Kind: captions
Language: en
this episode is brought to you by
curiositystream go to
curiositystream.com
impact for unlimited access to the
world's top documentaries and
non-fiction series and exclusively for
our audience use promo code impact and
you'll save 25 off which comes out to
only 14.99 a year so click the link
below or go to
curiositystream.com forward slash impact
now enjoy the episode
[Music]
everybody welcome to another episode of
conversations with Tom I am here to talk
to the king skeptic himself Michael
Shermer Michael welcome to the show
King skeptic okay that's a new one I
like that no man I love it and so your
recent book giving the devil his due uh
a was a phenomenal reader really enjoyed
it and it was really interesting for me
to try to find sort of the the rubric
with which to view you and your views
and I think I have it which is why I
call you uh the king skeptic but
understanding what the skepticism lives
in service of is what I found so
interesting about you I'll put it in my
words and then you tell me if I'm on the
money or not or if I'm way off but okay
uh to me it it seems like sort of a
necessary approach if you want to find
out what's really true that we are wrong
a lot and the only way to actually
figure out what is true is to be
skeptical and to make sure that your
opponents what you're calling the devil
in this scenario have a voice to help
you sort of find what is true
how close am I perfectly stated that
that that's actually that's that's it
that's the well that's a steel man
argument I mean this isn't all original
to me at all I mean this has been around
for a long time that you know in debates
formal debates you know you really uh
should try to articulate clearly what
the other side is arguing uh if for
nothing else that you're not talking
past each other that you're not having a
debate that neither one of you is
actually uh positions that people are
actually holding so
um and yes you know what psychology has
taught us the last century or so is that
and the history of science is that we're
wrong about so many things and the only
way to find out is to talk to other
people especially those who don't agree
with you
and and that's why like in science we
have open peer commentary and peer
review and and uh like for example I
just finished a book on conspiracy and
conspiracies and conspiracy theories and
uh I wanted to go with a university
press so they sent it out for review and
I got two long reports back uh from
blind reviewers that you know they I
don't know who they are so they're free
to say whatever they want and you know
they were pretty brutal actually and
it's like oh my God that's a great point
I never thought of that or like how did
I not know these four books and and
important papers on conspiracies how did
I miss that you know so that's that's
it's you know it hurts the ego you know
like oh man I should have been smarter
or whatever but the fact is nobody is
omniscient so it's good to have that
kind of feedback
all right so that response to getting
critical feedback is sort of my
intoxicant and I I this is probably the
thing that I find most interesting about
you and the way that you approach it so
many people now are skeptical to get
into a fight and you really feel like
you're skeptical to sort of advance
our Collective thinking which I find
super admirable but how did you get to
the point where somebody could sort of
kick you in the face you've just written
a book uh which I'm sure took an inhuman
amount of time and energy and how do you
sort of self-soothe and then go this is
actually useful
yourself to mostly I just go ride my
bike I ride my bike every day anyway for
a couple hours and and it's especially
useful when I'm you know obsessing about
some something somebody said on social
media you know I mean I you know I'm 66
years old but I can imagine if I was 16
years old I'd be falling apart you know
going oh no somebody said something on
Twitter that I don't like or that
doesn't like me or whatever so yeah of
course that uh you know that doesn't
feel good but you know so what
um yeah well
I guess
um you know the our mission as it were
is to figure out what's true as you said
the problem is there's a lot of areas
where that that takes second place like
in political truths if you want to call
them that or economic truths or
ideologies or you know religious beliefs
you know people already know what they
think is true you know I'm a
conservative so I hold these five values
sacred and I'm not giving them up and I
don't care what the arguments are this
is how I Define myself or or a liberal
the same way so you know if you approach
something like abortion or immigration
or gun control and you're trying to
present facts to somebody and you're
going well maybe I'll change my mind
maybe I'll go this way or maybe I'll go
that way just kind of depends on what
the research shows almost nobody thinks
like that in those areas because you
know we sort of Define ourselves by
these tenets right here and
you know it's very rare for people to
switch political parties change
religions I mean it happens but but not
very often especially if somebody makes
their money doing it you know if this is
their job if they're an actual elected
official in fact it's so rare that when
a congressman changes parties I mean
it's just like front page news it's the
it's the the top of the news cycle it's
the people can't believe it you know and
they they're called flip-floppers or
Traders
and well what if somebody uh got new
information and they changed their mind
and decided well this is not my party
anymore
shouldn't you do that isn't that a good
thing that should be a virtue but
instead in in religious and political
and economic and ideological uh beliefs
it's it's a vice
and uh and I think it has to do with the
social nature of of humans that we want
to be liked we want to be approved we we
want status in our group uh we want to
be part of the group and belong and feel
like we belong and and groups can
tolerate some dissent but not that much
and uh and so that and in that I'm
afraid has gotten worse in politics you
know the amount of dissent one is
allowed to have you know breaking ranks
on you know one of 12 different items
say if you're conservative or a liberal
um you know that then you're ousted so
the cancel culture isn't just in
colleges and high schools I mean it
happens everywhere
unfortunately so why why do you lean
into this stuff then
because you're you have uh one would
think certainly incentives to not lean
into the hard things but I actually
heard you give an interview at one point
where you were talking somebody said hey
if you pursue that topic it's really
going to damage your career and you say
well then I'm definitely going to do it
oh yes yeah is it just your personality
or is there some component to truth
itself that is so important and so
useful that you pursue it even when it's
quote unquote dangerous
probably both
um you know by temperament I'm fairly
independent thinker I don't like working
for other people and and I don't like
just going along with the herd and you
know politically I've always been I've
always been attracted to the kind of
libertarian or classical liberal
position because it allows me to bounce
around and and take different positions
um both on the left and the right you
know I'm pro-choice well that's a
liberal thing
um and I uh you know but but I I really
favor free markets I think capitalism is
the greatest mechanism of wealth
generation to pull people out of poverty
um ever and so that makes me a
conservative well but I wouldn't call
myself a conservative or a liberal so
that allows me to do that
you know why to lean in well um in part
it's my job
you know with skeptic just by way of
background
um the skeptical movement started the
modern skeptical movement started in the
70s mainly as a pushback to the New Age
movement and and Spoon Benders like URI
Geller and psychics and astrologers and
tarot card readers and curly and
photography and all the you know kind of
woo-woo stuff as we call it but then you
know in the 90s when we started skeptic
I started kind of branching out for what
we were doing to to take on like
Holocaust deniers
and um and you know creationists and and
then you know political
um theories or economic theories you
know just trickle down economics does it
work or doesn't it work well on the one
hand you could say well that's not a
scientific question because it depends
on what you mean by work and and
therefore what what is your goals as a
society and something like that but on
the other hand you can operationally
Define it in a way that's measurable and
then say well it works or it doesn't
work you know something like that so for
me
skepticism is um is the application of
science and reason to anything including
moral values you know facts and values
sometimes overlap not always but
sometimes so you know uh and I'm not
suggesting you go to the paleontologist
to to find out your moral position on
abortion I just mean the tools of
science empiricism reason rationality
um and and again sometimes you're going
to hit a hit rock bottom of uh of say
conflicting rights like the rights of
the feed is to live the rights of the
mother to choose and there's not ever
going to be an ultimate resolution and
uh and there you know that's the value
of democracy well we just have an
election or you know we put officials in
or we uh are we we vote in a president
that's going to appoint judges that are
favorable to our position or and you do
the same on your position but even
that's a kind of experiment in a way an
election is like an experiment where you
tweak the variables and then you run it
for a while and see how it goes and so
if you think of like gun control
measures there's 50 different states
50 different kind of configurations of
gun control measures you know carrying
conceal and and you know the waiting
period to buy a gun and how much ID you
need and this and that and you can kind
of try to measure the results
of you know how many guns are you know
per per person in the state and what are
their laws and so on then what is their
gun violence rate that's not perfect but
this is what social scientists do you
know they try to control for variables
and then look at the one they're
interested in to see if it matters
anyway that's a that's a kind of way to
think about a social political issue
um that's you know not so different from
other scientific issues now if you had
to explain to somebody why the truth
matters and I'll sort of give you my
breakdown of why I think it matters and
I'd love to hear how you'd answer that
so for me the truth is you know as an
abstract concept is sort of irrelevant
but as a day-to-day application in your
life if you're dealing with the world
the way you wish it were you can end up
being totally ineffective you can't make
change you're you know it's like an
economist that doesn't acknowledge that
humans are predictably irrational so you
expect them to act like a perfectly
rational economic being and they don't
so now all your models aren't going to
work you're going to make poor decisions
right so the truth matters in as much as
recognizing the way the world works then
gives you the ability to sort of this is
a bad word but like Bend bend the
society or whatever to your will to get
hopefully you have honorable outcomes
that you desire uh but you're able to
