top of page

AAPHSSS Transcript - S2 Ep12

Samara Greenwood: Hi, and welcome to the season finale for the HPS podcast. I'm Samara Greenwood, and my co host is Indigo Keel. Today's episode is a little bit special. Just a few weeks ago, Indi and I attended the biannual conference for AAHPSSS, the Australasian Association for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, held at the University of Sydney this year.

Both the outgoing president of AAHPSSS, Adam Lucas, from the University of Wollongong and incoming president Martin Bush from the University of Melbourne were instrumental in making the conference such a success. It really was a wonderful event and while we were there, Indi and I took the opportunity to interview a number of attendees about the conference.

It is a particularly great event for the HBS podcast as the presentations cover such a broad spectrum of topics and are inclusive of scholars at all levels of experience. So we very much hope you enjoy this taste test of the ARPS Conference 2023. So ARPS 2023 was your first conference experience. How did you find that, Indi?

Indigo Keel: I found it great, to be honest. I was a bit intimidated walking into it. I've never been to a conference before, but the people that attended the conference were so lovely. It was such a friendly, collaborative vibe. So many good presentations. I just had the best time. And the uni is beautiful as well. 

Samara Greenwood: Were there any presentations you found of special interest?

Indigo Keel: My favorite topic in HPS has always been history of biology and philosophy of biology. So Rachael Brown's, who did the Ding Dyason lecture this year, her talk was one of my absolute highlights. It covered the history of philosophy of biology.

Samara Greenwood: Really ticking all the boxes for you there. 

Indigo Keel: Absolutely. And like, not only did it. Speak to my interests in HPS, but it was also so well done. She speaks really well. The presentation was amazing. That was obviously one of the biggest talks of the whole conference, but just getting to duck in and see all the different things that people work on in HPS, just the variety was amazing. 

Samara Greenwood: I agree with that.

And it was so nice. As you said, the variety, not just history, not just philosophy, not just STS, but history of medicine, technology gets in there as well. And I agree, Rachael's Dyason lecture was just fabulous. It really appealed, I think, to everyone that was in the audience, she did such a great job with that.

Indigo Keel: HPS takes such an inquisitive look at the discipline of science from all of these different angles. And doing that to the discipline of HPS as well, really appeals to the kind of people who work in HPS. And so I think that may be why it went down so well. It just spoke to the audience really well.

Samara Greenwood: You're right, I haven't thought of it like that. Self reflection, using the tools we already use to research. Well, luckily, we will be hearing more about that presentation later in the podcast. However, first up, we're hearing from one of the winners of the Langham Prize, which is, as you know, awarded to the best postgraduate presentation at the conference.

This year we had two winners, Wendy Higgins for her presentation on Meta science, Philosophy and Psychological Measurements. And also, equal winner was Rebecca Mann for her presentation on Biological Individuality. Now, unfortunately, we didn't manage to catch up with Wendy, but indeed, we did manage to sit down with Rebecca before she even knew she was one of the winners, right?

Indigo Keel: Yeah, I did manage to attend Rebecca's talk, another philosophy of biology talk. There's a bit of a theme going on here and I loved it. She presented it as a question that is pretty well covered in philosophy of biology that she was giving a new take on. I didn't know that. I had no idea. And so I was just absolutely rapt with the entire presentation.

It was so interesting. She spoke really well, used examples that were technical enough to make her point clearly, but still simple enough for people like me who didn't know anything about the question at hand and she was lovely. So we sat down to have a chat for the podcast afterwards. 

Samara Greenwood: Oh, that's so fantastic.

And it is such a skill, isn't it? Being able to present something at the technical level that you're really getting across your argument that would be presented in a publishable paper. But at the same time, realizing not everyone in your audience is going to have that background information and do that in 20 minutes, right?

There's some real talent that goes into making that work well. 

Indigo Keel: Yeah, 20 minutes is not a long time. 

Samara Greenwood: They're kind of snappy and quick and you can't always bring in all the examples and evidence you want to, so you've got to make sure the ones that you do really pop. And so now we'll hear from Rebecca Mann.

Rebecca Mann: I'm Rebecca Mann. I'm doing my PhD here at the University of Sydney in the

School of History and Philosophy of Science and I work on philosophy of biology. I presented a part of my thesis, which is looking at I'm very much focused on trying to tease out some of the murkiness around the problem. So looking at kind of the multifaceted nature of the problem of biological individuality.

