The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine


The Michael Shermer Show

A series of conversations between Dr. Michael Shermer and leading scientists, philosophers, historians, scholars, writers and thinkers about the most important issues of our time.

Watch or listen here or on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, iHeartRadio, Stitcher, and TuneIn.


Gale Sinatra & Barbara Hofer — Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It

Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It (book cover)

How do individuals decide whether to accept human causes of climate change, vaccinate their children against childhood diseases, or practice social distancing during a pandemic? Democracies depend on educated citizens who can make informed decisions for the benefit of their health and well-being, as well as their communities, nations, and planet. Understanding key psychological explanations for science denial and doubt can help provide a means for improving scientific literacy and understanding — critically important at a time when denial has become deadly.

In this conversation based on their new book, Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It, Gale Sinatra and Barbara Hofer identify the problem and why it matters and offer tools for addressing it. They explain both the importance of science education and its limitations, show how science communicators may inadvertently contribute to the problem, and explain how the internet and social media foster misinformation and disinformation. The authors focus on key psychological constructs such as reasoning biases, social identity, epistemic cognition, and emotions and attitudes that limit or facilitate public understanding of science, and describe solutions for individuals, educators, science communicators, and policy makers. If you have ever wondered why science denial exists, want to know how to understand your own biases and those of others, and would like to address the problem, this book will provide the insights you are seeking.

Gale Sinatra is the Stephen H. Crocker Professor of Education and Psychology at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, where she directs the Motivated Change Research Lab. She received her B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. She has been recognized by the American Educational Research Association for career achievements in research with the Sylvia Scribner Award. She resides in Altadena, California.

Barbara Hofer is a Professor of Psychology Emerita at Middlebury College and is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. She received her Ph.D. in psychology and education from the University of Michigan and an Ed.M. in human development from Harvard University. She is the recipient of national awards for both research and teaching, from the American Educational Research Association and the American Psychological Association. She lives in Middlebury, Vermont.

  • Why should we believe Anthony Fauci?
  • vaccine hesitancy, Hydroxochloroquine, Bret Weinstein and Ivermectin,
  • climate science denial,
  • evolution denial: from William Jennings Bryan to Intelligent Design creationists,
  • ways of knowing: absolutism vs. multiplism vs. evaluativism,
  • algorithmic literacy,
  • types of truth: empirical, personal, political, religious, ideological,
  • how to think about evidence,
  • how to evaluate media sources of science,
  • self identity and science denial,
  • why no one in the history of the world has ever identified as a science denier,
  • What is science, anyway?
  • why knowing the facts of evolution, vaccines, climate science, GMOs, etc. is not enough,
  • Is there a liberal science denialism?
  • GMOs and science denial,
  • conspiracy theories and science denial,
  • how to engage eccentric Uncle Harry at the next family dinner when he declares climate change to be a Chinese hoax, or that vaccines are a conspiracy to control people, or that QAnon is a real conspiracy and the 2020 election was rigged.
  • Action steps:

    • dealing with cognitive biases,
    • supporting digital literacy,
    • supporting science education,
    • understanding beliefs about knowledge,
    • understanding emotions and attitudes,
    • understanding motivated reasoning.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Sep 25, 2021.


Ashley Rindsberg — The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’s Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History

The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History (book cover)

As flagship of the American news media, the New York Times is the world’s most powerful news outlet. With thousands of reporters covering events from all corners of the globe, the Times has the power to influence wars, foment revolution, shape economies and change the very nature of our culture. It doesn’t just cover the news: it creates it.

The Gray Lady Winked pulls back the curtain on this illustrious institution to reveal a quintessentially human organization where ideology, ego, power and politics compete with the more humble need to present the facts. Rindsberg offers an eye-opening, often shocking, look at the New York Times’s greatest journalistic failures, so devastating they changed the course of history.

  • How its World War II Berlin bureau chief, a known Nazi collaborator, skewed coverage in favor of the Third Reich for over a decade.
  • Its notorious coverup of the Ukraine Famine, a genocide committed by Stalin, showing that it was the newspaper’s owners who directed the coverup in order to advance their own financial and ideological interests.
  • The “1619 Project,” a cynical, ideologically driven attempt to revise American history by rooting the nation’s birth in slavery instead of liberty.

The result is an essential look at the tangled relationship between media, power and politics in a post-truth world told with novelistic flair to reveal a uniquely powerful institution’s tortured relationship with the truth. Most importantly of all, The Gray Lady Winked presents a cautionary tale that shows what happens when the guardians of the truth abandon that sacred value in favor of self-interest and ideology-and what this means for our future as much as for our past.

Ashley Rindsberg was born in South Africa and immigrated to the U.S. as a child. After earning degrees in Philosophy and Science & Technology Studies at Cornell University, Rindsberg worked at prestigious digital NGO, Internet Archive, where he ran the Internet Bookmobile project. His work for the Archive took him to Egypt, where he installed the country’s first Internet Bookmobile at the Library of Alexandria. Over the course of 13 years spent wandering Israel’s “unholy city,” Rindsberg encountered the beggars, dreamers, artists, musicians and madmen who would inspire his first collection of fiction, Tel Aviv Stories. Rindsberg has contributed essays and journalism to a number of publications. He was managing editor of the short-lived but culturally influential English-language Israeli magazine, 18, and served as a founding associate editor of long-form Mideast policy and culture magazine, The Tower.

Shermer and Rindsberg discuss:

  • why the New York Times has such a reputation vs. the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post
  • Isn’t the Wall Street Journal equally biased toward the right?
  • Don’t all papers make mistakes but the NYTs errors are more prominent?
  • the history of journalism and when fact checking became the norm: “the paper of record”?
  • UAPs/UFOs in the New York Times and how that elevated the previously fringe topic to mainstream,
  • Adolph Ochs, founder of the NYTs and it’s mission “to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interests involved.”
  • NYTs reported favorably about Hitler, Mussolini and Fascism (while hating Trump),
  • NYTs reported that Poland invaded Germany on Sept. 1, 1939,
  • NYTs reported favorably about Marx, Lenin, Stalin & Communism (while castigating Putin),
  • tyrannophilia,
  • Holocaust,
  • the NYTs rock-star treatment of Fidel Castro,
  • the 1619 Project,
  • critical race theory and safe spaces,
  • antiracism as a religion,
  • reason is a social construct, but they use reason to argue against reason,
  • the business model of click-bait “news” and what has to change,
  • social media platforms and whether or not they should be regulated, and
  • how to restore the search for objective truth, even and including about history.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

This episode is sponsored by Wondrium:

Wondrium (sponsor)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Sep 21, 2021.


Leidy Klotz on doing more with less, based on his book Subtract: The Untapped Science of Less

Subtract: The Untapped Science of Less (book cover)

We pile on “to-dos” but don’t consider “stop-doings.” We create incentives for good behavior, but don’t get rid of obstacles to it. We collect new-and-improved ideas, but don’t prune the outdated ones. Every day, across challenges big and small, we neglect a basic way to make things better: we don’t subtract.

Leidy Klotz’s pioneering research shows why. Whether we’re building Lego® models or cities, grilled-cheese sandwiches or strategic plans, our minds tend to add before taking away. Even when we do think of it, subtraction can be harder to pull off because an array of biological, cultural, and economic forces push us towards more. But we have a choice — our blind spot need not go on taking its toll on our cities, our institutions, and our minds. By diagnosing our neglect of subtraction, we can treat it.

Subtract will change how you change your world. In these pages you’ll meet subtracting exemplars: design geniuses, Nobel Prize-winners, rock-stars, and everyday heroes, who have subtracted to dismantle racism, advance knowledge, heal the planet, and even tell better jokes. These and more guiding lights show how we can revolutionize not just our day-to-day lives, but our collective legacy. More or less. A paradigm shift of a book, Subtract shows us how to find more of the options we’ve been missing — and empowers us to pursue them.

Leidy Klotz is the Copenhaver Associate Professor at the University of Virginia, where he is appointed in the Schools of Engineering, Architecture, and Business. He co-founded and co-directs the university’s Convergent Behavioral Science Initiative, which engages and supports applied, interdisciplinary research. Klotz earned a highly-selective CAREER award from the National Science Foundation, one of the NSF’s first awards through its INSPIRE program, and over $7 million in competitive research funding. He advises influential decision-makers that straddle academia and practice, working with the Departments of Energy and Homeland Security, the National Institutes of Health, Resources for the Future, ideas42, and Nature Sustainability. A columnist for the Behavioral Scientist, Klotz has written for venues such as Science, Nature, Fast Company, and The Daily Climate.

Shermer and Klotz discuss:

  • how one studies behavioral subtraction,
  • experimental evidence that people add to solve problems, not subtract,
  • evolutionary reasons why we tend to add rather than subtract to our lives and environment,
  • evonomics,
  • loss aversion, endowment effect, sunk-cost fallacy,
  • history of civilization: isn’t this an example of addition, not subtraction?
  • Göbekli Tepe and the role of monumental architecture,
  • climate change: add or subtract to solve the problem?
  • racial issues/BLM/antiracism: add or subtract to solve the problem?
  • examples of subtraction:

    • Vietnam War Memorial,
    • Embarcadero Freeway, San Francisco,
    • corporate structures,
    • Feynman diagrams.
  • improving your personal life through subtraction.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Sep 18, 2021.


Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein on evolution and the challenges of modern life, based on their new book A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century

A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century (book cover)

We are living through the most prosperous age in all of human history, yet people are more listless, divided and miserable than ever. Wealth and comfort are unparalleled, and yet our political landscape grows ever more toxic, and rates of suicide, loneliness, and chronic illness continue to skyrocket. How do we explain the gap between these two truths? What’s more, what can we do to close it?

