Michael Shermer with Lee McIntyre - Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience

[@herbb6813]

Great talk, thank you!

[@RPGmodsFan]

Michael, it is good thing to be a skeptic, but not to the point of being close minded. I look at things from an analytical/scientific/engineering perspective. I have heard a lot of BS and reject things that do not hold up when looked at from an analytical/scientific/engineering perspective. With that said, your skepticism of a lost civilization during YDP is, imo, being close minded. 1) In a JRE podcast, you bring up the Chauvet Cave paintings (26k-32k years ago). 2) You acknowledge Gobekli Tepe Site is at least 11.6k years old. 3) You are in the opinion that Human Civilization development is a linear process. SO, by that logic , to get from Chauvet Cave Paintings to Gobekli Tepe there must have been a linear civilization development somewhere in between, which, by default, means there MUST have been a Lost Civilization in between. Basically, there must have been a civilization development process before Gobekli Tepe (i.e. Gobekli Tepe cannot pop out of nowhere). How much before? Well, that is what archeologists need to research and find.

[@toohardfortheradiopodcast]

I love that his office looks like it used to be his kids room.

[@babykittenpaws7499]

Writing an exam in university about this Book! Great talk!!

[@robg4472]

Did you provide pushback to Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson when they were recently on your podcast?

[@merlepatterson]

What about protecting science from the recent revelations of peer review fraud or compromised and conflicted scientists via financial or personal philosophical interests? The problems in science may be more that "The call is coming from inside the house"?

[@cmilescody]

13:47 - Feynman should be heeded. If the models don't descibe the present, they are wrong. Adjusting past data to fit the model is not science.

[@5driedgrams]

1:34:50 wow

[@exponent8562]

Cool guy. Thanks for introducing. Science is the best thing ever.

[@fractalnomics]

GH theory is wrong at the atomic level. I've made this my business for the last year or so. I wrote two working papers, links below. Firstly, let's be clear: all matter emits and absorbs IR radiation. If it doesn't this is a contradiction to both thermodynamics and quantum mechanics (QM). It is QM that tells us where molecules radiate, their spectra. What we know and I have tried to disseminate, is that these IR spectra come in two types; what we call 'IR' and what we call 'non-IR'. These were named in a time before QM and modern lasers and by their detector of the time, the thermoelectric thermopile. BTW, the blackbody spectrum is also derived by the thermopile. Today we can measure the 'non-IR' spectra, and we call them by their detector's name, Raman - Raman Spectroscopy (RS). RS - with lasers - can measure by inference the spectra that the 'IR' detectors cannot, and they are exquisite and they measure the temperature!! via the Boltzmann constant very accurately. RS is used in many applications now - from meteorology to avionics. It can even measure the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere - the Keeling Curve. The thing is, RS shows the whole atmosphere radiates IR. N2 and O2, CO2 you name it, they can be measured by RS. Read my work and ask questions, I aim to cut the QM one down to a publishable version: 'Quantum Mechanics and Raman Spectroscopy Refute Greenhouse Theory' vixra.org/abs/1811.0498 and 'The Greenhouse Gases and Infrared Radiation Misconceived by Thermoelectric Transducers' vixra.org/abs/1811.0499

[@mrScififan2]

First! I used to believe that science and progress were favored by most people, but the reverse is true...

[@baconsarny-geddon8298]

1:22:25 This is the irony of the problem of political bias in science- If a study on some hot-button issue like guns, or abortion, or LGBT issues upsets the ideologues on BOTH sides of politics, that should be a GOOD thing, indicating the study wasn't just massaged to prop up pre-existing political views. But right now, an unbiased study on issues like these (which gets attacked by both sides of polticals) is worse off than a shamelessly-biased study (which at least gets support from one side of politics), and becomes indistiguishable from a genuinely bad, incompetent study that's opposed for legitimate, non-ideological reasons. There must be some mechanism we can insert into scientific methodology, to at least minimize the impact of political bias on politically-volatile issues; something broadly akin to 'double-blind' studies, or ethics committees or something? Maybe a committee made up of people with diverse political views, overseeing data gathering? Or comparing expected results to declared results? Just going off my own (probably biased) gut feeling, it seems like both sides of politics are more blatantly biased in their approach to data and science now, than any other recent decade- Both sides have several 'sacred cows', where people are just totally unwilling to hear data that contradicts their assumptions.

[@ikaeksen]

Have the president in the flat earth society go to space to iss, that will stop flatearthers streight in their track believing in round earth again ;)

[@pbredder]

Being rational, and the 'scientific attitude' is all about Bayesian probability of a proposition: new evidence is taken into account.

[@ikaeksen]

Didnt like the indication gingers are stupid. No reason to stigmatize a group of people. There is lots of smart and learned and scientists among us to, shame on you LEE.

[@davidanderson9664]

1:23 You want science perverted by ideology? Wow. Have a look at Right to Life's claims about pre-natal development, or women's health verses an actual embryology (medical) textbook, or ask a doctor. RoL's propaganda is breathtaking. D.A.

[@davidwilkie9551]

The thing about what religious people look like to outsiders, is if you ask what they believe in, you will get a list of things like the sermon on the mount etc., and what a liar and man-killer the devil is, but most of all they want the questioner to simply accept their stated claims of "goodness" purely on their "God-given" word. Then, if you watch carefully, all the behaviours exhibited tend to be as if they have "the authority of God" and can act "within the law". Forest Gump was told, "Christian is as Christian does", so act-tual Christian behavior is difficult to see, and the world is chock full of fraudulent "legal" claims, the spiteful and denial based on jealousy.. otherwise known as evil. The conversation in this video is avoiding the bleeding obvious, if you don't understand climate denialists etc, if it wasn't climate it would be something else that people who have trust in cooperation and common decency can be accused of defiling, entirely without evidence, but very shrill and "hurt". The word "prostitution" comes to mind. Anyone claiming to be Christian should be compelled to show how they've acted to exclude evil in the proscribed manner dictated by their "faith". Same goes for any type of denialists.

[@elroliz9442]

Freeman Dyson and others make really good points and i haven't seen anyone give a proper answer, just saying.

[@TimFuller]

If it isn't testable, reproducible and/or capable of being refuted/proven it's philosophy. Not a hard concept at all. It neatly sorts the real from the imagined. Thanks to AronRa and special kudos to TJump for the h/t. #hobomessiah

[@mark4asp]

Can someone define "denial"? For example, if I refute the existence of dark matter and dark energy - which some scientists claim - make up 96% of the universe then does that make me a "denier"? My refutation of dark energy and dark matter is basic - they are used to balance equations - they have NOT been observed - hence the term "dark". I cite the null hypothesis in support of my "denial". It seems to me people who refute fake science are in the right here, and people who demand others accept fake science are in the wrong. People avidly lablelling everyone who refuses to accept every dogma they parrot are actually denying science by not being true to the scientific method. BTW: substitute man-made climate change for dark matter and energy above and we have a very similar situation. There is no rigorous evidence for significant man-made climate change.

[@geraldturner2049]

Great conversation, looking forward to reading the book.

[@williamrunner6718]

Science is about explanations, that is explaining some phenomena rationally. Science doesn't deal with truth it only deals with the objective.

[@Seekthetruth3000]

Good conversation but, please be aware of the fact that the NY Times has a leftist bias even when it comes to reporting on science issues. I suggest you interview Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading climatologists.