shape Society a much better word word
um is that is how do you look at truth
and its importance yeah I think that's I
think that's right I mean there's that's
kind of a practical pragmatic approach
to defining truth which is fine because
that works uh but just pull back in
general I mean just organisms that learn
you know they connect the dots a is
connected to B it could be something
like you know A rad and a Skinner box
pressing a bar and it gets reinforced
for doing so and it presses it more or
the you know the the dog that that you
know salivates when it sees food in the
and the person rings the bell with the
food and so now the Bell becomes the
conditioned stimulus he Associates the
bell with the food a is connected to B
this is about as basic as it gets
Association learning uh everybody learns
this in you know psych 101 but um but in
a way what the organism is trying to do
and learning is to figure out the cause
of things
what causes things to happen you know
how can I get more food how can I find a
mate how can I survive how can I avoid
predators and so my my thought
experiment here
that I developed in the believing brain
was uh you know imagine you're a hominid
on the plains of Africa three million
years ago and you hear a rustle in the
grass is it a dangerous predator is it
just the wind well if you assume that
the wrestle in the grass is a dangerous
predator and it turns out it's just the
wind well that's a type one error a
false positive you thought it was the
connection was real but it wasn't but
that's a pretty harmless low-cost error
to make on the other hand if you assume
the Russell on the grass is just the
wind it turns out it's a dangerous
predator you know your lunch right
that's a type two a false negative that
is you fail to recognize the true cause
of the Russell in the grass and that
cost you so my argument is that we tend
to err on the side of making more type 1
errors than type two errors that is to
say assume that a is really connected to
B even if it's not just in case
and uh so to me uh you know
superstitions magical thinking
um these are not bugs in our cognition
they're features they're built right in
there and uh so it's not that you know
people believe we're things because
they're dumb uneducated uh ignorant you
know you know unsophisticated none of
that you know we're all susceptible to
these kinds of things everybody is you
know you've seen people lose their minds
over masks you know wear the masks don't
wear the mask get the vaccination don't
get the vaccination and everybody's
scrambling to figure out well what
should I do what's the cause and so and
behind that is well I want to know
what's real you know I want to know
what's true about the world and in my
example it's obvious you know much
decision making about truth is made
under uncertainty
so we use these what are called
cognitive heuristics that is these
shortcuts
Dan Kahneman calls this you know type
type 1 or system one thinking it's rapid
it's rapid cognition it's intuitive you
know I just have a feeling here I'm
walking into this uh house and I don't
have a good feeling about that it just
feels I don't know what it is that this
person I just met I don't I just have a
bad Vibe about this guy I don't know you
know well it that's not there's no
psychic power there right that's you're
picking up something there's cues
there's information coming in but no one
has the time to sit there and gather all
the information my other thought
experiment is you know why can't you
just sit there in the grass and wait to
see whether it's just the wind or a
predator because predators don't wait
around for you to gather more
information you know they're camouflaged
they stock they're stealthy because they
know you're trying to get rapid
information and they don't want to give
you enough time to figure it out you
know so most of life is like this you
know um
that uh you know you just make rapid
decisions
the thing that
um freaks me out a little bit and that I
am encouraged by somebody like yourself
who
is writing a book about making sure that
your opponents have a voice and and to
be fair to your book obviously you're
coming at it from a freedom of speech
perspective and you want to make sure
that people are talking but as I ask
like you know why why does freedom of
speech matter and it comes back to this
idea of Truth understanding how the
world works I'm gonna be wrong a lot I
need people to come in and sort of
adjust my thinking and you know when you
start pairing that with other sort of
cognitive heuristics that people use uh
or maybe that's not even the right way
to think about it that we have
predilections as a species towards say
tribalism and you talked about how
people believe I'll put that in quotes
Things based on party affiliation or
whatever because they're really just
trying to fit into the in-group so it
feels like and and maybe this is a cycle
that you have Awareness on that I don't
but it feels like now in a way that I am
not familiar with that we're living in a
world where people are trying to control
the facts the messaging that gets out
there to try to get the herd to move in
a certain direction that they think is
I'm not even sure morally right I don't
know but
to get that done they're taking a
shortcut of silencing the opposition
that strikes me as terrifying because it
deprioritizes truth and says I know what
we should be doing and it's this and I'm
going to silence all dissenting voices
do you think we're living through
something unique right now or is this
um just yeah I agree with you it's it's
more pronounced now that we're more
polarized uh you know in a number of
factors that work you know the media has
been driven by the economic model
of competing against online news sites
and and trying to capture eyeballs for
advertising dollars they've been driven
toward more extreme headlines and news
stories and and covering the most
salacious most fantastic most outrageous
things they can find so there is that
effect that's that's the result of
current events you know the of of the
internet and so forth
um but
more generally it it depends on the
context as to what extent you want to be
critical of that as an issue let's let's
just say you're two lawyers in court
well your job is as a lawyer is not to
find the truth your job is to win you
know defend your client and uh you know
if you can bury evidence you're going to
bury evidence if you can slant you know
the evidence to the jury and the other
side doesn't catch on to what you're
doing good for you you know that's kind
of the the rules of the game you know if
you can get away with it that's that's
what you're supposed to do but of course
the the system is set up where for
example you have to share all your
evidence with the other side ahead of
time so they're prepared to respond you
know and and so that's kind of the way
the game is played and we're not
supposed to do that in science in
science we're supposed to have as a goal
the truth whatever it is now of course
scientists are humans and the more
committed or devoted they are to a
particular hypothesis or Theory you know
the more likely they are to engage in
motivated reasoning the confirmation
bias try to find evidence that fits it
they're not paparian falsification
philosophers paparian paparian Carl
popper uh who never heard that before
he's the he's the philosopher of science
that first articulated that the idea
that science is mainly progresses
through falsification that is trying to
falsify theories you can't prove
theories in science uh maybe in math you
you can through axioms but in science no
you can't prove anything you can just
you can disprove it and so what we're
left with is the theories that haven't
been disproven yet so our confidence is
high now that's that's kind of a
simplified version of Popper's Theory
and in reality uh it's a carrot and
stick thing you do you know you try to
falsify other people's theories of
course that's how you advance in science
and but the scientists that hold the
theories they're not just trying to
falsify their theories they're trying to
confirm them
uh now you can't prove them but but if
you can pile up lots and lots of
evidence
your confidence grows that you're
probably right so just take something
like um anthropogenic global warming you
know so like in the 70s and 80s it
wasn't clear that that hypothesis was
true you know but by the late 90s early
2000s you know there was enough evidence
from multiple lines of inquiry that all
kind of pointed to the same thing
that our confidence grew and it's not
that anyone had not falsified the theory
it's that a lot of evidence had
supported it and it kind of confirmed it
and what really did it for me because I
study these things is that the
scientists were independent of one
another so it's not like they're they're
all meeting on the weekends to get their
story straight about uh what we're going
to say about climate change you know
because those conservatives you know
they're trying to ruin America or vice
versa if you're conservative those
Liberals are trying to ruin America so
they're using climate change as an
excuse you know first of all scientists
are not like that but but but even if
they were these are different scientists
here's one person that studies glaciers
and somebody else that studies sea level
rise and somebody else studies CO2 gases
and somebody else studies
when this particular species of flowers
blooms in the spring and now it's
happening early and earlier because
temperatures are going up or the
pollination or you know there's like
dozens of different fields
they publish in different journals they
go to different conferences they don't
even know each other and yet they still
come to the same conclusion so it's like
okay this is probably really true it's
probably really happening
now the political issue of what we
should do about it that's a separate
thing I'm just you know what is true
about the climate is my point
yeah the idea of
um using scientific reasoning for
everyday life is something I become
really obsessed with in business so
irony of ironies I was um trying to
basically teach a class about what do
you have to do to progress in business
and so I was like asking myself what is
it that I do to grow my companies and my
answer was like okay I come up with a
hypothesis and what I think is going to
work I try to identify the impediment
the sounds between where I am and the
goal and my hypothesis is about what
allows me to cross that Chasm then I run
that test and then I assess the data I
adjust and I try again and one of the
guys on my team was like oh that's the
scientific method and I was like ah I
see yeah so that's right right when you
boil things down to like the sort of
basic just physics of the way things
work this is why I resonate so much with
your idea of getting to the truth once
you understand the nature of something
now you can leverage it to get wherever
you're trying to go so in my case to
grow a driving company but I I have to
understand how the world works I have to
understand how the pursuit of Truth
Works which is hey I have this
hypothesis a hypothesis will predict
something that's the fascination of like
hey if this if my understanding here is
true it predicts this and then you can
go look and see is that actually true
yeah yeah that's exactly right now you
stated it perfectly yeah that's a that's
a fabulous example uh and it is it's