So this particular talk was focused on splitting the problem into its spatial and temporal components rather than just thinking that if you answer a spatial question the temporal answer comes for free and vice versa. 

Indigo Keel: And have you seen anything else at the conference that you've enjoyed? 

Rebecca Mann: I particularly enjoyed the Dyason lecture last night by Dr. Rachael Brown, also on philosophy of biology because I'm a little bit biased, but she gave an amazing talk kind of situating the kind of work that philosophers of biology actually do and the difference between using biological tools for philosophy, or using philosophical tools for biology, or analyzing the methods in biology for their own sake.

Samara Greenwood: The Dyason Lecture is the signature event for AAHPSSS and is named in honor of Diana Ding Dyason, the founding president of the society, when it was established in 1966. This year, the Dyason Lecture was presented by Dr. Rachael Brown, Director of the Centre for Philosophy of the Sciences at the Australian National University, and previous interviewee on the podcast in Season 1.

Rachael's Dyason Lecture was titled, "50 Years of Philosophy of Biology, Where Are We Now?" And she very kindly agreed to sit down with me during the conference to discuss the thinking behind her presentation. 

Rachael Brown: I wanted to do something big picture. What I normally work on is quite technical and very narrow. I wanted to do something that would appeal to a general HPS audience.

I went and looked at the SEP, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on philosophy of biology. And I realised that David Hull's book, The Philosophy of Biological Science, had been published in 1974, so that was pretty much 50 years prior to today. I thought, well, that would be a great topic.

Thinking about what philosophy of biology looked like in 1974, or at least in that book. and then how it had changed to today. That was what the lecture was about. I began by looking at the topics in the book, which were very traditional topics, partly focusing on traditional questions in philosophy of science, but applied to biology.

So what is the nature of biological theories and biological laws? And then also looking at questions in philosophy from a biological perspective. So, for example, teleology and organicism. Then I looked at the ways in which those two sets of problems are seen in contemporary philosophy of biology. And then I offered a third type of problem, which I think those who are familiar with philosophy of biology will know from people like Peter Godfrey Smith calling it the philosophy of nature, but a more kind of synthetic project where philosophers of biology attempt to contribute to real live debates in biology rather than debates in philosophy, either more traditionally construed or in philosophy of science.

I was really nervous about giving the talk. Any big picture talk like that where you're trying to characterize a discipline is a bit risky. You always worry that you're going to miss some people or miscategorize someone or offend them by how you've characterized their work. But that wasn't the case. I think it was probably helpful that there wasn't a huge crowd of philosophers of biology in the room.

But those that were there were very complimentary. I think also because the AAHPSSS conference is a place where philosophers, people doing social studies of science and historians of science and those who are doing work that integrates those in various different ways because that's the conference.

Presenting what philosophy of biology is was really interesting for people who don't know what philosophy of biology is and had been trying to work out how their work fits. I think also, none of the things I said were particularly peculiar to philosophy of biology. So I think you could have inserted the word physics into the kind of three part distinction I made, and I'm sure the philosophy of physics would fit in there, and I think that the sociologists of science and the historians of science found that useful as a way to understand, well, what are philosophers of science interested in, and how does it relate to our practice?

Some of the questions that philosophers of science are interested in are less related to history and social studies of science than others. And that was one of the things I was really seeking to say. So when philosophers of biology want to engage in questions in the biological sciences, oftentimes, they're informed by practice and informed by social studies of science and informed by history, but that doesn't appear in their paper.

So, case in point, my paper where I say what evolvability really is, I present some definitions from the literature and then talk about how I think that there's kind of a unifying account of evolvability available to us in conceptual space. That doesn't look very historical or practice oriented, but it was informed by understanding the history of evolutionary developmental biology and also by talking to working biologists and saying, does this make sense to you?

Is this reasonable? Does this seem useful? In that kind of project, the target audience really is biologists and the success criteria is uptake by biologists. Whereas a project about, say, the application of evolutionary theory in ethics. It looks like our target is philosophers and our source of information that comes from biology but also again is less informed by history and practice.

