June 06, 2010
How to Tell Science from Bunk
Massimo Pigliucci
Massimo Pigliucci talks about whether people believe in science too much or believe in science too little. He describes to what extent areas on the frontiers of science, such as transhumanism and life-extension, merit open-mindedness. He explains why he is skeptical of artificial intelligence, and why the skeptics movement generally dismisses transhumanism and why he does not. He talks about the responsibilities of the skeptics movement regarding public education about global warming, and why so many high profile skeptics are skeptics or deniers of global warming, including Penn and Teller, Michael Shermer, James Randi. He explores how the libertarian skepticism of big government may fuel global warming denialism. He describes the perils of the pleasures of skepticism. He argues that to be a skeptic means two things: first, a commitment to furthering critical thinking among the general public, and second, a defense of science. And he reveals the criteria for distinguishing pseudoscience, fringe science, and consensus science, and why some pseudosciences, while theoretically unsound, may be have more empirical evidence for them than some widely-accepted theories of consensus science.
- Subscribe via iTunes
- Connect with For Good Reason on Facebook
& Twitter
- Support the James Randi Educational Foundation
- © Copyright 2010 For Good Reason
- Produced in association with the JREF
- info@forgoodreason.org
Listener Reactions
in my view,most people believe in science too much
and i prefer to believe in science
interesting post
thanks
In order to avoid confusing the scientifically illiterate, when we speak of belief in science, we should make clear we are speaking of the human scientists and not the scientific method. If one says a scientist is wrong it questions a specific conclusion, if one says science is wrong it questions the method of science as a whole.
I just wanted to correct an omission in the blurb above. Michael Shermer is no longer a global warming denier. He publicly changed his position in 2006: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-flipping-point
Right, he is just a skeptic of some aspects of global warming, but not a complete denier.
I want to thank the very dextrose anti-duping swindle free vaccine that is so efficaciously inoculates me against stupidity week by week!
in my opinion there is a vast chasm between denying global warming and denying that human activity is a major causative factor. correlation and causality are still distinct functions of the argument.
I miss your show!! Are you taking a summer break? Point of Inquiry is not the same without you. You have a great even handed tone, fantastic probing questions, and you really let your guests reveal themselves. I am having serious Grothe withdrawal. Hope you are back soon!
Does anybody knows why Michael Shermer changed his mind regarding global warming?
As global warming goes I would be interested in hearing Mr. Pagliuccis point of view on Lord Moncktons claim that There are 30,000 scientists who disagree with global warming.
I really mis the show to, hope all is well with ya!!
and you really let your guests reveal themselves. I am having serious Grothe withdrawal. Hope you are back soon!
Yes, what in the heck has happened to this show? I too am having withdrawals with no D.J. interviews.
Massimo Pigliucci views are great on science. Thanks for sharing these.
Grothe is simplifying what Penn and Teller said. They did not “dismiss” global warming, and in fact Penn said that he does not know.
It sounds like he is repeating the rumor version of their view, which is ironic in an interview which talks about “skeptics” being wrong.
Also, the BS episode which included global warming was 7 years ago, which is even older than Shermer’s opinion which was also simplified bluntly.
I guess Pigliucci is the one who really said that Penn and Teller in particular dismissed it, but overall both of these people were agreeing with each other.