something we we all do we make form
hypotheses and then test them in
everyday life now my philosopher of
science friend of mine who is also a
professional tracker animal tracker
that's an unusual combination
philosopher and animal tracker Lewis
leidenberg Lindbergh but he writes about
how trackers are are kind of intuitive
scientists they're uh you know they're
Gathering data about the footprints of
the animal and then they're forming
hypotheses uh let's say these trackers
like these are essentially
hunter-gatherers they're trying to track
the animal to kill it and eat it this is
how they they survive right so it's
important to them so they see like
there's a like an indentation in the
dirt underneath this bush
and uh and then the tracks leave and
they go in that direction
now it's you know you can kind of see
how how windy it is and if the tracks
have kind of been covered over or not
see how fresh they are and then like
well what time of day is it what's the
temperature and what's in that direction
well there's a there's some water over
there so you know I Intuit that as the
sun came up and it started to get warm
the animal got up and went that way to
get water now so what they're doing is
they're forming hypotheses and in a way
they're kind of trying to mind read the
animal if I was the animal what would I
do well I would go that way and uh you
know and so they're they're you know and
then they go and check to see if it's
there and you know they're testing the
hypothesis in a way so that's that's
kind of a you know and in business of
course we do this all the time now
professionally you know with advertising
you can do you know massive data sets
online where you do an A B test between
two logos or different colors of the
logo or or different advertising pitches
you know should we use this word or that
word you know this is an emotionally
negative word this is an emotionally
positive word which one should we use
you know and you can you can measure
almost instantly how many hits you get
that's an experiment right and uh even
something like in love right
um one of my favorite jokes from the
singer-songwriter Tim Minchin is you
know what you call stalking sorry you
know what you call Love Without evidence
stalking sorry I gave away
uh stocking right so I mean if if if
you're single and let's say you're
dating you're attracted to somebody and
and you know you you you make a comment
to them or you you buy them a little
gift or you do something nice and
nothing comes back or something negative
comes back okay that's evidence evidence
that you know okay this is probably the
wrong direction to go or something
positive comes back you know there's
some kind of reciprocal sharing of
information that's personal or a gift or
whatever then it's like okay well then I
put that hypothesis out there I tested
it I got some positive evidence uh I'll
do it again and see if I get more
positive evidence you know and you know
you know so in a way all human relations
are like that
yeah it's why I don't understand why
people are more interested in fitting
into a group than they are about finding
out how something really works because
so I have I'm obsessed with this idea
that um to me in fact the very meaning
of life is to find out how much
potential that you have can be turned
into actual skill set because of the
following statement which I I want to
carry more weight than it seems to with
people which is that skills have utility
meaning if I learn something it actually
lets me do something it lets me be
um effective in the real world so if I
want to build a building I need to learn
architecture and if I don't understand
you know Material Science and weight
bearing load-bearing that kind of stuff
then what I build is going to come
tumbling down but if I learn it I could
build a bridge that literally unites to
land masses over water I could build a
house that my family can live in I mean
it's really extraordinate the aqueducts
of Rome right like you can actually
build things that have this extra
ordinary utility but the prices that you
have to want the truth even when it
makes you feel stupid even when it
stings or hurts your feelings
but that really seems like a low price
have you thought about the psychological
mechanism that makes a moment like now
possible where people are some people
are prepared to give up that quest for
the truth
for and I'm not even sure if you would
say that it is solely about tribalism or
if there's something else going on but
that seems like an easy one to point to
well there may be multiple effects going
on which is almost always the case with
human behavior so take something like a
q Anon
you know and how anyone could possibly
believe this so when a republic is
something the last poll I saw was
something like 30 percent of Republicans
say they think there's something too the
Q Anon conspiracy that is to say that
there is a secret satanic cabal of
pedophiles uh sacrificing children and
drinking their blood in a Washington DC
Pizzeria led by Hillary Clinton and Tom
Hanks okay no one in their right mind
could possibly and Tom Hanks
Tom Hanks yeah yeah and Beyonce she's in
on it yeah it depends on who you talk to
of Who's involved okay so this is about
as goofy a conspiracy theory as you
could find there's variations on it some
of it's not quite not quite that crazy
some of it gets uh overlaps with the
rigged election slash deep state
conspiracy theory that was popular
during Trump's Administration and so but
if you sat down one of these people said
now do you actually believe this and
stated the way I just did I would hope
they would say well no I you know well
one guy did the guy that went to the
Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria with his gun to
break up the pedophile ring okay well he
served time in jail for this fortunately
no one was killed
um no one was even hit he shot into the
roof but he was so upset when he found
out there's no basement because this is
where the pedophile ring was supposedly
operating out of the basement of this
Pizzeria but he totally believed it and
um and I suspect most people that say
they believe it they're doing something
else they're signaling maybe a social
signal like virtue signaling you know
I'm so devoted to being a republican I'm
willing to publicly State I believe this
insane idea you know there's a lot of
virtue signaling in politics
um you know where you're trying to get
the attention of your fellow politicians
or tribe members that to show your
devotion you know I think much of
religious
um ceremonies is involved in signaling
social signaling like if I see you every
week in in the pews of of the synagogue
or church or whatever and I know you're
a devoted uh person I can count on you
it's kind of a reputation building
mechanism all right so there's some of
that of course in that particular case
of Q Anon and Trump you know there's he
still wields power in the Republican
party so you never know if somebody
actually believes any of this stuff or
they're just saying it because they
think the boss wants them to say say it
or maybe the boss believes this but but
I better go along with it just in case
uh and so on or else I won't get
reelected I mean that's what happened we
just saw what happened this you know a
couple days ago with Liz Cheney you know
she's out just because she spoke up
against Trump that means she's lost her
seat and uh and has been replaced why
because she refused to go along with the
tribe so it's a it's a real effect
um
and this is why cancel culture can be
very stifling let's say go back to
college
campuses and even though it's probably a
minority of people that are at the
extremes that are into this cancel
culture thing it it's it's enough that
it silences people again back to my book
why I'm concerned about the Free Speech
people are afraid to say something if
they feel like they're going to get
socially
ostracized and because that doesn't feel
good and uh you know and
um and that's the problem with that and
and so there's an effect called
pluralistic ignorance or the spiral of
Silence where everybody thinks everybody
else believes something when in fact
most of them don't believe it you know
so like the classic study on this is
with binge drinking on college campuses
if you ask students individually
privately in a you know an anonymous
survey you know almost all of them say
no and I'm not into binge drinking I
don't think it's a good idea but if you
ask ask him well what do your fellow
students think oh everybody else is
totally into binge drinking and so they
all say this so everybody thinks
everybody else thinks this is a good
idea so in the when you think that then
you're afraid to say something because
well you know I don't want to stand out
and be the only one you know that's
perfectly normal so this this goes a
long ways to explaining how
corrupt ideas can carry on in a social
environment or a nation like like
national socialism how is it possible
that people bought onto this well most
of them didn't
um you know that Hitler came to power as
a minority party and uh and then he shut
down the Press so that there was no
coverage of what people were saying and
what did they do with dissenters they
sent them to the concentration camps you
know there were most people don't know
this most people are familiar with the
famous death camps like Auschwitz and
and maidonic and so forth but there was
uh you know thousands literally
thousands of camps throughout Germany
and and the European countries they
conquered uh and so what did they do
with those they filled them up with
people that dissented from national
socialism and so if you if you want to
speak out because you don't believe this
ideology and you see your neighbor you
know hauled off and you never see him
again it's like I'm keeping my mouth
shut and this you know back to the
college example I I know plenty of
students and younger professors that
don't have tenure who will not speak out
against say the extreme far left woke
Progressive anti-racism Movement you
know they maybe they agree with some of
it but not all of it but they're afraid
to say anything
because you know they could get fired
and um and this has happened you know so
yeah that's that's stifling because
again
whether there's some good ideas or not
in this in these current movements we'll
never know if we can't talk about it you
know if everybody's if the only answer
could be I'm 100 behind it uh or else
you know I'm not going to say anything
well that's not good for society
did you see HBO's Chernobyl
yes I did yeah that was quite the series
that was so chilling that idea of like
yeah but you just don't you don't want
to speak up because you don't want to
get in trouble within the group man it's
it's interesting growing up as a child
of the 80s it was such a moment where
sort of individualism was celebrated
being the iconoclass was celebrated and
at least in youth culture and so yeah I
never had a sense of how quickly a horde
of people could become terrifyingly
dangerous and yeah seeing seeing what's
going on now I'm like okay like
ice it feels like sort of the the ground
is being laid for how this gets really
scary really fast in terms of like the
orwellian 1984 sense of like hey don't
speak up like I want to live in a world
where more people are like like the fact
that you wrote a letter to the judge of
a holocaust denier and said hey this guy