On the other hand, if our interest is in how models work in biology, then it seems like we have to be looking at practice and history and also our target audience is philosophers of science. Although scientists might be interested in it and use that usefully in some of their debates. The target there is different and so I think one of the things that sometimes happens in philosophy of biology is a little bit of gatekeeping between different kind of groups working on different things and sometimes the standards that we apply, we need to be clear, what exactly is the project here, who's the target audience, and given that, what's the output going to look like. when we're thinking about the role of particularly practice and history in our work. 

Samara Greenwood: Next, Indi sat down with Zoe Cosker and Jazz Flore, both from the University of Melbourne, for a quick chat about their great presentations. 

Zoe Cosker: Hi, I'm Zoe Cosker, and I'm a PhD student at the University of Melbourne in history of philosophy of science.

And I look at the history of mental health law and how that's been articulated by different stakeholder groups. So patients. lawyers and doctors. Today I was presenting some work on the concept of care, so what that actually meant for legislators in Victoria. So when they're making mental health laws, what concept of medical care and psychiatric care are they using when they're making the laws that empower medics to behave in certain ways towards consumers. 

Indigo Keel: Have you seen anything else here that's caught your eye? 

Zoe Cosker: I will say that Jazz's talk on the vagus nerve that was immediately after mine was absolutely amazing. It was really interesting kind of tracing a genealogy of How that has become such a internet phenomenon was really interesting.

So thinking about kind of the way in which these quasi medical ish discourses occur was absolutely fascinating. 

Jacinthe Flore: My name is Jazz. I am a lecturer in history and philosophy of science. I broadly study the history of psychiatry and I'm also a science and technology studies scholar. I presented on the role of the vagus nerve in regulating balance in mental health.

I am trying to write a history of that through to the present moment where a lot of wearables are being marketed in order to regulate and rebalance your vagus nerve. 

Indigo Keel: Has anything at this conference stood out to you?

Jacinthe Flore: Two main things. I've really enjoyed connecting with PhD candidates and early career researchers. I think they're doing such important work and I really wish that there were a lot more secure contracts going around. And the second thing is I've enjoyed talking about the various synergies between history and philosophy of science and science and technology studies because I think the two fields are heavily connected and they influence each other and it would be great to see them brought much more closely. 

Samara Greenwood: In talking with various people at the conference, Indi and I found one particular session titled Neurodivergence, Madness and Disability putting lived experience at the forefront to be particularly popular. 

Jacob Hall: I'm Jacob, I'm an honours student with History and Philosophy of Science at USyd, currently putting together some research on the political economy of AI and some philosophies of technology that could be used to analyse that. I really enjoyed the conversation on models of disability and mental health. That was fascinating. The panel discussion at the end of that was really, really cool to hear as well.

Responding to questions like what the point is of trying to carve out like this space in the academy and stuff. Very fascinating stuff. 

Zoe Cosker: I think that the Neurodiversity and Madness panel was amazing. Really enjoyed that. Just hearing different perspectives, particularly about lived experience, was really valuable.

And there was a really good talk about time, which I loved, about capitalism and time and disablism and how neurodiversity and time work together. It was fascinating.

Samara Greenwood: I attended the session and also found it illuminating. All three speakers provided different perspectives and opened up for me a range of new ways of considering the topic.

Due to its popularity, Indi and I decided to interview all three speakers for this episode. First, Gemma Smart, who is also Vice President of AAHPSSS and an organizer of the conference, then Alan Jurgens and Marilyn Stendera. 

Gemma Lucy Smart: My name's Gemma Lucy Smart. I'm a PhD at the University of Sydney, and I work on history and philosophy of mental health stuff.

I specifically look at the end of the 20th century, and mad pride, and narratives of mental distress, and how to understand those. So I ran a panel along with a couple of colleagues on Neurodivergence, Madness and Disability. I presented on narratives of mental distress and how to think about some historical examples of people that I've talked to in my research and ways of thinking beyond just the biomedical model as the only way to explain strange or unusual experiences.

That's the second time we've done a panel like that. Last time, Alan Jurgens and I did it with Rob Wilson at the AAP. The, really the point of the panel is just to stimulate discussion about how to approach those topics, putting lived experience at the forefront rather than kind of talking about them as philosophers and historians like to do either in the abstract, like a philosopher or like a historian, like people are just kind of examples or case studies or little quirks rather than actually people.

