When a company is aware of the harm that is related through disinformation and still propagate the circulation of this information is it not evil? Yes it is
how would they know it's so called disinformation? I'm very nervous they way these terms are tossed around. Concerned it's backdoor censorship in the clothing of virtue. That road to hell paved with good intentions meme.
"I'm a professor and I'm very educated Sigma .. her vote counts as much as mine?" If you don't understand why, you're really not as educated as you thought.
Unfettered, unregulated profit-seeking, above all other considerations, is corrupting. Well-regulated capitalism is the balance needed. How? ▪︎Empowered workers via unionization is a much-needed "fettering" on the profit-motive. ▪︎Compliance to standards to strengthen the common good (unpoisoned air, water; not creating toxic dump sites; mitigating the spread of randomly deadly disease, etc.) Promoting the common good. Placing value on some things over pure profit-motive.
Holly Hold Workers should insist profit sharing plans be instated, and ones that guarantee you walk away w your take or can continue as a shareholder if you leave the job.
I'm going to watch this whole talk I as I enjoy hearing views. However I am at the 2:30 mark I just heard "The aggrivation of an entire society" my 1st question is, "an entire society?" and "searching for an authoritarian ledaer" I would rather no leader and elected officials do the work of their people. 20 seconds later "Allowing the legetimization of violence" Nobody wants violence, some have never condemned the summer riots. That was violence by definition. Ill end here, Lee McIntytre is explaining the "SCIENCE of FALSE material" I mean what is that? I'm going to watch the rest now as I truly like hearining, but do you maybe think some of that opening was a bit off?
@@brentdafoe4744 I can only give an opinion right now of when he said "entire society ". I think our entire society IS aggravated by all this. Most don't want violence, but they are aggravated, on all sides, the two main groups arguing AND the others, who shake their heads in disgust and just tune out. Though quieter, I think they are still aggravated. I see and hear it every day, the whole spectrum. I have family members who are very well educated people who think the election was rigged, that the Clintons have had multiple people murdered, that Hunter Biden should be arrested (though they can't say for what but, ya know, he had a laptop!), and on and on. It gets exhausting!
@@FellaMegaOld I wonder if the confusion here is similar to my own. I can say that the last few years have baffled me, watching people who are literate and physically able to change the channel dive down the rabbit hole and never look back. It is as though they're unaware our laws are based on our Constitution. When I say "Bill of Rights", they recite maybe the 1st Amendment and definitely the 2nd. Beyond that, the majority of people. I talk with (and I'll admit, on BOTH sides) do not know what is in that document, that it lays out our system of coequal branches of government and details the LIMITS of their power. Very few can name one Supreme Court Justice, out of nine-not one! We've got to do a better job of civic education in schools. Forget school prayer. Teach the Constitution!!
Exactly! They claimed it was “safe & effective” based on no evidence. So everyone should have been free to ignore the corrupt directives without losing their jobs. Corporate marketing is not science. And neither is Tony Fauci.
There is plenty of evidence and Chris knows it/knew it. Anyone can deny the miraculous by simply asserting the circular argument, “it can’t happen, so it didn’t”
I disagree with that. At first I liked the quote and even screenshot it to remind me to put on my favorite quotes list. It's quite pithy. However, after five seconds of thought, I realized it's not true . Unless the context of the quote drastically changed the prima facia meaning of the quote, it's pushing for an argument from silence.
laurie..we live in a post physics world, where the improbable triumphs over the physically IMPOSSIBLE. A third positon is possible ..... "truthers" err by claiming the implied certainty of this term, ie. "Here is what happened and why" An agnostic position is surely possible, and neutralizeses the debunking attacks on the weakest elements of specaulative considerations of motive and method. Just one example> It is a FACT verified by the plane manufacturers themselves that commercial airlines CANNOT, I repeat, Cannot fly AT SEA LEVEL at 500 mph/ which is twice the MOS maximum operating speed.......at 30,000 feet the air is 1/3 as dense and 600 mph is standard. A very few minutes of level flight at sea level will shake and destroy the plane, and as far as controlling it with the presicion required......impossible. The pentagon story is also impossible, not only for the above violations of aviation facts, but it is also a PHYSICAL fact the a 737 has a wingspan of 140 ft approx, and at 500 mph CANNOT fly 20 feet of the ground for the final 500 meter levelled out approach because a wind cushion, the turmoil under the wings will not allow the jet to come closer to the ground. Jet fighters ....with a wingspan of 25 feet .......can do this. It is not up to a defense attorney to keep an innocent man in jail, to cling to a physically impossible prosecution, until the real culprit is found. I lived in NY for many years before and after 9/11, and after 2010 I gave up on opinion expression or debate. The concrete has settled.
Thank you for the woman who spoke of 'sneering.' I found early parts parts of this 'chat' very sneering as if we were all in this wonderful club together. "Ha Ha ha. We know this and we are all pals here together and we know this is true.' Not much fun to watch.
Growing up in a fanatically religious family led me to question things. Conspiracy theories are just that. Theories that have no facts to back them up but what a tool to instill fear and gain control over a group of people. I have yet to ever hear of one developing from a positive viewpoint. My mother is a very negative person that never met a conspiracy theory she didn't jump into. At 96 she's unable to put the energy she used to have trying to prove the validity of her latest theories and instead lumps them all into her first conspiracy theory. It's a sign of the times, we're living in the end times. At 67 it's had to be 60 years since first hearing "we're living in the last days and God will return any day" and have to wonder if "any day" has a date and if the 2 words have a singular meaning why can't you look up "any day" in the dictionary? Don't ever try to argue that one with a religious fanatic. So many cults use religion and all that come out of Christianity use that "end times" theory to draw people in. Growing up in all that religion I realize now that Christian Nationalism had started but didn't begin to have the foothold it has today. Back then they were ridiculed for the most part and conspiracy became a big part of their beliefs, mostly based on some end times theory. They started seeing 666 everywhere and then a conspiracy theory would start about where it was seen and why it was there. I moved to Florida at 18 and had to get a new license and the new number had 666 with a separation on both sides so it really stood out. Writing your license number on a check pre-debit card days cashiers would be horrified seeing it and ask me why was it there and why didn't I ask for a new number? No way would I get rid of it and looked forward to writing a check just to watch the reaction when they saw the 666. Had it 30 years and then moved to another state. Felt like asking if they would put it on my new one but the political atmosphere was changing fast and at this point although the number wouldn't scare me but some extreme right Christian Republican might blow me away for having 666 on my license. It would be enough fodder to fuel several conspiracy theories. Think I would have done a mail in ballot especially now living in Michigan with all its militias. Although if I was still in Florida the governor might have me arrested especially if he knew I was voting straight blue. I have never voted a straight ticket before but with the state this country is in I'm not taking a chance on any Republican.