should be allowed to say these things
even though I vehemently disagree with
him
um yeah
but why in what way because you've
talked about that being a
self-protective act in what way is
making sure somebody like that has a
voice self-protective
yes well that's the devil that should be
given as do y so that if I'm the one who
is speaking out if I'm the lone voice
uh and maybe even maybe I'm wrong but at
least I want to have a voice and but
I've already signed off on the idea that
we should silence people that you know
we disagree with or that are so-called
dangerous they have dangerous ideas
um well that's a very subjective uh
evaluation what do you mean by dangerous
you know so I mean this is right there
in in legal precedence a clear and
present danger that that's a very famous
phrase now clear and present danger that
was
um in the 1919 Supreme Court case of
shank versus the United States in which
this Charles shank a socialist from
Philadelphia was handing out leaflets to
uh draft agemen as America was entering
the first world war you know arguing
that this is a form of slavery it's a
violation of your constitutional rights
the government cannot own your your body
and send you off to die that's slavery
okay well this is whether that is or not
is a separate issue but he got arrested
for this that this is sedition it's
undermining the um the the nation's
ability to to conduct War for example
and so that that case went all the way
to the U.S Supreme Court uh where the
Supreme Court Justice uh you know issued
that here I'll just I'll read you the
I'll read you the line because it's so
it's so kind of chilling in a way and he
ended up kind of taking it back this is
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes the most stringent protection of
free speech would not protect a man in
falsely shouting fire in a theater and
causing a panic the question in every
case is whether the words used are used
in such circumstances and are of such a
nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a
right to prevent
okay so what what is this clear and
present danger well these are leaflets
you know he was just making an argument
you know that that um that that uh you
know forcing people into the army to go
die you know conscription that's uh
unconstitutional well maybe it is maybe
it isn't you know it's a very debatable
thing legally but that that you can't
even say it and the problem once you set
up that precedence is that
then you can make the case that anything
anybody says could be a clear and
present danger it could lead people to
Riot it could lead to violence against
minorities and so on now first of all
this almost never happens there's very
rare that you'll see a direct line
between somebody giving a speech or
writing an op-ed or writing a book or
you know whatever standing out on the
street corner with his bullhorn on a
soapbox uh you know that that then
people go and Riot now maybe the Trump
case on January 6th is it is an
exception maybe that but although that's
very debatable about whether he was the
cause of the capitals storming of the
Capitol building it now looks like this
was in the works for for quite a quite a
few weeks before this uh so maybe he was
a secondary cause or whatever but in
most cases
um this historically the state has used
that kind of power to silence people it
simply does doesn't agree with or feels
that this is challenging our power and
that's why we have to have those protect
actions and you know the history of free
speech he goes back thousands of years
you know historically States always want
to control people they never want to
give up power they always want to
silence anybody that descends and so
it's a constant constant struggle
and it's what we've been talking about
today is not government silencing it's
just groups or religions or you know
classrooms or you know whatever cancel
culture is not the government but but it
has the same chilling effect uh that
then people are afraid to say anything
and if ever we should dissent it's you
know if our government is doing
something we don't like that's the whole
point of democracy
it's about time you try curiosity stream
curiosity stream is the Netflix for
nerds the Hulu for history Buffs and the
Disney Plus for the scientists in all of
us curiosity stream is also extremely
affordable at under 20 a year their
content spans science nature history
technology society and lifestyle there's
literally something for everyone with
any interest on curiosity stream one of
our impact Theory team members is binge
watching the deep ocean documentary
series on curiosity stream it's all
about the amazing life forms that have
survived the pitch dark depths of our
oceans and it includes some awesome 4K
underwater visuals he's also delving
into what went wrong countdown to a
catastrophe a fascinating series
exploring the interface between man and
machine and how just one small error can
lead to disastrous and deadly
consequences curiosity stream is the
world's first streaming service
addressing our lifelong Quest To Learn
explore and understand and curiosity
stream is available worldwide on all
your favorite streaming platforms and
devices you can find it on Roku Android
Xbox One Smart TVs iOS Chromecast Amazon
Fire Amazon Kindle and Apple TV just go
to
curiositystream.com
impact for unlimited access to the
world's top documentaries and
non-fiction series and exclusively for
our audience use promo code impact and
you'll save 25 off which comes out to
only
14.99 a year so click the link below or
go to curiositystream.com
impact and save 25 off right now that's
only 14.99 for the whole year alright
guys take care and be legendary
it is really fascinating to live through
these times where I do wonder how much
is sort of an echo of the technological
Revolution and what's happened with our
ability to get ideas across so quickly
you know Meme culture the ability to
have a global audience from anywhere in
the world ideas spread so rapidly and
can catch fire so quickly that now uh
Living in America anyway I'm more afraid
of the mob the the mob of humans not
like the you know Italian mafia but I'm
more afraid of mob mentality than I am
the government now that could just be
foolishness on my part I'm I'm certainly
very open to that
um but that the the sort of herd
mentality feels like the more clear and
present danger to me
um and that you know even if people are
prepared to rise up against the
government which is maybe a bit sexier
that standing up against the
um just the herd mentality feels like
the more sort of necessary very thing
yeah well I mean in this case you're
talking about a clear and present danger
to you personally or your career your
job uh or or whatever yes and and you
should be because there are enough cases
uh where people are losing their jobs
like Donald
um oh shoot I forget his last name at
the New York Times the science writer
who lost his job he's been there like 35
years and had won numerous Awards and so
on anyway he used the n-word uh with
some interns on a trip and it only to
tell them don't use this word
anybody he didn't say n-word he said the
word itself wow I mean seriously he got
he got fired for this and there's a lot
of cases like that where it's obvious
the person was not using the word in the
derogatory sense and uh so now you know
no one I don't think anyone uh allows
you to actually write the word out
except the New York Times did last week
when John McWhorter he was a linguist
and he's black uh was talking about you
know the the words you can't use anymore
and that's one of them and he said I'm
going to just use the word okay
and uh you know that it imbues so much
power almost talismanic magical power to
a word and I this is I don't I mean I'm
not going to use this word I won't I
understand why it's offensive and
hurtful I do but I also don't like
giving any word that much power over
other people it's just I'd rather we
just move on Beyond it but you know the
time we're going through now that's
probably going to take a while uh I I've
always liked I mentioned Tim mention the
singer-songwriter uh he wrote a a really
great song called Prejudice anyway so it
starts off with this you know there's
this there's this word in the English
language that's been used to really hurt
people it's it's a hurtful word it's
just six little letters you know uh you
know a couple of G's and I and an n and
an e and an r and and you know he goes
on and on about this for a while and
you're thinking oh my God and then all
of a sudden the the tone of the song
changes it becomes kind of a happy tone
and he's like you know only a ginger can
call another Ginger Ginger so the word
is ginger instead of the N word and but
then it's kind of playful because he's a
Ginger he's a redhead you know and he
talks about all the names he was called
growing up you know uh what was it so
like fire truck and tampon and and
Matchstick and you know all these kind
of well if you're a redhead you know and
you're and you're 10 years old these are
hurtful things right and uh so but but
his point was that you know it's just
let's just make fun of the whole thing
and make light of it and instead of
being afraid of it and uh you know again
language we language we have to use
words because you know we just have our
thoughts that are in our skulls and to
get them out of there into your skull I
got to use words okay so words matter
but you know I'm always afraid of
imbuing them with so much power then
we're afraid to say them you know we
just had an article on skeptic on Tom on
top um sorry um you know Mark Twain's
Tom Sawyer no Huckleberry Finn where he
uses the n-word well he's you know Twain
used that word purposely because even a
century ago it was a hurtful uh word and
and he was using it in the context of
this is how people talk about blacks and
you know and this is why this is what it
leads to you know Prejudice and hate
it's it's about he was clearly he was
making the point it's a bad thing yet in
today's world culture there's a lot of
schools that are Banning the use of that
book or there's even Publishers
republishing it without the word
it's like well but you've lost the point
of the the why you use the word
yeah it is it is a a very uh fascinating
time that we're living through
in in the sense of
um
you can feel the sort of police
mentality of people wanting to catch
somebody slipping up and that there is a
a sort of point point scoring system and
a glory to catching somebody out and
I won't lie like I've felt the impulse
before of like oh I caught that person
doing something they're not supposed to
do and it's it's uh it's a very potent
emotion and at the same time it feels
like icky fragile is probably the way I
would it it has it's the emotional
equivalent of recognizing you just threw
a rock at a glass house and you live in
a glass house you know what I mean so
it's like this ah I'm not so sure I
should be chucking this Rock right now
because I know how easy it would be to
take a sort of sideways glance at my
life and find a ton of things that you
know out of context or whatever somebody
has a problem with
so like this the way that the human mind
works is so
fascinating I love it it's super
powerful there are things that we can do
we can love each other we can Bond we
can build societies and come together
um I was just having a conversation with
uh um Stanford psychologist and we were
talking about you know we've become the