Alan Jurgens: My name is Dr. Alan Jurgens. I'm originally from the States, but I've been in Australia doing my PhD at Wollongong and then working there for the last eight years. And I finished my PhD about three years ago and just been doing research since. So I spoke as part of a panel on Neurodiversity, Madness, and Disability, and I specifically talked about some models of disability, looking at some of the sort of standard, orthodox accounts of models of disability, and then presenting a model that I think really is something different and new to the audience.

The model was developed by an autistic philosopher of science, Robert Chapman, and the model itself is called the ecological model. And the basics around the model is the idea that in order to understand disability, we have to look at sort of three levels of analysis. One being the individual themselves, and how they sort of function in the world. The second level being how the individual functions within the different social local groups that they're in. So their families, their friend circles, their jobs, their school environments, those kinds of social groups that they're directly a part of. And then the third level being the sort of larger ecological level where the individual kind of is less and less of a focus.

And instead, you're looking at what the cognitive style or the differences that the individual has in terms of how they affect the much larger social, societal, or even global human population scale. And this, I think, is really great because it forces an analysis to look at any individual's disability or forms of disability across all of these levels so that the individual themselves is a little de centered in it.

Which I think in a way helps to destigmatise the disability and helps to shift the burden away from the, individual and onto the environment itself when it comes to things like interventions to improve their well being and capabilities. 

Marilyn Stendera: I was approaching the theme of our panel, which is looking at lived experiences of neurodiversity and madness and disability from a critical phenomenology perspective, considering especially the kinds of ways in which our lived experience of time is structured and shaped and kind of amplifies the power hierarchies that we inhabit.

The overarching argument is this claim that institutions shape. They live temporality in two directions that seem to be oppositional, but they're actually both operating at the same time in this kind of perverse way, which basically means that we can't win. One of those directions is the way that institutions entrap us in this kind of repetitious time scale of endless routines, pointless meetings, paperwork, administration.

There's this idea that there's too much routine and not enough spontaneity. The other direction is essentially the opposite direction where institutions at the same time generate too much uncertainty and unpredictability. And they undercut the ways that we make and mark time ourselves, right? Critical phenomenology, phenomenology generally talks about how we have these context specific, rich, subjective and intersubjective ways of making time significant to us.

The little routines that we establish to help make time bearable and meaningful and fulfilling and institutions.

I was approaching this largely from the lived experience of a precarious worker. I was thinking of, for example, on the one hand, the endless routine of regularly submitting your paperwork, submitting your timesheets. It's this thing that you do constantly over and over, and there's a pointlessness to it because the time that you're paid for is set in your contract.

It's not like this is going to change, yet you have to do it constantly. If you've got those kind of routines that weigh you down, at the same time there's the existential uncertainty. The reason that you're putting in those timesheets over and over is because you have an unstable job. You have that existential dread of the rug pulled out from under you.

It's both too much routine, but also too much, too much precarity. And one of the main examples that I focus on in my paper too is kind of the discourse around flexibility. Academia in general is positioned as a flexible industry, where flexibility is cashed out in these positive terms that actually hover over just how pernicious so called flexibility is, where flexibility just becomes constant availability, constant uncertainty.

I was overall approaching this, drawing on my own lived experiences of neurodiversity and madness and mental distress. And one of the kind of starting points for me was always having been told that as someone who goes through those experiences, academia is the perfect industry for me. And especially those themes of flexibility that I mentioned, neurodiversity, madness, mental distress, they're often talked about as circumstances that involve unique different experiences of time and those are often pathologized, right?

It's like abnormal experiences of time. So, you know, periods of hyper focus, so called time blindness in, in some conditions, that sort of thing. One of my arguments linking that to institutional approaches to live time was that on the one hand, Labeling those experiences of time in those particular ways, pathologizing, kind of makes them easier to integrate into these reductive institutional frameworks, but it also lets institutions kind of use those experiences of, of time, right?

So, as I said, I've often been told, Hey, look, academia is the perfect place for you if you work in rhythms of hyper focus and hyper absorption, and this is kind of encouraged in academia in ways that lead to burnout. And so there's this kind of dual worry that on the one hand, institutions tend to shape live time in a way that flattens individualized experiences of time, different ways of relating to time, but institutions also treat unique experiences of time and in a kind of pathological classifying way, and so both of those tendencies, I argue, are pernicious.

One of the overarching ideas there is that there isn't really a single standard experience of lived time. What I take from a lot of the philosophers who I work with and who influence my work, just kind of cracking open time and realizing it's not this dry, neutral thing. It's actually wonderfully complex and rich and That any idea of a neutral standard lived temporality is at the very least boring and at the most pernicious because it can, it can cover over all of that wonderful stuff.