For evolutionary biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, the cause of our woes is clear: the modern world is out of sync with our ancient brains and bodies. We evolved to live in clans, but today most people don’t even know their neighbors’ names. Survival in our earliest societies depended on leveraging the advantages of our sex differences, but today even the concept of biological sex is increasingly dismissed as offensive. The cognitive dissonance spawned by trying to live in a society we’re not built for is killing us.

Heying and Weinstein cut through the politically fraught discourse surrounding issues like sex, gender, diet, parenting, sleep, education, and more to outline a science-based worldview that will empower you to live a better, wiser life. They distill more than 20 years of research and first-hand accounts from the most biodiverse ecosystems on Earth into straightforward principles and guidance for confronting our culture of hyper-novelty.

Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein are evolutionary biologists who have been invited to address the US Congress, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Education, and have spoken before audiences across the globe. They both earned PhDs in Biology from the University of Michigan, where their research on evolution and adaptation earned awards for its quality and innovation. They have been visiting fellows at Princeton University, and before that were professors at the Evergreen State College for 15 years. They resigned from Evergreen in the wake of 2017 campus riots that focused in part on their opposition to a day of racial segregation and other college “equity” proposals. They cohost weekly livestreams of the DarkHorse podcast.

Shermer and Heying and Weinstein discuss:

  • Darwin’s Dictum: “How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observations must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service.”
  • proximate vs. ultimate causal explanations of human mind and behavior,
  • Why is evolutionary psychology still politically charged?
  • How do evolutionary psychology researchers test hypotheses?
  • human nature/nurture,
  • ape culture, mating behavior, social organization,
  • archaeological evidence for the EEA,
  • the evolution of sex differences: physical and psychological,
  • sex differences in mating cognition and behavior,
  • mother-infant bonding and attachment,
  • gender division of labor,
  • marriage, monogamy, polygamy,
  • medicine, food, sleep,
  • sex and gender,
  • parenthood and relationships,
  • childhood, school, becoming adults,
  • culture and consciousness.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

This episode is sponsored by Wondrium :

Wondrium (sponsor)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Sep 14, 2021.


The Truth About 9/11 and Terrorism

In this special episode of the podcast Michael Shermer honors the 20th anniversary of 9/11 with a commentary on the truth about that event and how it changed our lives, 7 myths about terrorism that need debunking if we are to understand how we should respond to this threat, and why we need not sacrifice liberty for security.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.


Today is the 20th anniversary of 9/11, so I have titled this solo episode “The Truth about 9/11 and Terrorism”. It’s a play on words, given that the so-called “9/11 Truthers” have attempted to abscond with that word and turn it into something quite the opposite of truth.

So let me say up front that I agree, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Say what? I define a conspiracy as two or more people or a group plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally. So, by definition, 19 members of al-Qaeda plotting to fly planes into buildings without warning us constitutes a conspiracy. The ultimate failure of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is their inability to explain away the overwhelming evidence of the real conspiracy by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. For example, to name but a few incriminating facts:

  • The 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon by a radical Hezbollah faction.
  • The 1993 truck bomb attack on the World Trade Center.
  • The 1995 attempt to blow up 12 planes heading from the Philippines to the U.S.
  • The 1995 bombings of U.S. Embassy buildings in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 12 Americans and 200 Kenyans and Tanzanians.
  • The 1996 attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.
  • The 1999 failed attempt to attack Los Angeles International airport by Ahmed Ressam.
  • The 2000 suicide boat attack on the U.S.S. Cole that killed 17 sailors and injured 39 others.
  • The well-documented evidence that Osama Bin Laden is a major financier for and the leader of al-Qaeda.
  • The 1996 fatwa by Bin Laden that officially declared a jihad against the United States.
  • The 1998 fatwa calling on his followers “to kill the Americans and their allies— civilian and military is an individual duty for any Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”

Given this background, since Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have officially claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11, we should take them at their word that they did it. But what bothers me most about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it is a distraction from the real conspiracy of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and other such extremist organizations plotting to kill Westerners in Europe and America through countless low-level and nearly indefensible targets such as streets, subways, theaters, stadiums, Christmas markets, churches, and anywhere else that large crowds of people gather. Those are real conspiracies, organized and implemented by real conspirators. Let’s not lose sight of them while anomaly hunting among the rubble of 9/11.

I have spent the past week watching a stream of documentaries and specials on 9/11 and the political ramifications of that event, and the United States’s mostly disastrous response to it. For example, I recommend the two-hour PBS Frontline documentary America After 9/11, along with Netflix’s 5-part series, Turning Point: 9/11 and the War on Terror, most notably the final episode on Afghanistan, appropriately titled “The Graveyard of Civilizations.” I distinctly recall a conversation I had with my father at a lunch we shared the day the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. He said if the mighty Soviet empire with their world-class military couldn’t do it in ten years and they’re located right next door, what hope is there for us 7,000 miles away?

As we have seen this past month, it went even worse for us than it did Soviet Union, and looked what happened to them shortly after. I don’t think this is the beginning of the end for the U.S.—not remotely so—but that we spent over $2 trillion dollars on the war on terror and have next to nothing to show for it, is depressing, especially with all the domestic problems we face for which that money could have been better spent. There’s a scene in that final episode of the Netflix’s doc showing footage of the massive airbases we built in Afghanistan just to handle our military jets and equipment. These bases looked to be about the size of JFK and LAX airports combined, and we built a number of these, and then bulldozed them into rubble so they couldn’t be used by the Taliban or al Qaeda, which our $2 trillion dollars evidently failed to fund a victory over these militant and terrorist organizations. Just imagine if we had put all those resources into reinforcing the infrastructure of the United States, now in disrepair for which the current administration is proposing spending…$2 trillion dollars. Interesting.

But, we’re told, if we didn’t do all that then the next terrorist attack would have been in the form of a mushroom cloud. Nonsense. This is like the proverbial elephant repellant: ever since I sprayed it in my home I have not experienced a single elephant attack. It works! I know, that’s not a perfect analogy since 9/11 really did happen, and nothing like it has happened since. But why? I contend it is because terrorism is not the existential threat we’ve been told it is. Here I will highlight some excerpts from my chapter on war and terrorism in my book The Moral Arc.

Excerpt on Terrorism from The Moral Arc

Terrorism is a form of asymmetrical warfare by non-state actors against innocent noncombatant civilians. As its name suggests, it does so by evoking terror. This exercises our alarmist emotions, which in turn confounds our reasoning, making clear thinking about terrorism well nigh impossible. As such, I suggest that there are at least seven myths that have arisen that need to be debunked to properly understand the causes of terrorism in order to continue to reduce its frequency and effectiveness.

1. Terrorists are pure evil. This first myth took root in September, 2001 when President George W. Bush announced “We will rid the world of the evil-doers” because they hate us for “our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”1 This sentiment embodies what the social psychologist Roy Baumeister calls “the myth of pure evil”, which holds that perpetrators of violence act only to commit senseless injury and pointless death for no rational reason. The “terrorists-as-evil-doers” myth is busted through the scientific study of violence, of which at least four types motivate terrorists: instrumental, dominance/honor, revenge, and ideology.

In a study of 52 cases of Islamic extremists who have targeted the U.S., for instance, the political scientist John Mueller concluded that terrorist motives include instrumental violence and revenge: “a simmering, and more commonly boiling, outrage at U.S. foreign policy—the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular, and the country’s support for Israel in the Palestinian conflict.” Ideology in the form of religion, “was a part of the consideration for most,” Mueller suggests, “but not because they wished to spread Sharia law or to establish caliphates (few of the culprits would be able to spell either word). Rather they wanted to protect their co-religionists against what was commonly seen to be a concentrated war upon them in the Middle East by the U.S. government.”2 As for dominance and honor as drivers of violence, through his extensive ethnography of terrorists cells the anthropologist Scott Atran has demonstrated that suicide bombers (and their families) are showered with status and honor in this life (and, secondarily, the promise of virgins in the next life), and that most “belong to loose, homegrown networks of family and friends who die not just for a cause, but for each other.” Most terrorists are in their late teens or early 20s, especially students and immigrants “who are especially prone to movements that promise a meaningful cause, camaraderie, adventure, and glory.”3 All of these motives are on display in the 2013 documentary film by Jeremy Scahill called Dirty Wars, a sobering look at the effects of U.S. drone attacks and assassinations in foreign countries such as Somalia and Yemen—countries with whom the U.S. is not at war—in which we see citizens swearing revenge against Americans for these violations of their honor and ideology.4

2. Terrorists are organized. This myth depicts terrorists as part of a vast global network of top-down centrally-controlled conspiracies against the West. But as Atran shows, terrorism is “a decentralized, self-organizing, and constantly evolving complex of social networks,” often organized through social groups and sports organizations, such as soccer clubs.5

3. Terrorists are diabolical geniuses. This myth began with the 9/11 Commission report that described the terrorists as “sophisticated, patient, disciplined, and lethal.”6 But according to the political scientist Max Abrahms, after the decapitation of the leadership of the top terrorist organizations, “terrorists targeting the American homeland have been neither sophisticated nor masterminds, but incompetent fools.”7 Examples abound: The 2001 airplane shoe bomber Richard Reid was unable to ignite the fuse because it was wet from the rain and his own foot perspiration; the 2009 underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab succeeded only in setting his pants ablaze, burning his hands, inner thighs, and genitals, and getting himself arrested; the 2010 Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad managed merely to torch the inside of his 1993 Nissan Pathfinder; the 2012 model airplane bomber Rezwan Ferdaus purchased C-4 explosives for his rig from FBI agents who promptly arrested him; and the 2013 Boston marathon bombers were equipped with only one gun for defense and had no money and no exit strategy beyond hijacking a car with no gas in it that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev used to run over his brother Tamerlan, followed by a failed suicide attempt inside a land-based boat. Evidently terrorism is a race to the bottom.