most dominant apex predator of all time
through empathy and yet tribalism is
also this incredibly powerful and
equally sort of primordial part of our
brain and that you know you look at at
empathy and you venerate it and you
celebrate it and isn't it wonderful
but tribalism is also part of how we've
survived long enough and creating that
sense of us and other and so once you
take this brain and put it in a modern
context whether it's eating until you're
obese or it's not recognizing that
tribalism now can be extraordinarily
dangerous or seeing how quickly you can
other somebody else
it's uh it's really really interesting
and you know seeing it manifest in ways
that are
worrisome
is worrisome to uh wrap that thought up
yeah that's right well this was uh in
part uh Paul Bloom's point in his book
against empathy so Paul Bloom is a
psychologist at Yale and his point was
the one you just made is that
um we are very empathetic with our
fellow tribe members in group empathy is
very strong but the problem with it I'm
oversimplified in his theory but problem
with it is that that it makes Outsiders
people in other tribes even more
dangerous you're going to be less
empathetic with people that are not part
of your group so there that's the risk
of it and that that was your point there
and I think that that's a good one
the other thing that you made me think
of before social media and the point
scoring for catching people on up on
things is Gossip you know so social
media is new but gossip it's a form of
gossip and what is Gossip gossip is
mostly information about other people I
mean gossip is always about other people
and it's usually negative there's a kind
of a negative valence to it uh you know
having to do with deception and lying
and cheating and and and power and who
has it who doesn't and or on the
positive side you know who you can trust
and who's trustworthy and a good person
so Robin dunbar's theory about this this
is the famous Dunbar number of 150 that
is about the number of people we know
fairly well so Robin Dunbar is an
anthropologist that studies these things
and so it's theory about gossip not not
just his but the gossip is a way of of
of kind of knowing who you should trust
you know especially Beyond 150 that you
know in the you have a little social
group that you know pretty well how do I
know if that guy over there I should
trust well I'll ask this person who
knows this person who knows him right
and then so in a way gossip is like yes
you can trust that person or no I
wouldn't trust that person and uh and so
it's this information
and so social media is basically taking
this natural human propensity to talk
about other people
and marrying it to the negativity bias
where we notice negative things more
than positive things for example like an
economic modeling you know losses hurt
twice as much as gains feel good
let me just say that again loss is hurt
twice as much as gains feel good so for
example I'll get you know like a hundred
positive likes on some tweet but I don't
even notice them if there's one negative
one oh who is this [ __ ] that put that
negative I'm gonna and then I'm obsessed
about I'm like calm down Shermer almost
everybody loved your Tweet you know how
can I possibly be so influenced at this
point in my life well it's just normal
right we notice the negative thing so
um yeah and then there's the principle
of the counter of that is that I'm
trying to you know encourage people to
practice the principle of Charity that
is charitable interpretations of what
somebody else is actually like you know
instead of attributing the worst
possible uh motive to their words or
their actions you know maybe you just
don't know the context what maybe they
they had were having a bad day uh you
know maybe they didn't really mean it in
the way you think they meant it and so
why not give them the benefit of the
doubt just assume like I don't know why
this person use the n-word or whatever
it is they did that you're upset about
you know maybe I don't know the full
story so let's just assume it was done
accidentally or didn't mean any harm by
it something like that
my favorite example of this of late I've
been thinking about is you know there's
this kind of cancel culture for anyone
who doesn't meet our moral standards in
the past right so like you know Thomas
Jefferson you know was a slave holder
and you know any and he raped his slave
uh Sally
Hemmings and and they had children and
oh he's a bad guy he's a rapist because
you know slave owners raped their female
slaves okay how about a more charitable
interpretation of this you know he he
would have he would have been uh
pro-abolition of slavery but there would
have been no United States the southern
states would not have signed on uh
against Great Britain they would not
have had the 13 colonies United and then
you know so he owned slave okay uh and
but you know lots of people did and then
his wife died right so maybe he's lonely
and maybe the only woman around in his
environment is this woman and maybe they
fall in love and have children but it's
against the law to get married you can't
marry a white can't marry a black that
was illegal until 1967.
interracial marriage was illegal until
1967 the Supreme Court case of of the
loving case l-o-v-i-n-g was the last
name of of this couple an interracial
couple and they were yeah I know 1967
okay so maybe you know this let's so
before you judge somebody you know you
don't know what what it's like to be
them what what's in their lives what
context it is either historically or
even just socially in their particular
lives that's hard to do you know I I
don't always practice it but it's it's a
virtue I think we should all promote you
know the principle the charitable uh
tolerance yeah I think that's really
smart but it what's super interesting to
me is that as you were saying that I
felt like we're juggling razor blades
right now like one of us is about to get
cut and it's uh that like even that like
as you were describing it I was like God
that sounds terrible and
the the idea of frame of reference is
something I think a lot about and so you
just did a great job of displaying so
one frame of reference is you know total
[ __ ] that should be forgotten by
history doesn't matter what he did well
um he was a slave owner who raped his
slave I mean it sounds so [ __ ]
terrible and then the sort of flip side
of
we'll never know if there was love there
there was certainly a very distressing
imbalance of power and so it's like I
don't even know how to talk about this
um you know without seeming like you at
one point it's like so horrifying as to
almost be uncontemplatable but yet I
don't want to live in a world where you
can't contemplate and you can't talk
about things and you can't sort of get
to the messy truth of what it means to
be a human and that's one of the things
that I worry about now is like
how are we supposed to figure out what's
true if the minute somebody starts
thinking through something that they're
just eviscerated and I mean eviscerated
like where people are trying to destroy
their lives for
um
telling people not to say the n-word but
actually saying it is not a destroy your
life offense it may be a hey even saying
that out loud like is really um
upsetting for people and so don't like
who who wouldn't
like if you came to me and said because
I'm a big believer in prepare the um
child for the road not the road for the
child and right yes but if you came to
me and said look this person is you know
something happened in their past and
they're very sensitive to XYZ so for
I'll give you an example from my own
life I was once in a front yard drinking
from a hose I hear the Roar of a car
engine and then squeal of tires smash
car smashes into a tree that I'm about
20 feet from guy gets out just literally
covered in blood falls down on his face
girl gets out screaming I mean like this
whole thing for two decades after that
if I heard the sound of an engine
revving my heart would like [ __ ] race
and so if somebody were like trying to
mess with me and they're like revving
their engine or something like that one
I wouldn't have asked that they not do
it because whatever that's how I
approach it but if somebody were like
that and they said hey how if you don't
mind not I'd be like of course G you
know I didn't know so it's like you
simultaneously want to be General risk
to whoever is asking but you don't like
me revving the engine and having
somebody come and drag me from the car
and try to end my economic opportunities
for that that's where it's like
I am not saying that that is the same as
you know an offensive uh word no I got
it no that's a good example yeah
yeah so there's a this fundamental
attribution bias in Psychology where we
tend to attribute
motives to somebody's character and
personality rather than the environment
or the context in which they did
whatever they did you know so I'm fond
of asking I have a whole discussion of
Milgram shock experiments and I should
show videotapes of it I I did my own
replication of it we talk about that and
you know 65 percent of subjects went all
the way to 450 volts you know XXX you
know basically you're just frying this
guy in the other room who's not actually
getting shocked of course but uh and
then I ask students how many of you
would have gone all the way or
participated you know they all say oh no
I definitely would not have done that no
no I'm just not not that kind of person
it's like yeah you're delusional you
know this is what everybody told Milgram
you know before he ran the experiment
part of his protocols was to survey
psychologists and psychiatrists and
others you know what percentage of
people do you think will will
participate and go all the way it was
like one maybe two percent at most you
know so people were shocked that 65
percent you know went all the way
and so or you could ask if you lived in
1850s America say in the south
you know would you have been an
abolitionist you know almost everybody
today goes of course I would have stood
up against this evil of slavery I doubt
it you know almost nobody did very rare
and uh and even if people were against
it or thought it was a bad idea you know
they kept their mouth shut because this
is it was legal everybody was doing it
and uh you know there was it was a
controversial thing to be against it so
you know it's easy to sit here in 2021
and judge people you know like in the
1960s you know you see these interviews
with these old guys like John Wayne or
or Sean Connery and they they make these
disparaging remarks about women or Jews
or blacks and just like oh it's just
cringe-worthy and but you really gotta
put yourself historically back you know
half a century and in which you know
that was not unusual and of course today
we would not do that and and it's a sign
of how much progress we've made that
we're we find such language
cringe-worthy or offensive but you know
they didn't and it's just not really
fair to say well I wouldn't have done
that you don't know that you wouldn't
have done that right so
anyway
yeah there's two ideas that I find
really interesting so Jordan Peterson
introduced me to the idea of hey when
you're revisiting
um Nazi Germany in your mind don't
assume that you're the one that would
hide Anne Frank in the um addict assume
that you get sucked up into the you know
the Nazi Machinery because
survival you know literally watching