Samara Greenwood: Another presenter, Jules Rankin, also spoke on time. His presentation was titled The Predictive Processing of Flow. 

Jules Rankin: So my name's Jules Rankin. I'm a PhD student here in the School of History and Philosophy of Science at USyd . I work as sort of in the philosophy of time. And specifically, trying to understand various features of our experience of time.

And in particular, trying to sort of bridge the gap between the so called scientific image of time and the manifest image of time. Sorry, our experience of time. My talk was sort of giving a sort of rough sketch on a certain approach within cognitive science and how that can help us understand certain aspects of our phenomenology of time.

Samara Greenwood: Another wonderful talk was by the philosopher of physics Sophie Ritson. Her talk was titled Communicating Uncertainty, The Curious Case of the 750 GeV Bump at the Large Hadron Collider. 

Sophie RItson: Hi everyone, my name is Sophie Ritson. I'm from the University of Melbourne. So in history philosophy of science, the areas of science that I'm interested in theoretical high energy physics.

For the most part, I've looked at some of the very large experimental collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider. I've also looked at the string theory research community. I tend to be interested in topics to do with the epistemology of research collaboration and all of the associated things. So I presented a very recent historical episode that happened in 2015, 2016.

When we had this case of two experimental collaborations, each independently saw evidence for potentially revolutionary new physics. Extraordinarily exciting new physics. I looked at the different communication strategies that came out of both these two experimental collaborations as well as theoretical physicists at the time, and how they communicated the limitations of these results, because they were preliminary, and they had a low statistical significance. What was quite exciting was that you had two independent experiments that had the same result. And this was a situation where it was not quite clear how this should be communicated.

There are clear guidelines for communicating the significance of a result. But not when you've got two independent experiments that have got the same result, but both with a low significance. So this was communicated in certain ways by the research collaborations, which are very rule governed. There are a lot of specifications on what the collaborations can and can't say.

And then the theoretical physicists also communicated about this, and they are not rule governed. Theoretical physicists are individuals who can say whatever they like. This result was widely communicated both to general publics as well as scientific publics. This made it to the New York Times. And what was interesting was that ultimately this did turn out to be a statistical fluctuation, there was no result. But there were 500 theory papers written about this result by the time it went away. Published, peer reviewed papers. And it had gone away. And so this left both the theoretical and experimental physicists in quite this reflective mood about how they had communicated this result out.

There was this concern that perhaps they had cried wolf and that they had I looked at this in the context of some of the claims that Naomi Oreskes has been making. She argues that actually rather than presenting science as this certain, unchanging kind of discipline, really scientists should be communicating the limitations of their research.

Because if you communicate about science as being certain and unchanging. When science does evolve and change, it means that those with different motives can and have undermined the credibility of science. So she looks at it in the context of of smoking and climate change. She calls them merchants of doubt, where people with particular motivations have been able to very effectively undermine the messaging that's coming out of researchers in climate change, for example, by showing how things have changed.

And so, in this example in hygiene physics, there was this communication of there is this result, but it might go away. If it sticks around, it's very exciting. But this is an inherently statistical phenomenon, and it's not a mistake. No mistakes were made in this case. It was just the case that with statistical phenomenon, they come and go.

It's a case that fits kind of what Naomi has been pushing for, but there was sort of, even still, the high energy physics and theoretical physics communities were sort of quite anxious about this. 

Samara Greenwood: As well as talking to people about their own presentations, Indi also asked attendees what they enjoyed about the conference in general.

It was interesting how this question brought up a wide range of responses, so we decided to finish with some more general thoughts from Sophie Ritson, Rebecca Mann, Zoe Cosker and Jules Rankin. 

Sophie Ritson: Some of the discussions I've really enjoyed have been the reflections on history and philosophy of science and science and technology studies as a discipline and where we're going and what the future looks like for graduate students and undergraduate students because graduate students and undergraduate students are the future of the discipline.

And it sounds trite, but it's true. And it's important. And how you function as a inherently interdisciplinary discipline, which is a topic I find very interesting, both from a HPS perspective, and also from just looking at our own discipline. Interdisciplinary work is really difficult. I certainly find it rewarding, but certainly challenging as well.