4. Terrorists are poor and uneducated. This myth appeals to many in the West who like to think that if we throw enough money at a problem it will go away, or if only everyone went to college they’d be like us. The economist Alan Krueger, in his book What Makes a Terrorist, writes: “Instead of being drawn from the ranks of the poor, numerous academic and government studies find that terrorists tend to be drawn from well-educated, middle-class or high-income families. Among those who have seriously and impartially studied the issue, there is not much question that poverty has little to do with terrorism.”8

5. Terrorism is a deadly problem. In comparison to homicides in America, deaths from terrorism are in the statistical noise, barely a blip on a graph compared to the 13,700 homicides a year. By comparison, after the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, the total number of people killed by terrorists in the 38 years before totals 340, and the number killed after 9/11 and including the Boston bombing is 33, and that includes the 13 soldiers killed in the Fort Hood massacre by Nidal Hasan in 2009.9 That’s a total of 373 killed, or 7.8 per year. Even if we include the 3,000 people who perished on 9/11, that brings the average annual total to 70.3, compared to that of the annual homicide rate of 13,700. No comparison.

6. Terrorists will obtain and use a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb. Osama bin Laden said he wanted to use such weapons if he could get them, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge pressed the point in calling for more support for his agency: “Weapons of mass destruction, including those containing chemical, biological or radiological agents or materials, cannot be discounted.”10 But as Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations reminds us, “Politicians love to scare the wits out of people, and nothing suits that purpose better than talking about nuclear terrorism. From President Bush warning in 2002 that the ‘smoking gun’ might be a mushroom cloud, to John Kerry in 2004 conjuring ‘shadowy figures’ with a ‘finger on the nuclear button’ and Mitt Romney invoking the specter of ‘radical nuclear jihad’ last spring, the pattern is impossible to miss.”11; But most experts agree that acquiring the necessary materials and knowledge for building either weapon is far beyond the reach of most (if not all) terrorists. George Harper’s delightful 1979 article in Analog entitled “Build Your Own A-Bomb and Wake Up The Neighborhood” is revealing in showing just how difficult it is to actually make a bomb:

As a terrorist one of the best methods for your purposes is the gaseous diffusion approach. This was the one used for the earliest A-bombs, and in many respects it is the most reliable and requires the least sophisticated technology. It is, however, a bit expensive and does require certain chemicals apt to raise a few eyebrows. You have to start with something on the order of a dozen miles of special glass-lined steel tubing and about sixty tons of hydrofluoric acid which can be employed to create the compound uranium-hexaflouride. Once your uranium has been converted into hexaflouride it can be blown up against a number of special low-porosity membranes. The molecules of uranium hexafluoride which contain an atom of U-238 are somewhat heavier than those containing an atom of U-235. As the gas is blown across the membranes more of the heavier molecules are trapped than the light ones. The area on the other side of the membrane is thus further enriched with the U-235 containing material; possibly by as much as ½% per pass. Repeat this enough times and you wind up with uranium hexafluoride containing virtually 100% core atoms of U-235. You then separate the fluorine from the uranium and arrive at a nice little pile of domesticated U-235. From there it’s all downhill.12

In his book On Nuclear Terrorism, Levi invokes what he calls “Murphy’s Law of Nuclear Terrorism: What can go wrong might go wrong,” and recounts numerous failed terrorist attacks due to sheer incompetence on the part of the terrorists to build and detonate even the simplest of chemical weapons.13 In this context it is important to note that no dirty bomb has ever been successfully deployed resulting in casualties by anyone anywhere, and that according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission—which tracks fissile materials—“most reports of lost or stolen material involve small or short-lived radioactive sources that are not useful for a RDD [radiological disbursal device, or dirty bomb]. Past experience suggests there has not been a pattern of collecting such sources for the purpose of assembling a RDD. It is important to note that the radioactivity of the combined total of all unrecovered sources over the past 5 years would not reach the threshold for one high-risk radioactive source.”14 In short, the chances of terrorists successfully building and launching a nuclear device of any sort is so low that we would be far better off investing our limited resources in diffusing the problem of terrorism in other areas.

7. Terrorism works. In a study of 42 foreign terrorist organizations active for several decades, Max Abrahms concluded that only two achieved their stated goals—Hezbollah achieved control over southern Lebanon in 1984 and 2000, and the Tamil Tigers took over parts of Sri Lanka in 1990, which they then lost in 2009. That results in a success rate of less than 5 percent.15 In a subsequent study, Abrahms and his colleague Matthew Gottfried found that when terrorists kill civilians or take captives it significantly lowers the likelihood of bargaining success with states, because violence begets violence and public sentiments turn against the perpetrators of violence. Further, they found that when terrorists did get what they want it is more likely to be money or the release of political prisoners, not political objectives. They also found that liberal democracies are more resilient to terrorism, despite the perception that because of their commitment to civil liberties democracies tend to shy away from harsh countermeasures against terrorists.16 Finally, in terms of the overall effectiveness of terrorism as a means to an end, in an analysis of 457 terrorist campaigns since 1968 the political scientist Audrey Cronin found that not one terrorism group had conquered a state and that a full 94 percent had failed to gain even one of their strategic political goals. And the number of terrorist groups who accomplished all of their objectives? Zero. Cronin’s book is entitled How Terrorism Ends. It ends swiftly (groups survive only 5–9 years on average) and badly (the death of its leaders).17

A rejoinder I often hear when recounting these studies is that terrorism has worked in terms of terrorizing the government into expending enormous resources into combatting its threat, and along the way sacrificed our freedom and privacy. It’s a valid point. The U.S. alone has spent upwards of $6 trillion dollars since 9/11 on two wars and a bloated bureaucracy in response to the loss of 3,000 lives,18 less than a tenth of the number of people who die annually on American highways. The explosive revelations by Edward Snowden about the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs launched a national conversation about the balance between privacy and transparency, freedom and security. As Snowden told the 2014 TED audience in Vancouver via video link from an undisclosed location in Moscow:

Terrorism provokes an emotional response that allows people to rationalize and authorize programs they wouldn’t have otherwise. The U.S. asked for this authority in the 1990s; it asked the FBI to make the case in Congress, and they said no, it’s not worth the risk to the economy, it would do too much damage to society to justify gains. But in the post 9/11 era, they used secrecy and justification of terrorism to start programs in secret without asking Congress or the American people. Government behind closed doors is what we must guard against. We don’t have to give up privacy to have good government, we don’t have to give up liberty to have security.19

That balance between liberty and security is one all governments contend with in many areas of society.20 We must be vigilant always, of course, but these seven myths point to the unavoidable conclusion that in the course of history terrorism fails utterly to achieve its goals or divert civilization from its path toward greater justice and freedom unless we fall victim to fear itself.

  1. Quoted in: Perez-Rivas, Manuel. 2001. “Bush Vows to Rid the 1 World of ‘Evil-Doers’.” CNN Washington Bureau. September 16,
  2. Mueller, John and Mark G. Stewart. 2013. “Hapless, Disorganized, and Irrational.” Slate, April 22.
  3. Atran, Scott. April 22. “Black and White and Red All Over.” Foreign Policy, April 22.
  4. Scahill, Jeremy. 2013. Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. Sundance Selects.
  5. Ibid.
  6. The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004. xvi.
  7. Abrahms, Max. 2013. “Bottom of the Barrel.” Foreign Policy, April 24.
  8. Krueger, Alan B. 2007. What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3.
  9. Bailey, Ronald. 2011. “How Scared of Terrorism Should You Be?” Reason, September 6.
  10. Quoted in: Levi, Michael S. 2003. “Panic More Dangerous than WMD.” Chicago Tribune, May 26.
  11. Levi, Michael S. 2011. “Fear and the Nuclear Terror Threat.” USA Today, March 24, 9A.
  12. Harper, George W. 1979. “Build Your Own A-Bomb and Wake Up The Neighborhood.” Analog, April, 36–52.
  13. Levi, Michael S. 2009. On Nuclear Terrorism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 5.
  14. 2012. “Fact Sheet on Dirty Bombs.” United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December.
  15. Abrahms, Max. 2006. “Why Terrorism Does Not Work.” International Security, 31, 42–78.
  16. Abrahms, Max and Matthew S. Gottfried. 2014 “Does Terrorism Pay? An Empirical Analysis.” Terrorism and Political Violence.
  17. Cronin, Audrey. 2011. How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  18. Global Research News. 2014. “US Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq to Cost $6 Trillion.” Global Research, February 12,
  20. See the response to Snowden’s TED appearance by NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett:
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Sep 11, 2021.


John Petrocelli — The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit

The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit (book cover)

Bullshit is the foundation of contaminated thinking and bad decisions that leads to health consequences, financial losses, legal consequences, broken relationships, and wasted time and resources.