people killed in front of you for having
the wrong view it's like pretty quickly
you go whoa like I I
would like to think that I would but
given you know a gun in my face it
becomes a totally different idea and
then the um the follow-up to that which
is the gulag archipelago where you've
got Soulja nitzen really just recanting
what happens when you don't Face Down
the Gun and how crazy it gets and how
ultimately that machine turns on you so
it's like you should want to be the
person that is the Abolitionist in the
South you know at the height of slavery
you should want to be the person hiding
somebody in
um in your addict during Nazi Germany
and you should be very worried that you
wouldn't and that's like that gave me
the chills that to me is the idea of
understanding the way the world works
because once I understand that I'm prone
to that weakness like anybody else I'm
prone to being terrified if somebody has
a gun in my face I'm prone to silence
when they shoot my neighbor in the face
for having the wrong View and like you
have to sort of get ready and this is
why you're sort of
in the face of all the hurt in the world
that could come at you for having the
wrong position the fact that you keep
like pursuing truth even if it has
personal consequences like that to me is
very very interesting and I actually
want to know is do you have a process
like what is the process for I think
this but I want to make sure that I stay
skeptical
oh boy well first
um I'm not that brave on these things I
was just thinking of navalny the guy
that stood up is standing up to a Putin
you know they tried to kill him you know
poison him with this you know this uh
Radioactive
stuff and and is that the guy who like
it it completely deformed his face or
something no that was a different guy
they've done they've killed many people
this way now this is the guy that
survived uh and he went to Germany and
they and they uh cured him and but he
went back to Russia where he was
probably arrested and then he then he
went on a um a hunger strike he's in
jail he just ended his hunger strike
last week uh but he's not he's not
giving up he's standing up to Putin and
Putin's cronies and all the corruption
in Russia you know I admire the guy I
can't say I would do this I think most
people wouldn't I mean he's married with
kids you know there's pictures of him
with his family you know in Germany and
then they're like okay let's get on the
plane we're going back to Russia and I'm
just thinking are you out of your mind
they hate you there they're gonna kill
you or lock you up for life and he's
like did he take his whole family
yeah they're in Russia yeah they're
they're fine I mean Putin's leaving them
alone but he's in jail and he's probably
never well he may get out uh but who
knows I mean anyway my point is that you
know I I would not do that I would just
say you know what the hell with it I'm
gonna stay in it I'm going to some other
country and I think most people are
probably like me and uh but in terms of
you know more of what I do in in the
kind of issues we address
um which are less political in that
sense
um
you know again like this recent 60
Minutes piece Sunday night on UFOs uaps
and you know the government said they're
real
well okay what do you mean by real okay
so here you know there's certain
principles of thinking rationality you
can apply like what what exactly are we
talking about here you know well you
know that that we that's probably a
balloon right there the balloon is real
but when somebody says the government
says they're real what they mean is that
real means extraterrestrial real means
it's a Russian asset or it's a Chinese
drone or a spy plane or something like
this capable of doing these incredible
aerodynamic Maneuvers that no no machine
that we've ever built could possibly do
and so on and so forth and and uh so to
me I just it's like yes of course I I
would love to think there's
extraterrestrials or or there is
technology able to fly you know seven
thousand miles an hour and make a sharp
left turn without killing the pilot
whatever uh but you know but I don't
think it's true that that I would like
it to be true that they're
extraterrestrials out there somewhere
and they're even visiting us that would
be cool you know I'm not one of these
people that thinks oh well you know the
stock market would crash and people
would lose their minds if if they
discovered aliens I don't think that
would happen at all
I just I just don't think it's true
because there's not enough evidence for
it you know so for me I just try to
think okay you know whatever it is I'm
reading about or addressing you know I
have to try to separate what I want to
be true from what is actually true and
you know most cases if I don't have a
dog in the fight if I'm not committed to
it like gun control you know I did a
whole analysis of that I'm not into guns
I don't care one way or the other I just
want to know does do gun control
measures lower homicide suicide and
accidental deaths or not
that's all and you know if you if you
can do that then it's a lot less
upsetting uh you know when you engage
with other people uh in conversation
about it
and so what's your process for mining
for that data because right now the way
that people create these Echo Chambers
they only look at confirmatory evidence
do you have any sort of best practices
for not believing
oh I do I do yeah let's see I have
I have here uh let's see I have the New
York Times I have the local Santa
Barbara newspaper I get the uh
Michael you were definitely showing your
age right now this is madness who reads
newspapers I got the Wall Street I got
the Wall Street Journal yeah I know I'm
old school actually like physical books
here's my book I actually like physical
books I have hundreds of them here in my
office uh yeah so the the idea of course
is you know multiple sources of
information so op-eds are good for this
you know it's uh you know the opinion
editorial section of a newspaper you
know hopefully they have multiple views
well they don't always do this so you
gotta pick different newspapers and uh
or toggle back and forth between Fox
News and MSNBC you know they kind of
they can be covering the same story and
you can't believe they're talking about
the same thing at all
it's like how can this be well first of
all you have to know that's not news
Okay Fox News is not news It's
Entertainment you know their own their
own defense case when um they got sued I
think it was Tucker Carlson got sued it
was somebody uh oh it was the defense of
one of the capital building uh uh
stormers the one of the people that
stormed the capital on January 6th his
defense was I watched Fox News all day
and I was 100 convinced that Biden stole
the election and they are stealing our
democracy right there in that building
I'm going in
and so his defense was I watched too
much Fox News and Fox's defense by the
way in a previous case
was nobody should seriously believe what
we say
whoa It's like wow
that's an admission you know that we're
just bullshitting people we're just
saying crap because it's a television
show
and the per it's good to remember on
Commercial television there's
commercials and so the content is
basically whatever it takes to get
people to get from one commercial to the
next without clicking away and that's
become much harder for Network because
there's you know you know hundreds and
hundreds of channels to choose from or
you can just turn the TV off and go
online then there's you know ten
thousand sources of information you can
get or entertainment so uh that's the
problem
is there a Wellspring anywhere of people
that are hearkening back to sort of the
old school
um journalistic practices of making sure
that something is double or triple
confirmed and because I've it feels to
me like there's a business model
opportunity now that sort of traditional
journalism has gone away for somebody to
say we adhere to all those Old School
principles
when I write for the Wall Street Journal
the New York Times LA Times and so forth
they do have fact Checkers I mean
whatever I write I mean I'm right I'm
writing mostly opinion editorials or
book reviews but they do fact check they
want to know like exactly where'd that
quote come from well this was the source
what page okay here's I gotta go look it
up here's the page okay so I and I'm
encouraged by that and when you know I
wrote 214 consecutive monthly columns
for Scientific American they fact
checked them all
and and in most cases where they found
something it was good that they found it
you know I was wrong I don't you know I
got this number 16 it was supposed to be
19. I don't know where I got 16. maybe I
flipped the nine because who knows but
thank you for catching that you know so
there are you know there are sources
that still do this we fact check it
skeptic magazine I have four different
proofers we call them proofers but they
you know they read every article uh
carefully and not just for typos and
spelling errors but you know content and
I have a couple of my fact Checkers or
my proofers or actual you know retired
Scholars you know they just volunteered
because you know they they like helping
out and but they actually read it for
content and they look stuff up and they
always catch things so you know that
it's a good Norm that uh that that
developed in the early 20th century in
journalism and uh although it seems like
it's disappeared it hasn't you know
there's still plenty of places that do
it but but clearly again if you're
watching Fox News or maybe even MSNBC
just remember it's not news okay those
aren't news sites and so they don't have
factors whether they have fact Checkers
or not I you know it doesn't matter
because that's not the point of it
um it's interesting I heard somebody
talking about
um their people need to realize that in
an era where there's limited newspaper
or space that one of the things that
makes something higher quality is its
adherence to the truth but once you go
to an online Source where there's
basically Infinite Canvas that it sort
of degrades the bar that gets set for
information to get posted onto and
obviously the incentives are around
clicks and getting people to
um you know the sort of tripping things
like our negativity bias and all of that
to make sure that you get the just the
volume of humans that you need to that
and sort of speaking about base or
instincts now I didn't look into sort of
how true that hypothesis was but that
rang true
well there are now especially since the
2016 election uh a number of political
fact-checking sites like PolitiFact for
example and Snopes has gotten more
political Snopes started off they
started about the time we did with
skeptic in the early 90s they mostly
were fact-checking things like urban
legends and then a little spillover into
what we were doing like claims by
psychics or astrologers or whatever but
then now they're pretty political you
know they they fact checked the things
that politicians say speeches that
politicians give memes that are popular
online about you know Biden did this or
Trump did that you know they look it up
or look at this photo of Biden and you
know whatever you know oh it turns out
it was a fake photo you know so there's
a half a dozen of these sites that are
really good and and it shows to me it
shows that there's a market for it the
fact that they're surviving and
flourishing in this environment tells me