@Liz Walker First of all thank you for the well written comment....both content, points and length! .I read this after i made a cimment of my own and couldnt help smiling at some similarities and objective differences on others . By objective herein I am saying though I may have a different view on conspiracies as I develope them ,I do not pluck them from thin air not elucidate with unbalanced reasoning or even far reaching threads in order to make a pointless point sound reasonable. As a creative I trhrive in details and connecting dots into a cohesive conclusion ....or a question worthy of at least a minute bit of pondering . I am not a conspiracy theorist ( per-sa) but my quest to write the next great ,earth-shaking novel has developed the need to carry a thought ,concept or even some odd occurance (seen while out in public) to a potential conclusion ! (Without allowing myself to indulge in speculative assuming ) as a mental/creative exersize! Just saying ; too much probably🙄😏! Peace .
Fear shuts off the thinking brain. So if your scared enough you stop using reasoning. Teaching logic and media competency would help but social intelligence is just as important. The lack of transparency in finance, tech and political funding make it easy to scare (manipulate) people without their awareness. We need more transparency to see the motivations and manipulations of others in order to resist untruths and fearmongering.
Fear is also a selling point, most commonly used by the massive insurance industry. Urgency is another. I’m very interested in knowing if this Chapman University Professor had a chat with his fellow Professor, John Eastman, who is now in legal trouble for hocking his conspiracy theories on stage at the Eclipse on Jan 6, 2021. I have yet to listen to this all the way through, so I don’t know if he brought that up.
The Trolley problem of deciding how many can die but requires one to choose to kill a fat man in order to save 10 sure to die if one does not kill the fat man.
So, the comparison with Facebook as not being evil, as they are just trying to make money, is like me saying that I can become a drugs dealer, being satisfied that I’m not doing anything intentionally wrong. I’m just trying to make money. Jeez..
@@buddyflood7974 well, we could safely say that the development of clever algorithms and marketing strategies, engineered precisely to manipulate “weak souls” to spend more time/money on their virtual products, is a sort of “addiction creator/pusher” 😬
It’s so great to have an expert on…only to hear Eric Siegel’s take on everything. It’s not just him. I see it all the time. People need to know the difference between interviewing and having a chat over dinner. I will say the thing about cats knocking everything off the flat earth is hilarious.
Oh yes. When the vehement "flatearther" thing started on social media I scratched my head. "Don't these people know any cats?" I wondered. Of course cats would have batted every damn thing off the planet by now if it was flat!
I'm going to watch this whole talk I as I enjoy hearing views. However I am at the 2:30 mark I just heard "The aggrivation of an entire society" my 1st question is, "an entire society?" and "searching for an authoritarian ledaer" I would rather no leader and elected officials do the work of their people. 20 seconds later "Allowing the legetimization of violence" Nobody wants violence, some have never condemned the summer riots. That was violence by definition. Ill end here, Lee McIntytre is explaining the "SCIENCE of FALSE material" I mean what is that? I'm going to watch the rest now as I truly like hearining, but do you maybe think some of that opening was a bit off?
Unfortunately, Dr. Shermer is preaching to the choir Many people in the US are not as introspective as he is. There seems to be a built-in distrust of "ivory tower"academicians. It is evolutionarally easier to believe than it is to think. I happen to like what he has to say, but many people don't. I even subscribed to his skeptical magazine at one time.
Thanks for providing such a wealth of informative and thought-provoking videos. I especially enjoyed this one and really thought Michael did a great job explaining how easily we can fall into self-deception by not constantly examining our own thought processes. He's always such a great example of how blinding that can be. The most profound lesson I took away from this conversation though was you telling everyone to make sure that their cell phones are on silent so the conversation isn't interrupted by a phone ringing and then your introduction being interrupted by your own cell phone not even a minute later. I really appreciated being reminded how we can get so distracted by telling others what they should do, that we forget to examine ourselves. I thought it was very fitting for this interview and honestly found it to be a profitable lesson for me personally. Was really disappointed coming back to the video and finding the first part has been removed. Is there anywhere else I can find the original video? Again, thank you for all the great content.
I think, people must have some mystery in life. Most time in our history we have experienced things that are mysteries. In fact, mysteries in our life have just changed, not disappeared. Living in completely rational-scientific- realistic world might be boring. I think, if there is no mystery in life, people seek it. Mystery fills some hole in peoples mind.
Really well said, Michael Shermer. I especially agree with you on the teaching of critical thinking starting in grammar school. "The earlier the better", I think you said. Teaching critical thinking to kids starting at an early age could help them in later life as young adults to old age, to better distinguish between truth, facts, outright lies, and exaggerations, not only in political information they read, see, and hear on social media sites, but all everyday commercial advertising that we are all bombarded with 24/7 from internet, TV, radio, print, and bill boards.
We must look at the global picture and then start to use the practicalities of AI with coherent philosophical positions that do not entertain the usage at any point in time of dogmatic politics or religions.
Wow, the way that moderator regurgitated his version of the "steel has a special property that causes catastrophic destruction of skyscrapers when it suddenly melts at fairly low temperatures" then makes fun of other people who question that as believing ludicrous explanations.
everyone, because they have access to vast quantities of information of variable quality, believes they are an expert about everything. combine this with social media, a media that uniquely is able to make everyone into a competitive narcissist and you have a recipe for our current crisis.
How can we remove the members of Congress that have openly committed crimes to overthrow our government? How is that done and can we do it BEFORE the end of this year? If we don't we'll be sorry in Jan 2023
I took a logic course in college (Central Washington University). It was entirely about linguistic fallacies. There were about 45 students. I received an A, as did one other student. Everyone else in the entire class flunked it. They posted the grades on the door at the end of the course. I couldn't believe it. I was too young at the time to understand how much it should have frightened me. So many Americans don't have the capacity to reason, it's no wonder it's so easy to manipulate them with fear. How do we turn this ship around before it's too late? 🤕🤒
I think a capacity for reason is not as important as what motivates reasoning, if it is not from a place of wanting to know what is true of a given claim and is motivated or from fear then it will be just as bad for this person to have a better grasp on reason.