No matter how smart we believe ourselves to be, we’re all susceptible to bullshit — and we all engage in it. While we may brush it off as harmless marketing sales speak or as humorous, embellished claims, it’s actually much more dangerous and insidious. It’s how Bernie Madoff successfully swindled billions of dollars from even the most experienced financial experts with his Ponzi scheme. It’s how the protocols of Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of 36 million people from starvation. Presented as truths by authority figures and credentialed experts, bullshit appears legitimate, and we accept their words as gospel. If we don’t question the information we receive from bullshit artists to prove their thoughts and theories, we allow these falsehoods to take root in our memories and beliefs. This faulty data affects our decision-making capabilities, sometimes resulting in regrettable life choices.

But with a little dose of skepticism and a commitment to truth seeking, you can build your critical thinking and scientific reasoning skills to evaluate information, separate fact from fiction, and see through bullshitter spin. In The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bullshit, experimental social psychologist John V. Petrocelli provides invaluable strategies not only to recognize and protect yourself from everyday bullshit, but to accept your own lack of knowledge about subjects and avoid engaging in bullshit just for societal conformity.

With real world examples from people versed in bullshit who work in the used car, real estate, wine, and diamond industries, Petrocelli exposes the red-flag warning signs found in the anecdotal stories, emotional language, and buzzwords used by bullshitters that persuade our decisions. By using his critical thinking defensive tactics against those motivated by profit, we will also learn how to stop the toxic misinformation spread from the social media influencers, fake news, and op-eds that permeate our culture and call out bullshit whenever we see it.

John Petrocelli is an experimental social psychologist and Professor of Psychology at Wake Forest University. His research examines the causes and consequences of BS and BSing in the way of better understanding and improving BS detection and disposal. Petrocelli’s research contributions also include attitudes and persuasion and the intersections of counterfactual thinking with learning, memory and decision making. His research has appeared in the top journals of his field including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Petrocelli also serves an Associate Editor of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

  • bullshit defined (different from lying),
  • signs that you’re being bullshitted,
  • magic and bullshit,
  • how we obtain reliable knowledge,
  • conspiracy theories as bullshit,
  • what it means to “believe” in a conspiracy theory like QAnon or the rigged election,
  • how we know that the election wasn’t rigged, that 9/11 was not an inside job, and that climate change and evolution are true,
  • Hitchens’ Dictum and Razor,
  • the replication crisis and why it happened,
  • how to talk to a bullshitter,
  • bullshit in: wine tasting, car salesmen, real estate agents, diamond salesmen,
  • Donald Trump and alternative facts (aka bullshit),
  • Steve Bannon: throw shit at the system/the enemy is not the Democrats but the media.

From the book

My ideal bullshit detector is Lieutenant Frank Columbo, played by Peter Falk in the 1970s television series Columbo. He was a homicide detective and famous for solving complicated “whodunit” murder mysteries by asking suspects “just one more question.” The last question would always be the one that cracked the case. What does the Columbo critical-thinking mindset look like in practice? We can list the basic habits of critical thinking as the following:

  • having a passionate drive for clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logic, completeness, and fairness,
  • having sensitivity to the ways in which critical thinking can be skewed by wishful thinking,
  • being intellectually honest, acknowledging what they don’t know and recognizing their limitations,
  • not pretending to know more than they do and ignoring their limitations,
  • lListening to opposing points of view with an open mind and welcoming criticisms of their beliefs and assumptions,
  • basing beliefs on facts and evidence rather than on personal preference or self-interest,
  • being aware of the biases and preconceptions that shape the way the world is perceived,
  • thinking independently and not fearing disagreement with a group,
  • getting to the heart of an issue or problem without being distracted by details,
  • having the intellectual courage to face and assess ideas fairly even when they challenge basic beliefs,
  • loving truth and being curious about a wide range of issues, and
  • persevering when encountering intellectual obstacles or difficulties.

Philosopher Peter Facione and the American Philosophical Association identified five critical-thinking skills in the landmark 1990 Delphi Report: interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, and self-regulation. Each of these skills is essentially a different way of asking questions.

You are best able to detect bullshit when you are able to accurately interpret the claim. If you can answer the following questions, you can better understand the meaning and significance of a claim:

  • What does the claim mean? How is it meant to be understood?
  • Is there anything unclear, ambiguous, or not understood about the claim?
  • How can the claim be best characterized and classified?

An expert bullshit detector analyzes the arguments that could be made in support of and against a claim. Engaging in analysis involves asking these questions of the claim:

  • On what basis is the claim being made?
  • How does the individual know the claim is true?
  • What assumptions must be made to accept the claim and its conclusions as true?

When critical thinkers assess the logical strength of a claim, they engage in evaluation. They determine if the arguments and evidence for the claim justify the conclusions. Evaluative questions include:

  • How compelling is the evidence supporting the claim?
  • How well does the claim follow from a reasonable interpretation of the evidence?
  • Do the results of relevant investigations speak to the truth of the claim?

Expert bullshit detectors engage in inference, which occurs when the relevant information needed to draw reasonable conclusions is secured and connected to the implications of the claim’s truth. Inference is promoted when you can gain answers to questions like:

  • What does the evidence imply?
  • If the claim is true, what are the implications moving forward?
  • If major assumptions supporting the claim are abandoned, how does the claim’s truth stand?

Self-regulation involves assessing one’s own motivations and biases and asking whether these influence one’s interpretations, analyses, inferences, and evaluations of a claim. Self-regulation works best when engaging in metacognitive thought (thinking about one’s thoughts) by answering questions such as:

  • How good was my method in evaluating the claim?
  • Are my conclusions based on evidence and data, or are they based on anecdotal evidence or what I read in the news?
  • Is there anything I might be missing (or wanting to miss), and are my conclusions about the claim motivated by something other than the truth in any way?

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

This episode is sponsored by Wondrium:

Wondrium (sponsor)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Sep 07, 2021.


Nichola Raihani — The Social Instinct: How Cooperation Shaped the World

The Social Instinct: How Cooperation Shaped the World (book cover)

Cooperation is the means by which life arose in the first place. It’s how we progressed through scale and complexity, from free-floating strands of genetic material, to nation states. But given what we know about the mechanisms of evolution, cooperation is also something of a puzzle. How does cooperation begin, when on a Darwinian level all that the genes in your body care about is being passed on to the next generation? Why do meerkat colonies care for one another’s children? Why do babbler birds in the Kalahari form colonies in which only a single pair breeds? And how come some coral wrasse fish actually punish each other for harming fish from another species?

A biologist by training, Raihani looks at where and how collaborative behavior emerges throughout the animal kingdom, and what problems it solves. She reveals that the species that exhibit cooperative behavior — teaching, helping, grooming, and self-sacrifice — most similar to our own tend not to be other apes; they are birds, insects, and fish, occupying far more distant branches of the evolutionary tree. By understanding the problems they face, and how they cooperate to solve them, we can glimpse how human cooperation first evolved. And we can also understand what it is about the way we cooperate that has made humans so distinctive and so successful.

Nichola Raihani is a Royal Society University Research Fellow and Professor in Evolution and Behaviour at University College London, where she leads the Social Evolution and Behaviour Lab. An evolutionary biologist by training, she won the 2018 Philip Leverhulme Prize in Psychology for her research achievements, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology. She has also worked in the BBC Science Development Team, and appeared on several podcasts and radio shows, including BBC Radio 4’s “Hacking the Unconscious” and “Thought Cages.” She lives in London with her family.

Shermer and Raihani discuss:

  • Darwin’s Dictum: All observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service.
  • What view is Raihani’s book for or against?
  • the problem to be solved: why are people kind to strangers? (i.e., origins of empathy, altruism, and kindness),
  • why we don’t need “divine command” theory to explain real morality, which can be derived through evolutionary theory plus philosophical ethical systems,
  • evolutionary origins of cooperation: from single cells to nation states,
  • evolutionary cooperation in the modern world: when we help strangers in the modern world we are following ancient rules of thumb that worked well enough in a world in which meeting someone for the first time was a reasonably good indicator that you’d meet them again,
  • Peter Singer’s expanding circle,
  • self-domestication (Richard Wrangham),
  • bonobos vs. chimpanzees vs. humans,
  • the “natural family” is more diverse than conservatives and Christians think,
  • Joe Henrich’s WEIRD theory of religion and the family,
  • evolution of religion,
  • individualistic vs. collectivist societies,
  • collective action problems and how they are solved in the real world,
  • the nature of human nature: in addition to being selfish, competitive, and greedy, we also harbor a great capacity for altruism, cooperation, and charity,
  • individual selection vs. group selection.
From “The False Allure of Group Selection” by Steven Pinker

E. O. Wilson: “In a group, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals. But, groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals.”

Steven Pinker: “The first big problem with group selection is that the term itself sows so much confusion. People invoke it to refer to many distinct phenomena, so casual users may literally not know what they are talking about. I have seen ‘group selection’ used as a loose synonym for the evolution of organisms that live in groups, and for any competition among groups, such as human warfare. Sometimes the term is needlessly used to refer to an individual trait that happens to be shared by the members of a group; as the evolutionary biologist George Williams noted, ‘a fleet herd of deer’ is really just a herd of fleet deer. And sometimes the term is used as a way of redescribing the conventional gene-level theory of natural selection in different words: subsets of genetically related or reciprocally cooperating individuals are dubbed ‘groups,’ and changes in the frequencies of their genes over time is dubbed ‘group selection.’

Natural selection could legitimately apply to groups if they met certain conditions: the groups made copies of themselves by budding or fissioning, the descendant groups faithfully reproduced traits of the parent group (which cannot be reduced to the traits of their individual members), except for mutations that were blind to their costs and benefits to the group; and groups competed with one another for representation in a meta-population of groups. But everyone agrees that this is not what happens in so-called ‘group selection.’ In every case I’ve seen, the three components that make natural selection so indispensable are absent.”