that people actually do care about what
what's actually true and there's a
there's a couple of fact quote checking
sites that I I use all the time
because most quotes that are kind of
catchy you know oh by Mark Twain or you
know Yogi Berra you know well Yogi
himself wrote a book that said I didn't
say half the things I said
and and that's what he means is that you
know that that quotes tend to gravitate
up to the most famous person who ever
said it or might have said it or could
have said it or said something like that
and so if you Google any quote uh the
same dozen or so sites will come up in
the first couple pages on Google of just
repeating the quote without any
reference no citation but there's a
couple of sites where they'll give you
the whole history of the quote that
everybody who ever said it and you know
to their credit that's a lot of work to
do that I mean to dig out historically
where these things come from and so you
know I'm grateful that there are people
that do that and that and that they do
and that they're useful and somehow
making a living doing it I guess people
do care
yeah yeah sir I I want to believe that
the majority care
um I am cognizant of perverse incentives
that you know can be created by things
like social media where the different
metrics are you know time on site and
using sort of the dopamine
um secreting techniques that people use
but yeah your point is is um encouraging
to be sure now one thing with you
Michael as I was reading your book and
listening to interviews that you've done
is you strike me as a very foundational
thinker
um somebody that's really trying to get
to sort of the root driving things and
I'm curious if you have like a set of
foundational beliefs and I'll give you
one that you've said many times which
may or may not be to you foundational
but this idea that the second law of
Thermodynamics is the first law of life
and
um curious to know are there like a few
sort of maxims that you consider like I
build my my thought process or my life
on top of these ideas
yeah well that's one that's one I
developed at the End of
This Book Heavens on Earth where I was
trying to kind of come up with a a
wrap-up chapter like if there's no
afterlife and there's no immortality
then what's the purpose of life so I
have a discussion of the meaning of life
okay well so that particular way I said
that the second law of Thermodynamics is
the first law of life is a kind of twist
on Tubi and cosmetes paper there are a
couple of evolutionary psychologists
here at UC Santa Barbara
uh and their their paper was titled the
second law of Thermodynamics is the
first law of psychology and what they
meant by that was from an evolutionary
psych perspective
most of our psychology is developed
around pushing back against entropy you
know the universe is basically running
down uh you know the world doesn't care
about you and uh and you know there's
just so many more ways to die anyway so
then uh you know Pinker has a steep
finger has a nice discussion of this in
Enlightenment now and um you know he's a
good friend so we we read each other's
works and so on and so there I kind of
and this is how all ideas work by the
way we all build in each other you know
no one comes up with stuff whole cloth
out of thin air and uh but you know so
that's one way to think of it
um
and and so I also think of it in the
context because you know I'm an atheist
and I deal a lot with this and I debate
them and so on it's not how I Define
myself but it's part of our mission and
what we do and so one of the kind of
memes that these have not memes it's
kind of a central belief is that if
there's no God if there's no afterlife
then there's no point to to life at all
you know what difference does it make
what you do now because in 14 billion
years the universe is going to be you
know whatever it is 40 billion years or
whatever four billion years the Sun is
going to expand there'll be no Earth so
what's the point
all right so I call this alvey's error
alvey's LV singer Woody Allen's
character in Annie Hall where he has a
flashback to Childhood where he freezes
to do his homework and his mother takes
him as a psychiatrist and he says why
don't why won't you do your homework
album he goes the universe is expanding
he goes what he goes I read that the
universe is expanding and one day it's
gonna all just blow up and so there's no
point in my doing my homework and his
mother upgrades him and says what's the
universe got to do with it we live in
Brooklyn and Brooklyn's not expanding so
that's my you know my catchphrase there
but you know we live in the Here and Now
not in the Hereafter it doesn't matter
what happens billions of years from now
it matters now
uh you know how we and this was in in my
essay in Scientific American about this
was
um this uh philosopher was debating
William Lane Craig who's a famous
Theologian and he was making this
argument there's without a god without
an afterlife there's no point at all you
know it doesn't matter what people did
to the Jews and in in World War II it
doesn't matter and so the philosopher
his name is escaping me right uh Shelley
um Kagan Shelly Kagan said it doesn't
matter it matters to the Jews and their
families and their suffering right then
you know it's like to me that was a slam
that was a mic drop I mean I how could
you respond of course it matters right
so that's the point I think the
grounding is that you know today right
now this is what you know what's the
purpose this is it you know you know of
course we should have goals and work
toward the goals and so forth but you
know our lifetime now our culture our
people our family our friends or you
know our politics our community
everything this is it this is why it
matters now and uh so that that's kind
of how I live my life
let's drill into that so I don't know as
I was reading you
um it seems to me and I could be wrong
but it seems to me like you fall into a
similar vein of Sam Harris where it's
like once you sort of grind it all down
God irrelevant doesn't exist whatever
you come to okay what are you optimizing
around and it's the reduction of human
suffering and the sort of optimization
of human flourishing I don't know if
that's the word that sits well with you
but is that sort of what you
yeah so there's a new book out um on uh
sort of against this idea that science
uh and rationality can lead to objective
moral values and and the the people
they're writing against or myself Sam
Harris deep Pinker and a few others like
Jonathan height and and and a few moral
philosophers of the scientific uh
grounding and uh so yeah so but but
again that's not original to us I mean
this is utilitarian philosophy this goes
back to you know Jeremy Bentham John
Stuart Mill and the first Enlightenment
thinkers that tried to articulate some
secular way of thinking about values and
and morals and right and wrong and Good
and Evil
whether or not there's a God
and even if there is a God I mean you
know the Plato refuted this with the
youth etherfro's dilemma that you know
if God is handing down moral values and
telling us what's right or wrong
um are there any reasons why these
things are right or wrong or is it just
because God said so
and if there are good reasons then what
are the reasons and then let's just skip
the middleman and just follow the
reasons so the idea of you know let's
reason our way to determining what's
right and wrong that's a fairly new idea
that's an enlightenment idea but since
then you know moral philosophy this is
what it's been all about you know you
have just a handful you know Aristotle's
virtue ethics you have you know
deontology or or categorical imperative
kind of rules based then you have
Bentham and Mills utilitarianism and
variations on that you have rolls as
just Society you know the veil of
ignorance if you're going to write a law
you should write it in a way that you
don't know which group you're going to
be in you don't know if you're white or
black male or female tall or short or
whatever rich or poor you know the law
should be fair this idea of you know
this kind of viewpoint from nowhere I
think um Thomas Nagel called it a kind
of a a universal perspective Spinoza
called it so there's a handful of these
thinkers and so there's just a few of
these theories that have kind of
survived over the last say 300 years
that are not based in religion at all
and that's our mission is that well we
can go even we can do even better than
that we can use science
not always but you know that you know we
can measure what people prefer what do
they want you know the social psychology
the cognitive psychology of right and
wrong good and evil because you know
just what's better a democracy or an
autocracy well where would you rather
live North Korea or South Korea do tell
right well people will tell you you know
and in many cases they'll they'll vote
with their feet right they're leaving
these crappy countries that have corrupt
governments and poor infrastructure and
they're they're going to places like
America why well there's a good reason
why that you know has to do with human
nature and and we can discover that
through science anyway that's the point
of so human flourishing
uh and you know reducing suffering you
know Peter Singer is again one of the
Giants of uh you know the expanding
Circle you know he applies this
principle to animals and he's probably
right I mean in maybe a century or two
they'll look back on us as just barbaric
you know those people in the 21st
century they ate meat
they killed animals they killed like a
billion chickens a year
they killed like 500 million cows a year
and they ate them
you know there may it may be people
would look at us like we look at
slaveholders raping their slave you know
it's like whoa that is just you know
again we you know we it's hard to get
out of our culture and see what you know
what we're really doing in that
perspective
yeah it's interesting the idea of being
a product of your time
um I forget who it was somebody talking
about writing and they said look you're
going to be a product of your time don't
even bother trying to avoid it and to
your point you know about
um animals and all the things that we
have yet to discover about
um you know who feels what and what
level of sentience do different animals
have uh it'll be really interesting to
see where that goes over time as we have
deeper and deeper discoveries you know
it's uh people that say that animals
can't feel and then if you've ever had a
dog you certainly know like you can see
like heartbreak on their face I mean
it's crazy of course of course yes yes
yeah this is the so-called other mind
problem uh you know this goes back to
Descartes saying well you know animals
like dogs they're just mechanical robots
so they don't actually feel anything
well what happens when you kick it it
squeals oh that's just an automated like
sound that comes out of the tubes when
it compresses the blood or whatever he
thought it was going on this is this is
[ __ ] I mean this is here's my
solution to the other Minds problem the
other mind problems how do I know you're
sentient and conscious and you feel and
you think and so on you know maybe
you're a philosophical zombie as it's
called you're just there's no lights on
in upstairs you're just walking around
making the sounds and motions as if
you're sentient but you're not I'm the
only one who actually feels this way
okay
I apply the copernican principle I'm not