I was expecting an erudite academic discussion in this video but instead it morphed into a casual personal exposition about which theories Michael espouses.
I'm going to watch this whole talk I as I enjoy hearing views. However I am at the 2:30 mark I just heard "The aggrivation of an entire society" my 1st question is, "an entire society?" and "searching for an authoritarian ledaer" I would rather no leader and elected officials do the work of their people. 20 seconds later "Allowing the legetimization of violence" Nobody wants violence, some have never condemned the summer riots. That was violence by definition. Ill end here, Lee McIntytre is explaining the "SCIENCE of FALSE material" I mean what is that? I'm going to watch the rest now as I truly like hearining, but do you maybe think some of that opening was a bit off?
@@brentdafoe4744 i sure don’t want to buy Shermer’s book… Methinks this discussion reflects the fact that even the scientific community is plagued by peer pressure to be politically correct, whatever that means. In the other areas of science I’ve heard/read stories of political contamination as well.
I just started listening to the introduction and have a hard time keeping it together. Our society is based on credibility. Ideally, we are taught the scientific method in school culminating in the concept that a scientific (or rational) statement is one that can be objectively verified. Theoretically, that's the end of it, we trust in what we can verify, that's what it means to be rational. Practically, that does of course not work, we don't all have hadron colliders at home, studies do not publish their raw data, but we also just simply don't have the time and expertise to verify each statement we use to form opinions. So we put faith in the smart guy we know, in academic titles, in the news anchors we see and like but more than anything else, we put trust in the science community. Teams of famous researches, reputable institutes, prestigious journals, peer reviewed. Not by choice, simply because that's the best we have. Everybody makes mistakes. Rarely people even lie. We do, and so do scientists. If an error is found, there is no arguing with objectivity - so we would think. But this is not what's happening. Psychologists testify in court and present contradictory results. They both claim that their results are science. One would expect that either one side would loose their reputation or that they base their arguments on theories that have not been conclusively evaluated. But no, they use similar tools, the same data and get to say what their customers pay them for, and this is called science. After the trial, both experts add one to their credibility score and are so much more qualified than they were before the trial. We see a group of world renowned scientists study the lab leak theory and conclude that that is clearly a conspiracy theory. You cannot possibly support this theory if you are rational, they say. But then we get to read emails exchanged between these scientists, we get to see arguments that look very compelling but did not make it into that study. Looking at both sides of the argument, the conspiracy theory actually looks by orders of magnitude more reasonable and compelling. One author was involved in the subject of the study. All that happened and the group of authors updates the study saying that they stand by their judgement, without discussing the arguments presented by the opposition. While this happened, the study keeps being referenced by other scientific papers, as if it were the objective truth and "the lie" continues to propagate. Nobody can blame a scientist making an argument supported by the most reputable scientists in a paper published in the most prestigious journals. Scientifically, this is the truth. Objectivity be damned. We have publicity. If this happens and the scientists involved do not have to pay the price, if their reputation is not in ruins, what is the value of scientific statements? What do we have to do to combat irrationality or conspiracy theories? That should be clear, we have to fix science, we have to provide credibility to institutions that sold their soul. We fear to talk about corruption because we might loose credibility. Sure, in the short term, that's a valid concern. But while we put a plaster on the ivory tower, we pass a rotten tooth to our children that will kill them if we don't extract it. We might still have a chance to save rationality, but it's not by helping liars to abuse science.
The notion of a foundational truth is accurate. The problem is that we don't know what it is as a civilization so we take what is longstanding as "truth". {This is basic Popperian logic.} This is a "make due" heuristic or rule of thumb, for a culture limited mostly to dialectic. Since dialectic, as one of the three great "trivial arts," is both scale-dependent AND absent ground the heuristic is bound to break down at some point, especially during a transition from one technologically-induced perceptual bias to another... which is what's currently happening to planetary human populations. This new perceptual mentality is being induced by a shift to tactile DIGITAL mentality. Moreover, it is just beginning...
This was good, being a natural skeptic, I’ve seldom believe anything that doesn’t sound plausible, especially when there’s no credible evidence, so from my POV, I find it hard to understand why people believe things, although Im always trying to look for motives, which often has to do with what in someone best interest, usually revolving around financial, or social, people are more likely to believe something when they hear it from someone they like, versus hearing it from someone they dislike or are unpopular… Oh, the speaker, Dr Shermer seem to have a fixation with his finger, probably a nervous thing associated with being interviewed…lol
Highly recommend the new book The Petroleum Papers by investigative journalist Geoff Dembicki. The history of climate denial and how each time humanity responded to the climate genocide, they ramped up their doubt-and-delay campaign.
The host seems to be talking more than the guest. Should be making questions instead of paraphrasing what Shermer says or expanding on it and coming up with "examples". His contribution in the last minutes about "friction" and slowing down propagation of false posts and ideas on social media was good.
37:11 Or you take the theorist to court where they must bring the evidence they speak of ~ and they have none ~ so the court throws them out on their ass as in the case of Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Trump and the My Pillow Guy~!
Think about the story of Daniel in the Bible, he was very much in the minority, and he had the favor of the king, but" the powers that be" said, "throw him into the fiery furnace." They knew that he was a faithful follower of Yahweh, the one true and living God. The king predicted that God would assist him. Lo and behold Daniel and his friend were seen walking in the along with them who looked to be the Son of God. The men were taken out of the furnace without a singe or whiff of smoke. Never write God off, it can't be done.
The expression "science denial" as it is.mostly used today, is a form of begging the question not, to be confused with "raising the question." It's presuming the very point that is in contention that is, the claim being challenged is based on sound science.
The number series in the discussion was confusing… was it asking for a limiting rule to fit the examples or the most broad rule ? Also the audience member who answers this did not have this information either. What am I missing? Thanks.
Taking a firm rational and harmonically legitimised stand at Absolute Zero-infinity right here now, we then make irrational Theoretical Conjecture about why we're floating unhinged in No-thing definable in the cause-effect ocean of trivial zeros. (Poetical Naturalness?)
The major flaw is always: "People who believe in conspiracy theories are just misinformed and are just waiting for the right evidence to convince them." This is obviously not true. There are social advantages to the conspiracy theories or people wouldn't continue to believe in them. "Those convinced without evidence will dismiss all evidence." This is what hard-line rationalists like Hitchens and Dawkins don't get.
Shermer is the kind of person that just 'trusts the experts' and goes to bat for them without any self reflection. It's quite ironic, coming from a supposed 'skeptic'.