From Dr. Shermer’s The Moral Arc

A cell, or body, or organism—a survival machine—is the gene’s way of surviving and perpetuating itself. The problem is that survival machines scurrying around in, say, a liquid environment like an ocean or pond will bump into other survival machines, all of whom are competing for the same limited resources. “To a survival machine, another survival machine (which is not its own child or another close relative) is part of its environment, like a rock or a river or a lump of food,” says Dawkins. But there’s a difference between a survival machine and a rock. A survival machine “is inclined to hit back” if exploited. “This is because it too is a machine that holds its immortal genes in trust for the future, and it too will stop at nothing to preserve them.” Thus, Dawkins concludes, “Natural selection favors genes that control their survival machines in such a way that they make the best use of their environment. This includes making the best use of other survival machines, both of the same and of different species.” Survival machines could evolve to be completely selfish and self-centered, but there is something that keeps their pure selfishness in check, and that is the fact that other survival machines are inclined “to hit back” if attacked, to retaliate if exploited, or to attempt to use or abuse other survival machines first.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Sep 04, 2021.


Richard Dawkins on evangelizing for evolution, science, skepticism, philosophy, reason, and rationality, based on his new book Books Do Furnish a Life: Reading and Writing Science

Books Do Furnish a Life: Reading and Writing Science (book cover)

Richard Dawkins is author of The Selfish Gene, voted The Royal Society’s Most Inspiring Science Book of All Time, and also the bestsellers The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Ancestor’s Tale, The God Delusion, and two volumes of autobiography, An Appetite for Wonder and Brief Candle in the Dark. He is a Fellow of New College, Oxford and both the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Literature. In 2013, Dawkins was voted the world’s top thinker in Prospect magazine’s poll of 10,000 readers from over 100 countries.

This episode is heavily edited because Dawkins was having trouble with his voice, and Shermer tried to speak a little more to give Dawkins a chance to let his voice rest.

Shermer and Dawkins discuss:

  • his conversations with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, and Christopher Hitchens,
  • third culture science books as literature,
  • Popperian falsification vs. Bayesian reasoning: how science actually works,
  • evolutionary adaptationism, hyper-adaptationism, spandrels/exaptations,
  • fitness, adaptive, good; eyes and brains are good, but not always: blind cave fish, most animals have small brains,
  • The myth of natural selection as a “force”
  • Is religion adaptive?
  • E.O. Wilson and group selection, multilevel selection, and other misunderstandings about evolutionary theory,
  • metaphors and analogies in science: artificial selection,
  • Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and how they differed in their theories,
  • directionality to evolution; evolution of evolution; Gouldian contingency?
  • convergent evolution and ETIs: will aliens look anything like us?
  • how we know evolution is a fact of nature,
  • Christopher Hitchens, America as a theocracy? Faux religions like Nazism, communism, wokeism, Trumpism?
  • religious truths vs. political truths vs. empirical truths,
  • Afghanistan and Islam,
  • humans as gullible or skeptical, irrational or rational,
  • scientism, is-ought naturalistic fallacy, objective morality,
  • Grand mysteries? God, free will, consciousness, nothingness?

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

This episode is sponsored by Wondrium :

Wondrium (sponsor)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Sep 01, 2021.


Carole Hooven on T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us

T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us (book cover)

Since antiquity―from the eunuchs in the royal courts of ancient China to the booming market for “elixirs of youth” in 19th-century Europe — humans have understood that typically masculine behavior depends on testicles, the main source of testosterone in males. Which sex has the highest rates of physical violence, hunger for status, and desire for a high number of sex partners? Just follow the testosterone. Although we humans can study and reflect on our own behavior, we are also animals, the products of millions of years of evolution. Fascinating research on creatures from chimpanzees to spiny lizards shows how high testosterone helps males out-reproduce their competitors. And men are no exception.

While most people agree that sex differences in human behavior exist, they disagree about the reasons. But the science is clear: testosterone is a potent force in human society, driving the bodies and behavior of the sexes apart. But, as Hooven shows in T, it does so in concert with genes and culture to produce a vast variety of male and female behavior. And, crucially, the fact that many sex differences are grounded in biology provides no support for restrictive gender norms or patriarchal values. In understanding testosterone, we better understand ourselves and one another — and how we might build a fairer, safer society.

Carole Hooven, PhD, is lecturer and codirector of undergraduate studies in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University. She earned her Ph.D. at Harvard, studying sex differences and testosterone, and has taught there ever since. Hooven has received numerous teaching awards, and her popular Hormones and Behavior class was named one of the Harvard Crimson’s “top ten tried and true.” Follow Carole on Twitter @hoovlet.

Shermer and Hooven discuss:

  • Hooven’s nontraditional career path into biological anthropology,
  • the anthropology wars: biological vs. cultural anthropology,
  • cognitive creationism, the blank slate, and T skeptics who think human behavior
  • the chemistry, biology, and neurobiology of T,
  • Why do we have testosterone and estrogen?
  • T and steroids, human growth hormones, and other performance enhancing drugs,
  • Are we more like chimps or bonobos?
  • The question is not why we’re so violent, but why we’re not even more violent.
  • the self-domestication theory,
  • gender differences in cognition and career interests (Lawrence Summers, Jamie Damore),
  • gender differences in aggression and violence,
  • gender differences in sexual psychology and preferences,
  • confusing scientific findings with moral values,
  • T and Trans,
  • trans and sports,
  • #metoo and why men behave badly and what can be done about it,
  • implication of T for political, social, and cultural issues.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Aug 28, 2021.


Lee McIntyre — How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason

How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason (book cover)

“Climate change is a hoax — and so is coronavirus.” “Vaccines are bad for you.” These days, many of our fellow citizens reject scientific expertise and prefer ideology to facts. They are not merely uninformed — they are misinformed. They cite cherry-picked evidence, rely on fake experts, and believe conspiracy theories. How can we convince such people otherwise? How can we get them to change their minds and accept the facts when they don’t believe in facts? In this conversation based on his new book, Lee McIntyre shows that anyone can fight back against science deniers, and argues that it’s important to do so.

Shermer and McIntyre discuss:

  • McIntyre’s career path to the philosophy of science and activism against science denialism,
  • why no one in the history of the world has ever identified as a science denier,
  • the problems with the demarcation problem (discerning the difference between science and pseudoscience, science acceptance and science denial),
  • falsificationism vs. verificationism,
  • What is science, anyway?
  • Sagan’s dragon,
  • McIntyre’s adventures attending a Flat-Earth conference and what he learned about engaging with people whose beliefs differ starkly from your own,
  • Should you counter pseudofacts with real facts or counter denial strategies with skeptical strategies?
  • why knowing the facts of evolution, vaccines, climate science, GMOs, etc. is not enough,
  • Is there a liberal science denialism?
  • conspiracy theories and science denial, and
  • how to engage crazy Uncle Bob at the next family dinner when he declares climate change to be a Chinese hoax or that QAnon is a real conspiracy.

Lee McIntyre is a Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University. He is the author of Dark Ages: The Case for a Science of Human Behavior, Post-Truth, and The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience, all published by the MIT Press.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

This episode is sponsored by Wondrium:

Wondrium (sponsor)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Aug 24, 2021.


Julia Galef — The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t

The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Dont (book cover)

When it comes to what we believe, humans see what they want to see. In other words, we have what Julia Galef calls a “soldier” mindset. From tribalism and wishful thinking, to rationalizing in our personal lives and everything in between, we are driven to defend the ideas we most want to believe—and shoot down those we don’t. But if we want to get things right more often, argues Galef, we should train ourselves to have a “scout” mindset. Unlike the soldier, a scout’s goal isn’t to defend one side over the other. It’s to go out, survey the territory, and come back with as accurate a map as possible. Regardless of what they hope to be the case, above all, the scout wants to know what’s actually true.

In The Scout Mindset, Galef shows that what makes scouts better at getting things right isn’t that they’re smarter or more knowledgeable than everyone else. It’s a handful of emotional skills, habits, and ways of looking at the world—which anyone can learn. With fascinating examples ranging from how to survive being stranded in the middle of the ocean, to how Jeff Bezos avoids overconfidence, to how superforecasters outperform CIA operatives, to Reddit threads and modern partisan politics, Galef explores why our brains deceive us and what we can do to change the way we think.

Julia Galef is the host of the popular Rationally Speaking podcast, where she has interviewed thinkers such as Tyler Cowen, Sean Carroll, Phil Tetlock, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. She is an advisor to OpenAI, works with the Open Philanthropy Project, and cofounded the Center for Applied Rationality. Her 2016 TED Talk “Why You Think You’re Right—Even If You’re Wrong” has been viewed over 4 million times.