special the chances that I'm the only
one my brain is just like yours it runs
on the same you know Hardware uh
programs of neurotransmitter substances
those little synaptic gaps and the
neural networks and the modules and blah
blah blah you know and same as yours so
if if I'm feeling pain and I have
certain facial expressions and I act a
certain way and I see the same on your
face I think he's probably feeling what
I'm feeling
right that's a reasonable assumption and
it's just a small step you know to
animals
you know you see the you know the
Dolphins or the whales or whatever where
the conversation gets truly interesting
for me is
um and look I have no idea this may just
be like a an early sort of front-running
piece of data that turns out to be
nothing but the fact that plants will
allocate resources like if they because
they they're so connected under ground
and if they sense that there's like a
fungus or something over here eating
another
um plant they'll actually send
chemicals over there to stop that from
happening if they find one that's
malnourished they'll send chemicals to
them to try to help it's like what if we
find out that there is a level of I
hesitate to say sentience but like that
we just fundamentally do not understand
what plant life is and so the I love
answering the question when it's as hard
as humanly possible what happens if we
go [ __ ] like we can't kill animals like
they they are way more feeling than we
think we can't kill plants because
there's a lot more going on there than
we thought where do we end up like what
do you do at that point because this is
like really interesting to me we end up
we end up hungry
but you end up having to do something
right and so it really forces people to
face this sort of sort of moral
conundrum and you know thinking back to
like early hunter-gatherers who had this
sense of respect for what they had
hunted and what they killed and like
this almost sense of gratitude for that
thing having given itself to them so
that they could sustain themselves I
mean it's interesting it doesn't it's
cold comfort when I think about an alien
coming down you know and being like oh
thank you so much for giving your life
and forgiving your planet right that
wouldn't help me a lot but
I don't know what to do with that one
yeah
uh well I don't either but um I mean the
thought experiments of you know test
cases where you push it to the extreme
just to see how strong your theory of
Ethics is is useful for you know for
thinking about these things practically
speaking uh I let's just take it one
step at a time let's just you know do
what we've been doing that is we have
laws to protect abuse of animals you
know and and they are applied every
every week or two you know there's some
story on the news of some guy had you
know 50 dogs in his house and you know
they arrested him for you know abusing
these animals and uh and good that's
good um
you know so there's those are on the
books and then uh you know the
protecting animals that are used in
science in Labs you know there's tons of
laws and rules about those and now even
the the you know the Banning of the use
of chimpanzees that's a good step you
know you can't use chimps anymore for
research medical research for example or
psych research that's good you know and
there so these chimps are being retired
to these you know happy chimp Farms
where they can lead a good life that's
nice you know it's that you know the way
the animals were treated in the 60s was
you know by today's standards just awful
and uh so that's my Approach is like
just once before we Grant sentience to
lobsters and don't eat them anymore
let's just start with the big ones you
know the great apes uh you know gorillas
chimps oranges Gibbons and us and then
and by the way let's expand the moral
sphere to All Humans you know we're
still not quite there yet uh beginning
there and then you know that in the
cetaceans you know the dolphins whales
and porpoises and and sea lions and so
on you know just all the maybe marine
mammals that will be the next one
and just take it one step at a time it's
you know I know a lot of animal rights
activists they don't like this because
it it their analogy is that that would
be like telling the slaveholder you know
the the people in 1850s America take
your time no rush you know one small
step at a time you know thanks a lot
says the slaves well you know it's not a
Perfect Analogy but I I understand why
people want change instantly but that's
just not how it works
yeah that that is a a conundrum of how
quickly we can make change you know when
you think about moral progress
and moving in the right direction you
need the friction of people saying that
this isn't fast enough
you also have to be careful about sort
of upending society the notion of burn
it all down and whatever we build and
instead will be better
it's like I actually really get
emotionally I understand that argument
and it is
where you see an injustice it is so
tempting to just want to break the back
of whatever has created that
but the world is so freakishly
unpredictable in terms of
you change this here and it will have
unintended consequences but it is so
emotionally unsatisfying to say
incremental change
so yeah it's tough I don't know yeah it
is your take on that just like hey it is
what it is and and the only way sort of
safely forward is incremental change
yeah I mean I get here get your point I
mean you know if you had a rallying call
cry you know what do we want slow
incremental peaceful change when do we
want it eventually
No One's Gonna you know come down to the
park at four o'clock Saturday to meet
meet with me and let's go on our March
chanting this right
well so this gets at you know a deeper
um political philosophy that is you know
we have liberals and conservatives for a
reason you know no matter how many
political parties there are in a country
we you know we're a duopoly and probably
always will be you know many European
countries have half a dozen parties I
think that's great I wish I wish we had
more parties so no one side could
capture too much power but but but even
there in European countries they kind of
clustered toward the left or toward the
right
and the reason for that is you know gets
back to the the first conservative
intellectual Edmund Burke in his book on
the French Revolution and basically he
said he supported the American
Revolution
uh against England but not the French
Revolution because the one the American
was more uh kind of rational based
incremental legal changes and less
violent
until the war broke out of course but
but even there you know the war kind of
developed over many years and not not
that many people died comparatively
speaking but look what happened with the
French Revolution I mean they just it
was just burn it all down let's just
start over well what was the under end
result of that you know was the you know
the guillotine was brought out and you
just got this massacre of anybody and
everybody that for whatever reason not
just political just revenge and whatnot
and uh you know that's the so his
argument is that we need conservatives
to prevent liberals from going too far
too fast because if you do that those
structures that were built up over
centuries
these social institutions that provide
stability for society that people count
on and Trust if you just tear them all
down and you replace them with whatever
it's very unlikely to work and and so I
one thing I'm worried about now is that
you know historically the the you know
most of politics has been played between
the 240 yard lines right it's just kind
of nudged this way nudge that way and
now you know Trump and those people are
pulling the center further and further
to the right and then the woke
progressives they're pulling the center
further and further to the left
and uh and so what used to be you know a
pretty stable system is is kind of
fracturing a bit and now you see even
the you know just let this last week uh
again mentioned Liz Cheney you know
she's kind of old school GOP you know
she's right there at the maybe the
45-yard line and and Biden is you know
kind of old school liberal he's like at
the other 45-yard line and you know this
idea you know Biden's a socialist or
communist this is crazy
it's not even remotely true but I can
see why people use that because they're
trying to pull you know the ends further
further out that's dangerous either on
either side it's dangerous and because
of that leading to instability and
that's what leads to violence
and that's what leads to Deaths and
property damage and all that's just no
good for for democracy
yeah and that brings us back to giving
the devil is due what how do you get
this idea across how do you encourage
people to want to hear from the people
who think differently than them
well of course you could just say it but
um I turn it on
tables on the other person how would you
feel if you're the one
that's speaking out against the mob you
know let's say like for example I I used
to talk about Holocaust deniers well
what if I'm skeptical of how many Native
Americans died with the European
colonization of North America
and you know the figure is not 90
million it's more like 10 million am I a
denier
you know because and am I going to be
silenced for that uh you know and and
you know creationists always want uh you
know their side taught in public schools
yeah okay but what if you set this up
that whatever the dominant religion is
in a country that's your principle for
what gets taught in public schools well
what if Christianity is no longer the
dominant religion and what if Islam is
the dominant religion Islam has its own
creationist
ideology hesitate to call it science
that they think it is
you still want that on the books that
well whoever's in in the dominant group
they get to have their creation story
taught in public schools of course
Christians go no no I don't want that
right right so just flip it on on its
head just just put yourself in the
position of your the lone voice
and do you or do you not want to be
heard
of course people want to be heard
so free speeches for those with whom we
disagree that's who it's for the people
we don't like the people whose opinions
we find abhorrent that's what the free
speed principles are for
I love that man I think that's a great
place to wrap thank you for being the I
don't want to say the devil in so many
different arguments but to be a
dissenting voice I think that's
incredibly useful you're a very sound
thinker I think it's very telling that
getting Jordan Peterson to blurb a book
in which you have an entire chapter
dedicated to why he's wrong uh and that
he did it uh because he thinks that you
ration your rationalize your way through
things in a very sound way I think is is
a great Testament where can people find
you where can they engage with your
unique way of thinking oh well uh
skeptic.com is the main webpage for my
magazine and michaelshrimmer.com for my
personal webpage and my books are all on
Amazon and and so forth so and the
Michael Shermer show my podcast that's
skeptic.com as well
I love that dude thank you so much for
coming on and being such a foundational
thinker I really appreciate it was
wonderful and guys speaking of things
that are so foundational you can't miss
it if you haven't already be sure to
subscribe and until next time my friends
be legendary take care
[Music]
foreign