I don't get that vibe from Shermer, but he's only human, and so he probably makes an occasional mistake. Can you enlighten us with a list of examples supporting your assertion? Top 5? Or 3? Why didn't you give even one example in your original post?
Re:24:00 "they didn't mean to push you toward crazier stuff, they are just out to make money!" Spoken AS IF "just making money" was a harmless pursuit. When in fact to that pursuit can be laid most ills and injustices. Also, If your way of making money harms people and society, then that is an illegal and unethical business..
24:00 minutes in and have learned only 1 thing regarding the title of this video, and even it wasn't much of an answer. The host grabs at the title, a bit at least, at 24:22.
After listening to Shermer's videos on RUclips I can say I'm skeptical of his brand of skepticism, as it includes bias against women hidden in his opinions disguised as skepticism. He is just too conservative and biased for me!
I'm going to watch this whole talk I as I enjoy hearing views. However I am at the 2:30 mark I just heard "The aggrivation of an entire society" my 1st question is, "an entire society?" and "searching for an authoritarian ledaer" I would rather no leader and elected officials do the work of their people. 20 seconds later "Allowing the legetimization of violence" Nobody wants violence, some have never condemned the summer riots. That was violence by definition. Ill end here, Lee McIntytre is explaining the "SCIENCE of FALSE material" I mean what is that? I'm going to watch the rest now as I truly like hearining, but do you maybe think some of that opening was a bit off?
45:26 They had to reprogram it to make it feel random ~ wow ~ the most interesting tid-bit of this entire discussion. Think about that. I mean, really think about it. It rather says it all about humans these days. btw though, I do not 'get' this whole 'loneliness' concept ~ that so many people are lonely. I do not recall that being a huge feature of any other generation and now we are talking about two or three generations coinciding with this trademark~? 1st I'd wonder if it is real or like they mention, people are just bored. 2nd, I wonder, if it does happen to be true, is it b/c more people are in 'internet groups', playing video games or generally spending more time online as opposed to real life~? It the last is true, then they were also spending that time online prior to Covid. So, those two things should not be conflated in any good research.
I got to admit I am not this guys biggest fan. An I still think he's a bit more than pompous to think a single dinner with him is worth 900 USD. But two of the examples he used were simply flat out wrong. I was ONLY three and half years old in 1969-70. An I heard first hand, soldiers coming back from Vietnam, speaking about the lies we were being sold in the media. And mind you I was just a toddler at the time. But I remember one of my uncles and another older cousin, saying basically the same thing. Having been in different parts of the conflict doing different things. One Army, one Navy. So THAT was wrong. It may not have been widely known, but the truth WAS out there, well before the book. The book simply gave us a fuller account, then a single persons perspective. Second The Snowden Release was once again confirmation, to something I had been telling my friends about for YEARS. Since I knew that we have the ability to do it, for as long as we have had telephones. And I hate to tell you just because someone says it isn't RIGHT to do something, doesn't means it doesn't GET done. But I don't mind the gov knowing all my business. I don't have anything to hide from them or anyone. If I don't want anyone to know something, I do it the old fashioned way. I keep my mouth shut. And In regards to the hosts comment about trying to hold someone else's false concept as POTENIALLY not false... Sorry, calling them a fool to their face might not change THEIR mind at the moment, and they may do you the favor of not speaking to you again. but the fact that you called it first...priceless. Every body else can make the leap to reality whenever they want there's lots of room here, I'll be waiting. DID he JUST say that sleeping with 14 year old's WASNT a pedophile? He might want to ask R. Kelly about that... Back to the host, I spent the same amount of time in lockdown, an I didn't find a group of internet idiots to be my covid buddies. In fact, I took the time to weed out stupid people, who were posting dumb and dumber posts on fb. Not supporting 911 crap. However, it points out another flaw in his logic. We see he isn't a structural engineer EITHER. You wouldn't need to know which floor the planes were going to hit on to plant devices. You would plant them at points BELOW where the planes hit, to bring the buildings down, AFTER the planes hit. Because odds are the planes themselves wouldn't bring down BOTH towers. And you wouldn't need to break thru to the supports directly, by using shaped charges. And the 1995 attack tried to take out the foundation of a single building, with a single large device, from the base of the structure. Which was destined to failure from the start. You would need to take out multiple supports to bring down the buildings... On Biden and the AZ crap. After all the dust settled, they found the 12 you mentioned and BEFORE Biden had won by ONLY 7000, and afterwards he won by even more lol. Once again...priceless. Inflation, price gouging by corporations, seeking to pacify stupid stock holders, looking for year after year GAINS without consistent or sustainable growth. While other factors play into it, THAT is the main cause. 45 KNOWS he lost. He wouldn't have grifted all the people he did for legal funds to "fight the steal", AFTER he lost. Every time they get a bit closer, he asks them for more money. If he was SO rich to start with. why would he need THEIR money? With Polls. WHAT are you asking? WHO are you asking. And HOW are you asking them. AND why did the host shut down the kid that mentioned 535? He WAS right. And it didn't work too well for them, as I write this, Dems are ahead in early voting, by like 7 million votes. Not to mention that Dems got tons more new voters, this year. Looks like women really took their bodies personally. I don't try to change others perspectives I just let them get around to my way of thinking in their own time. As far as UAP's Honestly, do you think the Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians can make ANYTHING better then we can? And if they DID, do you think they would just buzz our airmen with them instead of attack out right? Russia has proven they are a joke. Even the few stealth aircraft they got are only stealthy head on for the most part. If they had UAP Tech, it would have been used over Ukraine. China was using Russian engines in their J20 Stealth Aircraft until recently. And the engines they ARE currently using aren't what they hoped for. Now they do have hyper sonic missiles, but I don't think they can do what UAP's have been recorded doing. And even if they did, They wouldn't have hundreds of them coming in from 80,000+ ft ABOVE the ocean and going under the water... Iran I don't know about. I haven't really looked at them too hard, but about to start. But if they are focusing on drones as hard as they seem to be, I would say THEY don't have the tech either. But I got to love how you HAVE went from UAP's are bs for decades, to "Lets wait and see..." .Sounds a lot like "I forgot to carry the one"...