Shermer and Galef discuss:

  • mind metaphors,
  • Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow,
  • Daniel Kahneman vs. Gerd Gigerenzer: how irrational are humans?
  • What if you’re right? Shouldn’t you be a soldier in defense of the truth?
  • myths about the “team of rivals”,
  • beliefs and truths: empirical, religious, political, ideological, aesthetic, personal,
  • social media effects and company regulations?
  • BLM, #metoo, woke, gender, antiracism, etc.,
  • science denial and how to deal with it,
  • selective skeptic test,
  • the outsider test,
  • the ideological Turing test,
  • deception and self-deception,
  • conspiracy theories,
  • persuasion, influence and volition/free will,
  • how to use the principles in The Scout Mindset to structure a meeting between Arabs and Israelis.
Scout mindset vs. soldier mindset (from Shermer’s review of Galef’s book in the Wall Street Journal)

Soldiers rationalize, deny, deceive and self-deceive, and engage in motivated reasoning and wishful thinking in order to win the battle of beliefs. “We talk about our beliefs as if they’re military positions, or even fortresses, built to resist attack,” she writes. “Beliefs can be deep-rooted, well-grounded, built on fact, and backed up by arguments. They rest on solid foundations. We might hold a firm conviction or a strong opinion, be secure in our convictions or have an unshakeable faith in something.” This soldier mindset leads us to defend against people who might “poke holes” in our logic, “shoot down” our beliefs, or confront us with a “knock-down” argument, all of which may be our beliefs are “undermined”, “weakened”, or even “destroyed” so we become “entrenched” in them less we “surrender” to the opposing position.

Soldiers are more likely to agree with statements like these: “Changing your mind is a sign of weakness.” “It is important to persevere in your beliefs even when evidence is brought to bear against them.” Scouts are more likely to agree with these statements: “People should take into consideration evidence that goes against their beliefs.” “It is more useful to pay attention to those who disagree with you than to pay attention to those who agree.” Scouts, Galef explains, “revise their opinions incrementally over time, which makes it easier to be open to evidence against their beliefs” and “they view errors as opportunities to hone their skill at getting things right, which makes the experience of realizing ‘I was wrong’ feel valuable, rather than just painful.” In fact, Galef suggests, let’s drop the whole “wrong” confession and instead describe the process as “updating”, a reference to Bayesian reasoning in which we revise our estimations of the probability of something being true after gaining new information about it. “An update is routine. Low-key. It’s the opposite of an overwrought confession of sin,” Galef continues. “An update makes something better or more current without implying that its previous form was a failure.”

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

Tags: , , , ,

This episode was released on Aug 21, 2021.


Michael Shermer on Evolution, I.D. Theory, Consciousness, Morality, Gullibility, and Nothing (AMA # 7)

In this AMA Dr. Shermer answers questions from listeners about evolution and creationism, intelligent design theory, the hard problem of consciousness, the origins of morality, how science deals with anomalies, to what extent humans are naturally rational or irrational / skeptical or gullible, and why there is something rather than nothing.

Rick Leyland: I enjoyed your recent interview with Dr. Meyer regarding his book The God Hypothesis. In the interview both of you referred to ‘the Mind’. My question is whether a mind can exist without a brain? Does ‘the Mind’ require a physical structure (the brain) in order for thoughts, ideas, emotions etc. to be formed? Dr. Meyer in the later part of your interview stated: ‘Minds think ideas’. Isn’t it the physical structure of the brain that produces ideas? I find this nebulous word ‘mind’ to be similar as in stating we ‘feel in our heart’. Thanks again for your wonderful and thoughtful podcasts.

Joe Simonetta: If one believes there is “intelligent design” to life like your guest, Stephen Meyer, why would one refer to the “designer” as a “god?” Especially a god conceived in our own image. Quite an anthropocentric leap. One can understand that kind of thinking thousands of years ago, in the infancy of our intelligence, in the formative years of religions before the Scientific Revolution, Enlightenment, and Age of Reason. But today?! If some kind of “intelligent thing” created life so very long ago, that thing could just as well have been what we call a “computer” or something along those lines. Or by a computer created by a computer created by a computer ad infinitum in a limitless universe.

Rick Dixon: Vis-a-vis Shermer’s Last Law, what would be a reasonable estimate as to how advanced some ETIs would be, based on age of universe, star formation … 5 billion, 8 billion years in our technological future?

Wade in Cape Town, South Africa: In one of the Big Think videos you spoke about life after death and you asked how does anyone know the where they’ll go after death? Convince me that I can trust your word over God’s.

Dave Alit: I had a “born again” experience 7 years ago and I am 41 now, and I am coming to believe that it is possible that my brain manufactured it due to belief along with “coincidence”, and while I do not fully comprehend what “coincidence” means, I am fairly certain that it probably isn’t God now. So, that being said, could you please tell me what happened to you when you were “born again” when you were younger? What exactly happened to you that made you believe God had regenerated you and all that fluff?

Rick Leyland: If we cannot conclusively detect a “super-natural agent” using any of our senses, can we then concluded that the agent is non-existent? In other words, does undetectable equal non-existent? Or, if it is undetectable how do we know it exists? A related query, if the outcome of an event is the same whether a super-natural agent exists or does not exist, then is it valid to conclude the super-natural agent does not exist?

Raphael Pallais: Would you deny that the only possible rational hypothesis about “something” is that it came from “nothing”? Nothing is the absolute negativity. It reaches the point of denying itself — something (“being”) comes about. Thus, from that point on, the universe is the ever-developing conflict between nothingness and somethingness.

Randall Akers, Santa Clarita CA: Have you found any evidence to an evolutionary or societal benefit to believing that which is demonstrably false. In other words, are there situations where belief is superior to knowledge as a survival strategy? Not just in the theoretical ‘tiger in the tall grass’ scenario.

Paul Smith, Australia: You have mentioned in a few podcasts that when Mormon women are asked they frequently respond that they like being a ‘sister wife’. Your rejoinder to this is along the lines of ‘how could they know, they have been embedded in this way of life forever. They have no experience of monogamy to compare it with.’ My question, ‘Is the same not true in reverse?’ That is, how can people embedded in a monogamous environment for their entire lives know that their way is better?

Donald W. Salter, Coon Valley, WI: How can we get the majority of US citizens to be more scientifically literate so that we as a country can move forward easily? It seems to me that if we had a pool of scientists with varying expertises to freely advise our elected local, state and federal officials, then said officials would make intelligent statements regarding anything scientific. How can we do this?

Abel: My wife recently had a “reading” with a medium. She swears that she was told some things that she couldn’t know. My wife believes in this, how do I go about explaining to her that it’s not true? She’s thinks I’m just very negative.

Joan Rose: What compels a seemingly skeptical person who must apply reason and evidence in every aspect of their professional life order to execute their profession successfully (i.e., doctor, attorney, scientist, anthropologist, etc.) to suspend this very same skepticism and reason beyond all given evidence in order support religious doctrine (Abrahamic religions specifically) at all cost? I am perplexed.

Dan Belden: What would you suggest the secular humanist’s approach might be to counter the Right Wing Male (Females too) White Evangelicals interference that has turn the clock back on humanitarian progress (too many to name)?

Bill Stepp: Where do you go for your political news? So much of the media is biased one way or another. How can I do my own unbiased analysis of political issues? How do you do this?

Daniel Malkin: What proof of aliens would convince you? Aren’t you worried that you’re so convinced of their non-existence, that even if crisp images appear, you’ll say it’s CGI, and if an aliens addressed the nation on live tv, you’d say it’s an actor in a suit?

Dionisios Efkarpidis: What exactly is the process of evolution and natural selection, meaning, is it tied to a specific force of nature like electromagnetism or strong force? Or is it some invisible force without agency that operates? Same goes with emergence and even memes. What exactly is it, a force that affects, like gravity? I am confused as to what all of this means, especially emergence and memes. Are memes real things or just invisible terms we create to make sense of actions between objects that haven’t any physical representation? Is emergence a field energy between states we can’t measure? Seems like there’s a lot of invisible forces, or whatever they are at work.

Richard Audet: Currently anti-vaxxers are spreading astounding lies on social media about the COVID-19 vaccines. Their lies are persuading people to not get vaccinated and take on enormous risk. Many will get sick and some will die due to following anti-vaxxers advice. Is there any-way (in the U.S. context) of holding them liable for the harm they cause?

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.
This episode is sponsored by Wondrium

Wondrium (sponsor)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Aug 18, 2021.


Philip Zimbardo — The Nature and Nurture of Good and Evil

The Lucifer Effect (book cover)

August 15 marks the 50th anniversary of day one of the Stanford Prison Experiment — one of the most controversial studies in the history of social psychology.

In this conversation between Michael Shermer and renowned social psychologist and creator of the Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo explores the mechanisms that make good people do bad things, how moral people can be seduced into acting immorally, and what this says about the line separating good from evil. His book, The Lucifer Effect, explains why we are all susceptible to the lure of “the dark side.” Drawing on examples from history as well as his own trailblazing research, Zimbardo details how situational forces and group dynamics can work in concert to make monsters out of decent men and women.

Philip Zimbardo was born in 1933 and grew up in the South Bronx ghetto of New York City in a poor Sicilian-American family. From this experience he learned that people, not material possessions, are our most valuable resource, and that diversity should be embraced because it enriches us, and that education is the key to escaping poverty. He graduated from Brooklyn College and published his first research paper on race relations, then went on to earn his Ph.D. from Yale University in 1959. He is today professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford University and has also taught at Yale University, New York University, and Columbia University. He is the co-author of Psychology and Life and author of Shyness, which together have sold more than 2.5 million copies. Zimbardo has been president of the American Psychological Association and is now director of the Stanford Center on Interdisciplinary Policy, Education, and Research on Terrorism. He also narrated the award-winning PBS series Discovering Psychology, which he helped create. In 2004, he acted as an expert witness in the court-martial hearings of one of the American army reservists accused of criminal behavior in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. His informative Prison Experiment website is visited by millions every year. His book The Lucifer Effect offers a theory on why good people turn evil.

In recent years criticisms have been leveled at Dr. Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiment, to which he responded point-by-point in this lengthy document.

