer in more ways than one.
AN INVITATION 
I trust you enjoyed this, and now I want to extend a personal invitation. Join me for one of my Casual Cocktail Conversations at The Stonewater Club. These are not lectures, they are real conversations. No jargon, no canned speeches, and no filler. Just straight talk, plainspoken, with enough substance that you will walk out saying, “I never thought of it that way before.”
On Sunday, September 14th at 2:30 in the afternoon, we will cover Essential Florida Estate Documents. These are the documents every Floridian needs to know about, but few truly understand. I will walk you through them step by step using my big easel pads and a marker, connecting the dots in a way that makes the complex simple and memorable. You will walk away with clarity.
Then, on Sunday, September 28th at 2:30, we will dive into The Essential National Security Economics of the U.S. Navy. Most people never stop to consider how the Navy shapes our daily lives, our economy, and our future. If you think China is a problem today, wait until you hear what I outline. Again, I will be at the easel, laying out the facts in plain view, connecting the dots so you can see the picture for yourself. And remember, the lessons of Pearl Harbor were bought with blood—lessons we cannot afford to forget. We are in very dangerous times and dangerous waters, and while I do not predict it, nor want it, nor seek it, the reality is that war is coming. It is already happening in many ways, it is multifaceted, and the likelihood is growing that it will turn red hot.
Over 10,000 retired Floridians have attended one or more of my in person or online seminars, webinars, workshops, and casual cocktail conversations. With over forty years of real professional experience, I can assure you of this: you will leave with several “aha” moments. My style is relaxed, conversational, blunt, and direct. I built and own my office building right here in Ocala, so you know I am not some out-of-towner parachuting in with a sales pitch. I am here, I am local, and I do not pull punches.
Seating is limited, so do not wait. Visit truesdellwealth.com/events or simply call or text 352-612-1000 to reserve your seat.