I called in the old KGO when Shermer was on with Angie whatshername, and even he had to admit the term conspiracy theory generally ends empirical investigation more than start them Yet he uses the term as the centerpiece of his misguided logic Shermer also insists on the virtue of our institutions is a bulwark against false claims This is of course a belief of Mr Shermer and not a demonstrable fact and one which contradicts his entire premise of an empirical facts first approach
Fail! All answers for your opening example where correct your analogy and assertion is however incorrect, you are only consolidating that your formulation i,e. opinion is fact, that is manipulation.. You have unwittingly conspired to fool yourselves,
I'd rather hear about this goniff's first hand knowledge of the inherent misogyny of the skeptic/science convention scene. I bet he's got some juicy stories to tell. There are better historians to tell the complexities of America's political past and who have much more courage than him. He should be seen in the light of his peers till he distinguishes himself otherwise.
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
When a company is aware of the harm that is related through disinformation and still propagate the circulation of this information is it not evil? Yes it is
It is worse than evil. It is counter-productive and self-contradictory
Amen.
how would they know it's so called disinformation? I'm very nervous they way these terms are tossed around. Concerned it's backdoor censorship in the clothing of virtue. That road to hell paved with good intentions meme.
"I'm a professor and I'm very educated Sigma .. her vote counts as much as mine?"
If you don't understand why, you're really not as educated as you thought.
That generally requires a bit of mind reading to know people intentions I know this is big on the left right now and it is a bunch of BS imho
Unfettered, unregulated profit-seeking, above all other considerations, is corrupting.
Well-regulated capitalism is the balance needed. How?
▪︎Empowered workers via unionization is a much-needed "fettering" on the profit-motive. ▪︎Compliance to standards to strengthen the common good (unpoisoned air, water; not creating toxic dump sites; mitigating the spread of randomly deadly disease, etc.)
Promoting the common good. Placing value on some things over pure profit-motive.
LOVED this comment, very true
From your lips to God’s ears
Holly Hold Workers should insist profit sharing plans be instated, and ones that guarantee you walk away w your take or can continue as a shareholder if you leave the job.
Helpful suggestion: Less talk from Eric and more talk from Michael
Additionally, listen @ 1.75x speed.
This was the best discussion yet, of this series. I've been trying for months to figure this all out. Thank you so much for providing this series!
What don't you understand ?
I'm going to watch this whole talk I as I enjoy hearing views. However I am at the 2:30 mark I just heard "The aggrivation of an entire society" my 1st question is, "an entire society?" and "searching for an authoritarian ledaer" I would rather no leader and elected officials do the work of their people.
20 seconds later "Allowing the legetimization of violence" Nobody wants violence, some have never condemned the summer riots. That was violence by definition.
Ill end here, Lee McIntytre is explaining the "SCIENCE of FALSE material" I mean what is that?
I'm going to watch the rest now as I truly like hearining, but do you maybe think some of that opening was a bit off?
@@brentdafoe4744 Yes, rather indeed. A beach head of the sublime.
@@brentdafoe4744 I can only give an opinion right now of when he said "entire society ". I think our entire society IS aggravated by all this. Most don't want violence, but they are aggravated, on all sides, the two main groups arguing AND the others, who shake their heads in disgust and just tune out. Though quieter, I think they are still aggravated. I see and hear it every day, the whole spectrum. I have family members who are very well educated people who think the election was rigged, that the Clintons have had multiple people murdered, that Hunter Biden should be arrested (though they can't say for what but, ya know, he had a laptop!), and on and on. It gets exhausting!
@@FellaMegaOld I wonder if the confusion here is similar to my own. I can say that the last few years have baffled me, watching people who are literate and physically able to change the channel dive down the rabbit hole and never look back. It is as though they're unaware our laws are based on our Constitution. When I say "Bill of Rights", they recite maybe the 1st Amendment and definitely the 2nd. Beyond that, the majority of people. I talk with (and I'll admit, on BOTH sides) do not know what is in that document, that it lays out our system of coequal branches of government and details the LIMITS of their power. Very few can name one Supreme Court Justice, out of nine-not one!
We've got to do a better job of civic education in schools. Forget school prayer. Teach the Constitution!!
So, so enjoyable! Many thanks.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens ~ right on~!
Exactly! They claimed it was “safe & effective” based on no evidence. So everyone should have been free to ignore the corrupt directives without losing their jobs.
Corporate marketing is not science. And neither is Tony Fauci.
Sure wish he was still alive. His assessment of events today would be invaluable to the rest of us not as intelligent as he.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things Not Seen.
There is plenty of evidence and Chris knows it/knew it. Anyone can deny the miraculous by simply asserting the circular argument, “it can’t happen, so it didn’t”
I disagree with that. At first I liked the quote and even screenshot it to remind me to put on my favorite quotes list. It's quite pithy.
However, after five seconds of thought, I realized it's not true .
Unless the context of the quote drastically changed the prima facia meaning of the quote, it's pushing for an argument from silence.
I enjoy listening to Shermer; can't say the same for Eric Seigel.
he's amateurish and a bit annoying
What about building 7? Buildings do fall into their own footprint during controlled demolition
laurie..we live in a post physics world, where the improbable triumphs over the physically IMPOSSIBLE. A third positon is possible ..... "truthers" err by claiming the implied certainty of this term, ie. "Here is what happened and why" An agnostic position is surely possible, and neutralizeses the debunking attacks on the weakest elements of specaulative considerations of motive and method. Just one example> It is a FACT verified by the plane manufacturers themselves that commercial airlines CANNOT, I repeat, Cannot fly AT SEA LEVEL at 500 mph/ which is twice the MOS maximum operating speed.......at 30,000 feet the air is 1/3 as dense and 600 mph is standard. A very few minutes of level flight at sea level will shake and destroy the plane, and as far as controlling it with the presicion required......impossible. The pentagon story is also impossible, not only for the above violations of aviation facts, but it is also a PHYSICAL fact the a 737 has a wingspan of 140 ft approx, and at 500 mph CANNOT fly 20 feet of the ground for the final 500 meter levelled out approach because a wind cushion, the turmoil under the wings will not allow the jet to come closer to the ground. Jet fighters ....with a wingspan of 25 feet .......can do this. It is not up to a defense attorney to keep an innocent man in jail, to cling to a physically impossible prosecution, until the real culprit is found. I lived in NY for many years before and after 9/11, and after 2010 I gave up on opinion expression or debate. The concrete has settled.
Hi Michael 💙💙💙Vote Blue on Tuesday November 8th everyone💙🌎💙
He missed the crux of the situation - the majority of the movement don't believe the lies - the lies fit their prejudices and political goals/desires.
Good point but then it can be argued it is a “chicken and egg” situation.