Shermer and Zimbardo discuss:

  • Zimbardo’s life mission to understand the nature of evil,
  • The Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) and its critics,
  • Abu Ghraib as a natural replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment,
  • What exactly is “the situation” that can cause good people to act bad?
  • Are there evolved psychological adaptations to act like prisoners (subordinate) or guards (dominant)?
  • If any of the guards or prisoners were women how might the SPE have played out?
  • the nature of human nature,
  • Are we all potential Nazis?
  • how we can teach ourselves to act heroically,
  • The Dark Triad that leads to violence: Narcissism (entitled self-importance), Machiavellianism (strategic exploitation and duplicity) and Psychopathy (callousness and cynicism),
  • Milgram: Obedience to authority, role playing, social facilitation, social proof? Milgram instructed his subjects on exactly how they were to behave: shock learners!
  • under and over determined theories; multiple factors go into everything,
  • free will/determinism: Zimbardo: “People are always responsible for the consequences of their actions — personally, socially and legally. Understanding why we do something does not excuse our liability for the outcomes of that behavior.”
  • Hugo Mercier, Not Born Yesterday, Germans ≠ Nazis, most people don’t join cults, most political advertising doesn’t work, etc.,
  • Enron, WorldCom: why don’t most corporations turn evil?
  • My Lai and other war crimes: why are there not more?
  • Rutger Bregman’s Humankind and the real Lord of the Flies.

    Journalist tells the story of six boys who survived for over a year on a rocky islet south of Tonga, an island group in the Pacific Ocean. According to Bregman:

    The kids agreed to work in teams of two, drawing up a strict roster for garden, kitchen and guard duty. Sometimes they quarrelled, but whenever that happened they solved it by imposing a time-out. Their days began and ended with song and prayer. Kolo fashioned a makeshift guitar from a piece of driftwood, half a coconut shell and six steel wires salvaged from their wrecked boat — an instrument Peter has kept all these years — and played it to help lift their spirits. And their spirits needed lifting. All summer long it hardly rained, driving the boys frantic with thirst. They tried constructing a raft in order to leave the island, but it fell apart in the crashing surf. Worst of all, Stephen slipped one day, fell off a cliff and broke his leg. The other boys picked their way down after him and then helped him back up to the top. They set his leg using sticks and leaves. “Don’t worry,” Sione joked. “We’ll do your work, while you lie there like King Taufa‘ahau Tupou himself!”

    Bregman’s point is that the Lord of the Flies interpretation of human nature as innately evil is gainsaid by this natural experiment that, he claims, demonstrates humans are innately good. Both interpretations are overly simplistic and wrong. It depends on the circumstances and group dynamics. See, for example, Nicholas Christakis 2019 book Blueprint: The Evolutionary Origins of a Good Society. At the core of all good societies is a suite of eight social characteristics, including: (1) The capacity to have and recognize individual identity; (2) Love for partners and offspring; (3) Friendship; (4) Social networks; (5) Cooperation; (6) Preference for one’s own group (that is, “in-group bias”); (7) Mild hierarchy (that is, relative egalitarianism); and (8) Social learning and teaching.

    Christakis documents numerous shipwrecked crews and shows why some survived while others didn’t. Believe it or not there’s a database of such forbidden experiments in the form of shipwrecks with survivors, or in the subtitle of an 1813 work in this genre, “A Collection of Interesting Accounts of Naval Disasters with Many Particulars of the Extraordinary Adventures and Sufferings of the Crews of Vessels Wrecked at Sea, and of Their Treatment on Distant Shores.” Christakis includes a table of 24 such small-scale shipwreck societies over a 400-year span from 1500 to 1900, with initial survival colony populations ranging from 4 to 500, with a mean of 119 (2,870/24 = 119.5), but with much smaller numbers of rescued survivors, ranging from 3 to 289, with a mean of 59 (1,422/24 = 59.25), reflecting their success or failure at striking the right balance. The duration of these unplanned societies ranged from 2 months to 15 years, with a mean of 20 months (461.5/23 = 20.06; one group was rescued after 13 days so I didn’t count them).

    Some of the survivors killed and ate each other (murder and cannibalism), while others survived and flourished and were eventually rescued. What made the difference? “The groups that typically fared best were those that had good leadership in the form of mild hierarchy (without any brutality), friendships among the survivors, and evidence of cooperation and altruism,” Christakis concludes. The successful shipwreck societies shared food equitably, took care of the sick and injured survivors, and worked together digging wells, burying the dead, building fires, and building escape boats. There was little hierarchy—for example, while on board their ships officers and enlisted men were separated, but on land successful castaways integrated everyone in a cooperative, egalitarian, and more horizontal structure, putting aside prior hierarchical class differences in the interest of survival. Camaraderie emerged and friendships across such barriers were formed.

    The closest thing to a control experiment in this category was when two ships (the Invercauld and the Grafton) wrecked on the same island (Auckland) at the same time in 1864. The island is 26-miles long and 16-miles wide and lies 290 miles south of New Zealand, truly isolated. The two surviving groups were unaware of one another, and their outcomes were starkly different. For the Invercauld, 19 out of 25 crew members made it to the island but only 3 survived when rescued a year later, whereas all five of the Grafton crew made it to land and all 5 were rescued two years later. “The differential survival of the two groups may be ascribed to differences in initial salvage and differences in leadership, but it was also due to differences in social arrangements,” Christakis explains. “Among the Invercauld crews, there was an ‘every man for himself’ attitude, whereas the men of the Grafton were cooperators. They shared food equitably, worked together toward common goals (like repairing the dinghy), voted democratically for a leader who could be replaced by a new vote, dedicated themselves to their mutual survival, and treated one another as equals.”

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.
This episode is sponsored by Wondrium and Brilliant:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Aug 15, 2021.


David Potter — Disruption: Why Things Change

Disruption: Why Things Change (book cover)

How do things change? The question is critical to the historical study of any era but it is also a profoundly important issue today as western democracies find the fundamental tenets of their implicit social contract facing extreme challenges from forces espousing ideas that once flourished only on the outskirts of society. Not all radical groups are the same, and all the groups that the book explores take advantage of challenges that have already shaken the social order. They take advantage of mistakes that have challenged belief in the competence of existing institutions to be effective. It is the particular combination of an alternative ideological system and a period of community distress that are necessary conditions for radical changes in direction. As Disruption demonstrates, not all radical change follows paths that its original proponents might have predicted.

David Potter is Francis W. Kelsey Collegiate Professor of Greek and Roman History and Arthur F. Thurnau Professor at the University of Michigan. His previous books include The Origin of Empire: Rome from the Republic to Hadrian, Constantine the Emperor, The Victor’s Crown: A History of Ancient Sport from Homer to Byzantium, and Theodora: Actress, Empress, Saint.

Shermer and Potter discuss:

  • Why “disruption” instead of “revolution”?
  • good vs. bad disruptions,
  • Are there consistent conditions that give rise to disruptions and are we in one now?
  • Is democracy in trouble?
  • the rise of populism and authoritarianism,
  • Trump, Brexit, Iran, N. Korea, Alternative für Deutschland, Viktor Orban’s Fidesz Party;
  • #BLM, #metoo, antiracism, reparations;
  • digital economy as a disruptive agent;
  • Was 9/11 a moment of disruption?
  • January 6, 2021 as a moment of disruption,
  • historical “covering laws” and what we can learn from the past,
  • where ideas about disruptive change happen and who makes them happen,
  • why the mainstream becomes conservative and how conservatives become mainstream,
  • how ideologies that develop in opposition or reaction to mainstream/conservative are employed to effect profound changes in political structures,
  • Are there “stages” to history? Cycles? Repeating trends?
  • the American Revolution vs. the French Revolution,
  • the rise of Christianity, the rise of Islam, Protestant reformations, the rise and fall of Bolshevism and Nazism,
  • WWI and the end of empire,
  • WWII and the end of tyranny,
  • The Cold War, proxy wars, and containment, and
  • the future of nation-states and nationalism.

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.
This episode is sponsored by Wondrium:

Wondrium (sponsor)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Aug 10, 2021.


Bernardo Kastrup on the Nature of Reality: Materialism, Idealism, or Skepticism

Science Ideated: The Fall Of Matter And The Contours Of The Next Mainstream Scientific Worldview (book cover)

Bernardo Kastrup is the executive director of Essentia Foundation. His work has been leading the modern renaissance of metaphysical idealism, the notion that reality is essentially mental. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy (ontology, philosophy of mind) and another Ph.D. in computer engineering (reconfigurable computing, artificial intelligence). As a scientist, Bernardo has worked for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories (where the ‘Casimir Effect’ of Quantum Field Theory was discovered). Formulated in detail in many academic papers and books, his ideas have been featured on Scientific American, the Institute of Art and Ideas, the Blog of the American Philosophical Association and Big Think, among others. Bernardo’s most recent book is The Idea of the World: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality. He is also the author of Why Materialism Is Baloney: How True Skeptics Know There Is No Death and Fathom Answers to Life, the Universe and Everything. For more information, freely downloadable papers, videos, etc., please visit

Shermer and Kastrup discuss:

  • dualism, monism, panpsychism,
  • material monism, mind monism, and idealism,
  • mind = consciousness?
  • hard problem of consciousness,
  • Why Materialism Is Baloney: How True Skeptics Know There Is No Death and Fathom Answers to Life, the Universe, and Everything,
  • how consciousness could be at the bottom of reality,
  • out of body experiences and near-death experiences (NDEs),
  • In NDE’s, how does the “soul” see and hear?
  • the problem of other minds: how do I know other people are conscious and not zombies?
  • artificial intelligence and consciousness: IBM’s Watson is artificially intelligent enough to win Jeopardy, but does it know it won and beat the GOAT Ken Jennings? Does it even “know” it was playing a game?
  • why science cannot discover the ultimate nature of reality,
  • model dependent realism, philosophy, and science,
  • philosophical zombies and the “other minds problem”,
  • free will, determinism, compatibilism, and panpsychism,
  • objective moral values and science,
  • implications of panpsychism for attitudes toward nature and the meaning of life: “The real question of life after death isn’t whether or not it exists, but even if it does what problem this really solves.” —Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, 1921,


From You Are the Universe by Deepak Chopra and Menas Kafatos

Consciousness is fundamental and without cause. It is the ground state of existence. As conscious beings, humans cannot experience, measure, or conceive of a reality devoid of consciousness.