Rebecca Mann: I think it's been really nice to be around HPS as kind of a subgroup, because a lot of the conferences I've gone to in the past are either Very specific, so philosophy and biology conferences, or Kind of going to something like the AAP, so a pure philosophy conference, which is much broader. So HPS, it kind of sits in this nice little zone where everyone's interested in science, but there's still quite a diversity in what people are actually working on.

Jules Rankin: Getting to sit in on talks that you don't know the first thing about going into it, and having a whole new sort of avenue of intellectual work sort of opened up for you is, yeah, always a real joy. 

Zoe Cosker: I think that that's been the kind of a broad highlight, I think that's probably my biggest highlight, not a specific talk, is just the ability to go to all these talks and just hear amazing people talking about amazing things and being like, this is a really cool area to work in and like there's so much happening and it's all so varied and people have completely different views that they're bringing to the table and on different topics and it's just, it's been really inspiring.

Samara Greenwood: So that's the wrap up for Season 2. How are you feeling about it, Indi? 

Indigo Keel: I mean, I'm sad to see it go, but I had a really good time this season. It was a bit tricky trying to get season two and my honors thesis in at the same time, but it all went well in the end. We had some really great interviews this season and getting to do the podcast while at the AAHPSSS conference was also really fun.

It gave me an excuse to pick people's brains further than just the pleasantries of, "Oh, how are you going? How are you enjoying the conference?" Instead, I stuck a phone in their face and asked them how they're enjoying the conference. And working with Samara has been great as well. How are you feeling about the end of the season, Sam?

Samara Greenwood: Again, I really think it's been a fabulous season. And I particularly loved a couple of your episodes. The Ian Hesketh one was a real highlight for me. Thank you so much for that. 

Indigo Keel: More philosophy of biology. 

Samara Greenwood: And history. 

Indigo Keel: Oh, and history. 

Samara Greenwood: Don't forget the history. 

Gerhard's one too, we haven't actually done a lot of publicity for Gerhard's one because it was right whenever we were scratched with so much busyness.

But let's do a shout out for Gerhard Wiesenfeldt's episode on why you should study the unknown scientists. So do tune out for that one. What was your favorite podcast to do? 

Indigo Keel: I really enjoyed doing Katherine Furman's. Part of it may be that I was less stressed while I was doing it, but it's so interesting, so topical.

Give that one a listen if you haven't already. And it's about public health, but the philosophy behind her ideas spreads out into just general distrust of science, of media, and ways philosophers seek to remedy that. Loved doing that one. And Hasek Chang, what a name to be on the podcast. 

Samara Greenwood: And he's so lovely to listen to.

So we should announce some sad news because Indi has now finished her honors degree and is headed off for fabulous new adventures next year, she will very sadly be leaving her co producer and co host role on the podcast. So I wanted to take this time to thank you Indi for all the amazing work you've done in helping turn the podcast from this little idea to thriving production that we have today.

It's been such a wonderful experience working with you this year. And I can't even imagine what it would have been like trying to do it alone. So thank you so much. 

Indigo Keel: Thanks Sam. Sam approached me at the behest of Fiona Fiddler to find someone to co host the podcast with. I leapt at the opportunity because I really enjoy being involved in the Unimelb HPS community.

This also gave me an opportunity to speak to people from other unis who work in disciplines that maybe we don't look at so closely at Melbourne Uni. And it's just been the best year of meeting people, connecting with people, learning valuable skills around website building, editing, social media. And it's been a wild ride learning all of that and trying to get it down pat, but it's been a lot of fun.

Samara Greenwood: It has. Thank you so much. 

Indigo Keel: Thanks Sam, what's next for the HPS podcast, Sam?

Samara Greenwood: We do have a bonus episode coming up, , an interview with Mauricio Suarez, who has got a new book coming out very, very soon. So look out for that bonus episode in the next couple of weeks. Next year we will be coming back in March for a big break, because we have a big break in academia in Australia.

So our third season will launch at the start of March and we have a wonderful list. Guests to feature but no hints. You'll just have to wait and see. 

Indigo Keel: Exciting. I can't wait to be on the other side of the looking glass now. 

Samara Greenwood: We'll definitely have you back. We'll have special features with Indie from wherever she is in the world.

Indigo Keel: International correspondent. 

Samara Greenwood: International correspondent. Love it.



bottom of page