Thank you for the woman who spoke of 'sneering.' I found early parts parts of this 'chat' very sneering as if we were all in this wonderful club together. "Ha Ha ha. We know this and we are all pals here together and we know this is true.' Not much fun to watch.
So... the truth hurts? Too bad. Sometimes the right thing to do is to sneer until you're given a good enough reason to do otherwise.
Growing up in a fanatically religious family led me to question things. Conspiracy theories are just that. Theories that have no facts to back them up but what a tool to instill fear and gain control over a group of people. I have yet to ever hear of one developing from a positive viewpoint. My mother is a very negative person that never met a conspiracy theory she didn't jump into. At 96 she's unable to put the energy she used to have trying to prove the validity of her latest theories and instead lumps them all into her first conspiracy theory. It's a sign of the times, we're living in the end times. At 67 it's had to be 60 years since first hearing "we're living in the last days and God will return any day" and have to wonder if "any day" has a date and if the 2 words have a singular meaning why can't you look up "any day" in the dictionary? Don't ever try to argue that one with a religious fanatic. So many cults use religion and all that come out of Christianity use that "end times" theory to draw people in. Growing up in all that religion I realize now that Christian Nationalism had started but didn't begin to have the foothold it has today. Back then they were ridiculed for the most part and conspiracy became a big part of their beliefs, mostly based on some end times theory. They started seeing 666 everywhere and then a conspiracy theory would start about where it was seen and why it was there. I moved to Florida at 18 and had to get a new license and the new number had 666 with a separation on both sides so it really stood out. Writing your license number on a check pre-debit card days cashiers would be horrified seeing it and ask me why was it there and why didn't I ask for a new number? No way would I get rid of it and looked forward to writing a check just to watch the reaction when they saw the 666. Had it 30 years and then moved to another state. Felt like asking if they would put it on my new one but the political atmosphere was changing fast and at this point although the number wouldn't scare me but some extreme right Christian Republican might blow me away for having 666 on my license. It would be enough fodder to fuel several conspiracy theories. Think I would have done a mail in ballot especially now living in Michigan with all its militias. Although if I was still in Florida the governor might have me arrested especially if he knew I was voting straight blue. I have never voted a straight ticket before but with the state this country is in I'm not taking a chance on any Republican.
@Liz Walker First of all thank you for the well written comment....both content, points and length! .I read this after i made a cimment of my own and couldnt help smiling at some similarities and objective differences on others . By objective herein I am saying though I may have a different view on conspiracies as I develope them ,I do not pluck them from thin air not elucidate with unbalanced reasoning or even far reaching threads in order to make a pointless point sound reasonable. As a creative I trhrive in details and connecting dots into a cohesive conclusion ....or a question worthy of at least a minute bit of pondering . I am not a conspiracy theorist ( per-sa) but my quest to write the next great ,earth-shaking novel has developed the need to carry a thought ,concept or even some odd occurance (seen while out in public) to a potential conclusion ! (Without allowing myself to indulge in speculative assuming ) as a mental/creative exersize! Just saying ; too much probably🙄😏! Peace .
Operation Northwoods
Tonkin Bay and the Vietnam war
Fear shuts off the thinking brain. So if your scared enough you stop using reasoning. Teaching logic and media competency would help but social intelligence is just as important.
The lack of transparency in finance, tech and political funding make it easy to scare (manipulate) people without their awareness.
We need more transparency to see the motivations and manipulations of others in order to resist untruths and fearmongering.
Fear is also a selling point, most commonly used by the massive insurance industry. Urgency is another.
I’m very interested in knowing if this Chapman University Professor had a chat with his fellow Professor, John Eastman, who is now in legal trouble for hocking his conspiracy theories on stage at the Eclipse on Jan 6, 2021. I have yet to listen to this all the way through, so I don’t know if he brought that up.
interview starts 6:00 in.
conspiracys race while reason and truth take more time....our automatic response is emotionally motivated and prejudiced..
The Trolley problem of deciding how many can die but requires one to choose to kill a fat man in order to save 10 sure to die if one does not kill the fat man.
So, the comparison with Facebook as not being evil, as they are just trying to make money, is like me saying that I can become a drugs dealer, being satisfied that I’m not doing anything intentionally wrong. I’m just trying to make money.
Jeez..
There's a lot of difference between a drug dealer and a drug pusher!
@@buddyflood7974 well, we could safely say that the development of clever algorithms and marketing strategies, engineered precisely to manipulate “weak souls” to spend more time/money on their virtual products, is a sort of “addiction creator/pusher” 😬
Well articulated…
It’s so great to have an expert on…only to hear Eric Siegel’s take on everything. It’s not just him. I see it all the time. People need to know the difference between interviewing and having a chat over dinner.
I will say the thing about cats knocking everything off the flat earth is hilarious.
Well put, I downloaded this interview as his continual rewording and explaining drove me nuts.
Oh yes. When the vehement "flatearther" thing started on social media I scratched my head. "Don't these people know any cats?" I wondered. Of course cats would have batted every damn thing off the planet by now if it was flat!
I'm going to watch this whole talk I as I enjoy hearing views. However I am at the 2:30 mark I just heard "The aggrivation of an entire society" my 1st question is, "an entire society?" and "searching for an authoritarian ledaer" I would rather no leader and elected officials do the work of their people.
20 seconds later "Allowing the legetimization of violence" Nobody wants violence, some have never condemned the summer riots. That was violence by definition.
Ill end here, Lee McIntytre is explaining the "SCIENCE of FALSE material" I mean what is that?
I'm going to watch the rest now as I truly like hearining, but do you maybe think some of that opening was a bit off?
@@brentdafoe4744lol YES. Segel is a strange bird
“Friend or foe”. “Smiling faces, they lie sometimes”.
Why all the talk about the conspiracy theories around the 2020 election and no mention of the 2016 election conspiracy theories?
Unfortunately, Dr. Shermer is preaching to the choir Many people in the US are not as introspective as he is. There seems to be a built-in distrust of "ivory tower"academicians. It is evolutionarally easier to believe than it is to think.
I happen to like what he has to say, but many people don't. I even subscribed to his skeptical magazine at one time.