From Shermer’s book Heaven’s on Earth response to this assertion

Well, yes, that’s true by definition. You have to be conscious to experience anything, so when Deepak proposes that consciousness and the universe are equivalent, in the sense that it is an “undeniable fact that any universe is only knowable through the human mind’s ability to perceive reality” he is stating the obvious. Call this the Weak Consciousness Principle (WCP): you have to be conscious to experience consciousness. But Deepak goes further than this when he says “if all human knowledge is rooted in consciousness, perhaps we are viewing not the real universe based on limitations of the brain” and “that the apparent evolution of the cosmos since the big bang has been totally dependent upon human consciousness.” That’s reversing the causal arrow, from perception to determination, from being consciously aware of the universe and trying to understand it, to our own consciousness bringing about the universe. Call this the Strong Consciousness Principle (SCP). Which one is right?

From Shermer’s book Heaven’s on Earth on the nature of reality and how we know it

As far as I can tell, the hypothesis that the brain creates consciousness has vastly more evidence for it than the hypothesis that consciousness creates brain. Damage to the fusiform gyrus of the temporal lobe, for example, causes face blindness, and stimulation of this same area causes people to see faces spontaneously. Stroke-caused damage to the visual cortex region called V1 leads to loss of conscious visual perception. Changes in conscious experience can be directly measured by fMRI, EEG, and single-neuron recordings. Neuroscientists can predict human choices from brain scan activity before the subject is even consciously aware of the decisions made. Using brain scans alone, neuroscientists have even been able to reconstruct on a computer screen what someone is seeing. Brain activity = conscious experience. Thousands of lab experiments, in conjunction with naturally occurring experiments in the form of brain tumors, strokes, accidents and injuries, confirm the hypothesis that neurochemical processes produce subjective experiences. Neural activity = qualia. The fact that neuroscientists are not in agreement over which physicalist theory best accounts for mind does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness creates matter holds equal standing.

From Shermer’s book Heaven’s on Earth on Eben Alexander’s “proof of heaven”

During his NDE he says that his “cortex was completely shut down.” He concludes from this that “there is absolutely no way that I could have experienced even a dim and limited consciousness during my time in the coma,” and therefore “my brain-free consciousness journeyed to another, larger dimension of the universe.” According to Dr. Laura Potter, the attending physician the night he was wheeled into the ER, however, Alexander’s coma was induced by her in order to keep him alive while he was heavily medicated, and that whenever they tried to wake him he thrashed about pulling at his tubes and trying to scream, so his brain was not completely shut down. When Potter later challenged him on this point, Alexander told her his account was “artistic license” and “dramatized, so it may not be exactly how it went, but it’s supposed to be interesting for readers.” In other words, Alexander mashed fact and fiction, meaning that there is really nothing to be explained.

Oliver Sacks on Eben Alexander’s claims:

In a December 2012 article in The Atlantic analyzing Alexander’s claims, Sacks explained that the reason hallucinations seem so real “is that they deploy the very same systems in the brain that actual perceptions do. When one hallucinates voices, the auditory pathways are activated; when one hallucinates a face, the fusiform face area, normally used to perceive and identify faces in the environment, is stimulated.” From these facts the neurologist concluded: “The one most plausible hypothesis in Dr. Alexander’s case, then, is that his NDE occurred not during his coma, but as he was surfacing from the coma and his cortex was returning to full function. It is curious that he does not allow this obvious and natural explanation, but instead insists on a supernatural one.”

The reason people turn to supernatural explanations is that the mind abhors a vacuum of explanation. Because we do not yet have a fully natural explanation for mind and consciousness, people turn to supernatural explanations to fill the void. But what’s more likely? That Alexander’s NDE was a real trip to heaven and all these other hallucinations are the product of neural activity only? Or that all such experiences are mediated by the brain, but to each experiencer they seem real? To me, this is proof of hallucination, not heaven.

From Shermer’s book Heaven’s on Earth on hallucinations of Sam Harris, Oliver Sacks, and Chick D’Arpino

Compare Eben Alexander’s trip with the “trip” taken by the neuroscientist Sam Harris after he and a friend ingested a dose of the drug MDMA, better known as Ecstasy, which he details on the opening pages of his book Waking Up. Harris reports that he was “suddenly struck by the knowledge that I loved my friend.” Not friendship or romantic but “this feeling had ethical implications that suddenly seemed as profound as they now sound pedestrian on the page: I wanted him to be happy.” More than this, Harris says, “came the insight that irrevocably transformed my sense of how good human life could be. I was feeling boundless love for one of my best friends, and I suddenly realized that if a stranger had walked through the door at that moment, he or she would have been fully included in this love.”

Consider hallucinogenic trips taken by the neurologist Oliver Sacks recounted in his autobiography, On the Move. In November of 1965, for example, Dr. Sacks was putting in marathon work weeks and downing huge doses of amphetamines to stay awake, topped off with generous measures of sleep inducing chloral hydrate. One day while dining in a café, as he was stirring his coffee, “it suddenly turned green, then purple.” When Sacks looked up he noticed that the customer at the cash register “had a huge proboscidean head, like an elephant seal.” Shaken by this image Sack ran out of the diner and across the street to a bus, where all the passengers “seemed to have smooth white heads like giant eggs, with huge glittering eyes like the faceted compound eyes of insects.” At that moment the neurologist realized he was hallucinating but that “I could not stop what was happening in my brain, and that I had to maintain at least an external control and not panic or scream or become catatonic, faced by the bug-eyed monsters around me.”

The “love” theme appears to be a common one among NDEs, as well as other anomalous psychological experiences, such as the one I wrote about in The Believing Brain that happened to my friend Chick D’Arpino at four in the morning on February 11, 1966. When he was alone in a bedroom at his sister’s home, feeling despair and loneliness while going through a painful divorce involving the custodial loss of his children, all of a sudden he heard a voice that was neither masculine nor feminine and seemed to him like it was from out of this world. It was so powerful a message that Chick took it upon himself to deliver it to President Lyndon Johnson at the White House, a journey that landed him in a mental institution instead. Although Chick has never told anyone the precise words of the message, or what he thinks the source was, its essence, he told me, was love. “The source not only knows we’re here, but it loves us and we can have a relationship with it.”

Some data from a survey of philosophers discussed in the podcast: 2009 Study of professional philosophers and philosophy grad students:
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?
Accept or lean toward: non-skeptical realism 760 / 931 (81.6%)
Other 86 / 931 (9.2%)
Accept or lean toward: skepticism 45 / 931 (4.8%)
Accept or lean toward: idealism 40 / 931 (4.3%)
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?
Accept or lean toward: physicalism 526 / 931 (56.5%)
Accept or lean toward: non-physicalism 252 / 931 (27.1%)
Other 153 / 931 (16.4%)
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?
Accept or lean toward: scientific realism 699 / 931 (75.1%)
Other 124 / 931 (13.3%)
Accept or lean toward: scientific anti-realism 108 / 931 (11.6%)
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
Accept or lean toward: compatibilism 550 / 931 (59.1%)
Other 139 / 931 (14.9%)
Accept or lean toward: libertarianism 128 / 931 (13.7%)
Accept or lean toward: no free will 114 / 931 (12.2%)

If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a $5 or $10 monthly donation.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This episode was released on Aug 07, 2021.


Get eSkeptic

Be in the know!

Subscribe to eSkeptic: our free email newsletter and get great podcasts, videos, reviews and articles from Skeptic magazine, announcements, and more in your inbox twice a week. It’s free. We never share your address. Unsubscribe any time.

Sign me up!


Skeptic cover art by Pat Linse

Art of the Skeptic

In celebration of Skeptic magazine’s 100th issue, we present sage graphic art advice for skeptical groups and a gallery of art reflecting more than 47 years of skeptical activism from Skeptic’s long time Art Director, Pat Linse

Detecting Baloney

Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic) by Deanna and Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit: a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills.

FREE PDF Download

Wisdom of Harriet Hall

Top 10 Things to Know About Alternative Medicine

Harriet Hall M.D. discusses: alternative versus conventional medicine, flu fear mongering, chiropractic, vaccines and autism, placebo effect, diet, homeopathy, acupuncture, “natural remedies,” and detoxification.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and can you tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Mind altering experiences are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

FREE PDF Download

The Yeti or Abominable Snowman

5 Cryptid Cards

Download and print 5 Cryptid Cards created by Junior Skeptic Editor Daniel Loxton. Creatures include: The Yeti, Griffin, Sasquatch/Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, and the Cadborosaurus.

Copyright © 1992–2022. All rights reserved. | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. The Skeptics Society is a non-profit, member-supported 501(c)(3) organization (ID # 95-4550781) whose mission is to promote science & reason. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases. Privacy Policy.