Thanks for providing such a wealth of informative and thought-provoking videos. I especially enjoyed this one and really thought Michael did a great job explaining how easily we can fall into self-deception by not constantly examining our own thought processes. He's always such a great example of how blinding that can be. The most profound lesson I took away from this conversation though was you telling everyone to make sure that their cell phones are on silent so the conversation isn't interrupted by a phone ringing and then your introduction being interrupted by your own cell phone not even a minute later. I really appreciated being reminded how we can get so distracted by telling others what they should do, that we forget to examine ourselves. I thought it was very fitting for this interview and honestly found it to be a profitable lesson for me personally. Was really disappointed coming back to the video and finding the first part has been removed. Is there anywhere else I can find the original video? Again, thank you for all the great content.
Thank you very much Michael Shermer, " conspiracy theories debunked."
I think, people must have some mystery in life. Most time in our history we have experienced things that are mysteries. In fact, mysteries in our life have just changed, not disappeared. Living in completely rational-scientific- realistic world might be boring. I think, if there is no mystery in life, people seek it. Mystery fills some hole in peoples mind.
Really well said, Michael Shermer. I especially agree with you on the teaching of critical thinking starting in grammar school. "The earlier the better", I think you said. Teaching critical thinking to kids starting at an early age could help them in later life as young adults to old age, to better distinguish between truth, facts, outright lies, and exaggerations, not only in political information they read, see, and hear on social media sites, but all everyday commercial advertising that we are all bombarded with 24/7 from internet, TV, radio, print, and bill boards.
If you missed the sept 1st talk with Joe Pierre...I just watched it today (jan 27, '03) & it is ALSO a MUST WATCH!
We must look at the global picture and then start to use the practicalities of AI with coherent philosophical positions that do not entertain the usage at any point in time of dogmatic politics or religions.
Trump has commented to one person that he knows he lost and at least one other person heard Trump say he lost.
“We left it at the hotel”
Mr Shermer, you need to do what they ask at the philharmonic: silence your phones before the performance. 😃
It was Siegels phone, as far as I could tell ...
Wow, the way that moderator regurgitated his version of the "steel has a special property that causes catastrophic destruction of skyscrapers when it suddenly melts at fairly low temperatures" then makes fun of other people who question that as believing ludicrous explanations.
everyone, because they have access to vast quantities of information of variable quality, believes they are an expert about everything. combine this with social media, a media that uniquely is able to make everyone into a competitive narcissist and you have a recipe for our current crisis.
How can we remove the members of Congress that have openly committed crimes to overthrow our government?
How is that done and can we do it BEFORE the end of this year?
If we don't we'll be sorry in Jan 2023
I took a logic course in college (Central Washington University). It was entirely about linguistic fallacies. There were about 45 students. I received an A, as did one other student. Everyone else in the entire class flunked it. They posted the grades on the door at the end of the course. I couldn't believe it. I was too young at the time to understand how much it should have frightened me. So many Americans don't have the capacity to reason, it's no wonder it's so easy to manipulate them with fear. How do we turn this ship around before it's too late? 🤕🤒
I think a capacity for reason is not as important as what motivates reasoning, if it is not from a place of wanting to know what is true of a given claim and is motivated or from fear then it will be just as bad for this person to have a better grasp on reason.
I was expecting an erudite academic discussion in this video but instead it morphed into a casual personal exposition about which theories Michael espouses.
Well said…
I'm going to watch this whole talk I as I enjoy hearing views. However I am at the 2:30 mark I just heard "The aggrivation of an entire society" my 1st question is, "an entire society?" and "searching for an authoritarian ledaer" I would rather no leader and elected officials do the work of their people.
20 seconds later "Allowing the legetimization of violence" Nobody wants violence, some have never condemned the summer riots. That was violence by definition.
Ill end here, Lee McIntytre is explaining the "SCIENCE of FALSE material" I mean what is that?
I'm going to watch the rest now as I truly like hearining, but do you maybe think some of that opening was a bit off?
@@brentdafoe4744 i sure don’t want to buy Shermer’s book… Methinks this discussion reflects the fact that even the scientific community is plagued by peer pressure to be politically correct, whatever that means. In the other areas of science I’ve heard/read stories of political contamination as well.
I just started listening to the introduction and have a hard time keeping it together.
Our society is based on credibility. Ideally, we are taught the scientific method in school culminating in the concept that a scientific (or rational) statement is one that can be objectively verified. Theoretically, that's the end of it, we trust in what we can verify, that's what it means to be rational.
Practically, that does of course not work, we don't all have hadron colliders at home, studies do not publish their raw data, but we also just simply don't have the time and expertise to verify each statement we use to form opinions. So we put faith in the smart guy we know, in academic titles, in the news anchors we see and like but more than anything else, we put trust in the science community. Teams of famous researches, reputable institutes, prestigious journals, peer reviewed. Not by choice, simply because that's the best we have.
Everybody makes mistakes. Rarely people even lie. We do, and so do scientists. If an error is found, there is no arguing with objectivity - so we would think. But this is not what's happening. Psychologists testify in court and present contradictory results. They both claim that their results are science. One would expect that either one side would loose their reputation or that they base their arguments on theories that have not been conclusively evaluated. But no, they use similar tools, the same data and get to say what their customers pay them for, and this is called science. After the trial, both experts add one to their credibility score and are so much more qualified than they were before the trial.
We see a group of world renowned scientists study the lab leak theory and conclude that that is clearly a conspiracy theory. You cannot possibly support this theory if you are rational, they say. But then we get to read emails exchanged between these scientists, we get to see arguments that look very compelling but did not make it into that study. Looking at both sides of the argument, the conspiracy theory actually looks by orders of magnitude more reasonable and compelling. One author was involved in the subject of the study. All that happened and the group of authors updates the study saying that they stand by their judgement, without discussing the arguments presented by the opposition. While this happened, the study keeps being referenced by other scientific papers, as if it were the objective truth and "the lie" continues to propagate. Nobody can blame a scientist making an argument supported by the most reputable scientists in a paper published in the most prestigious journals. Scientifically, this is the truth. Objectivity be damned. We have publicity.
If this happens and the scientists involved do not have to pay the price, if their reputation is not in ruins, what is the value of scientific statements?
What do we have to do to combat irrationality or conspiracy theories? That should be clear, we have to fix science, we have to provide credibility to institutions that sold their soul. We fear to talk about corruption because we might loose credibility. Sure, in the short term, that's a valid concern. But while we put a plaster on the ivory tower, we pass a rotten tooth to our children that will kill them if we don't extract it. We might still have a chance to save rationality, but it's not by helping liars to abuse science.
When political parties accept millions in donations, can they really say no! The government itself is not independent, so how can the citizens be?
The notion of a foundational truth is accurate. The problem is that we don't know what it is as a civilization so we take what is longstanding as "truth". {This is basic Popperian logic.} This is a "make due" heuristic or rule of thumb, for a culture limited mostly to dialectic. Since dialectic, as one of the three great "trivial arts," is both scale-dependent AND absent ground the heuristic is bound to break down at some point, especially during a transition from one technologically-induced perceptual bias to another... which is what's currently happening to planetary human populations. This new perceptual mentality is being induced by a shift to tactile DIGITAL mentality. Moreover, it is just beginning...
At about 18 minutes in, I had to plug my cat’s ears. He’s a very loving, sensitive cat, and you hurt his feewings, his witto internet feewings. 😹
One of the most high the formative and enlightening programs I can remember since Christopher hitchen nome Chomsky (sp) !
This was good, being a natural skeptic, I’ve seldom believe anything that doesn’t sound plausible, especially when there’s no credible evidence, so from my POV, I find it hard to understand why people believe things, although Im always trying to look for motives, which often has to do with what in someone best interest, usually revolving around financial, or social, people are more likely to believe something when they hear it from someone they like, versus hearing it from someone they dislike or are unpopular…
Oh, the speaker, Dr Shermer seem to have a fixation with his finger, probably a nervous thing associated with being interviewed…lol
Ok, Bearskin Hoodie advertiser. I don't wear 10 layers of clothes because I AM NOT STEVE BANNON !!! Target your ads better.
At the math test at 9:00, what were the correct responses from the audience?
Highly recommend the new book The Petroleum Papers by investigative journalist Geoff Dembicki. The history of climate denial and how each time humanity responded to the climate genocide, they ramped up their doubt-and-delay campaign.
It feels like mainstream is not catching up with the paradigm shift, that’s why. We are a whole century behind, skeptics need to rise, hurry up!
The host seems to be talking more than the guest. Should be making questions instead of paraphrasing what Shermer says or expanding on it and coming up with "examples".
His contribution in the last minutes about "friction" and slowing down propagation of false posts and ideas on social media was good.
It's also that people want to feel special.
On 9/11, hijackers flew FREELY for over 45 minutes in the most secure airspace in the world. Totally legit.
37:11 Or you take the theorist to court where they must bring the evidence they speak of ~ and they have none ~ so the court throws them out on their ass as in the case of Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Trump and the My Pillow Guy~!
Think about the story of Daniel in the Bible, he was very much in the minority, and he had the favor of the king, but" the powers that be" said, "throw him into the fiery furnace." They knew that he was a faithful follower of Yahweh, the one true and living God. The king predicted that God would assist him. Lo and behold Daniel and his friend were seen walking in the along with them who looked to be the Son of God. The men were taken out of the furnace without a singe or whiff of smoke. Never write God off, it can't be done.
@@ruthegan8524 We have no evidence for a god (at least not presently). Faith is not evidence; nor is belief.
The expression "science denial" as it is.mostly used today, is a form of begging the question not, to be confused with "raising the question."
It's presuming the very point that is in contention that is, the claim being challenged is based on sound science.
It's all about tribalism, wherever you go
Ask Dennis Prager about this.
The number series in the discussion was confusing… was it asking for a limiting rule to fit the examples or the most broad rule ? Also the audience member who answers this did not have this information either. What am I missing? Thanks.
Never mind wife explained it to me.
Taking a firm rational and harmonically legitimised stand at Absolute Zero-infinity right here now, we then make irrational Theoretical Conjecture about why we're floating unhinged in No-thing definable in the cause-effect ocean of trivial zeros. (Poetical Naturalness?)
The major flaw is always: "People who believe in conspiracy theories are just misinformed and are just waiting for the right evidence to convince them." This is obviously not true. There are social advantages to the conspiracy theories or people wouldn't continue to believe in them. "Those convinced without evidence will dismiss all evidence." This is what hard-line rationalists like Hitchens and Dawkins don't get.
Shermer is the kind of person that just 'trusts the experts' and goes to bat for them without any self reflection. It's quite ironic, coming from a supposed 'skeptic'.
I don't get that vibe from Shermer, but
he's only human, and so he probably
makes an occasional mistake.
Can you enlighten us with a list of examples
supporting your assertion? Top 5? Or 3?
Why didn't you give even one example in
your original post?
I’m so glad these two have figured out which of the theories are false…. 😢
S/..........?
@@randallmooreao9950 sarcasm yeah
Liars calling other people conspiracists.
Interesting that these two feel the need to firm up their opinions on 9/11.
Re:24:00 "they didn't mean to push you toward crazier stuff, they are just out to make money!" Spoken AS IF "just making money" was a harmless pursuit. When in fact to that pursuit can be laid most ills and injustices. Also, If your way of making money harms people and society, then that is an illegal and unethical business..
24:00 minutes in and have learned only 1 thing regarding the title of this video, and even it wasn't much of an answer. The host grabs at the title, a bit at least, at 24:22.
Did these guys coordinate their outfits to match the set?
After listening to Shermer's videos on RUclips I can say I'm skeptical of his brand of skepticism, as it includes bias against women hidden in his opinions disguised as skepticism. He is just too conservative and biased for me!
So Michael Shermer is cool with 14yo?
Rusty *Bower*, not Baker
Rusty Bowers
@@hdtowman - Yes, thank you.
The style of argumentation so far (24:38) sounds like a conspiracy.
This guy sure enjoys talking.
What's lie-hop and my-hop~? Lied - it happened on purpose and my idea of how it happened on purpose~? Never heard these terms.
I'm going to watch this whole talk I as I enjoy hearing views. However I am at the 2:30 mark I just heard "The aggrivation of an entire society" my 1st question is, "an entire society?" and "searching for an authoritarian ledaer" I would rather no leader and elected officials do the work of their people.
20 seconds later "Allowing the legetimization of violence" Nobody wants violence, some have never condemned the summer riots. That was violence by definition.
Ill end here, Lee McIntytre is explaining the "SCIENCE of FALSE material" I mean what is that?
I'm going to watch the rest now as I truly like hearining, but do you maybe think some of that opening was a bit off?
Well. interesting.
Shermer rules be sceptic you too
45:26 They had to reprogram it to make it feel random ~ wow ~ the most interesting tid-bit of this entire discussion. Think about that. I mean, really think about it. It rather says it all about humans these days. btw though, I do not 'get' this whole 'loneliness' concept ~ that so many people are lonely. I do not recall that being a huge feature of any other generation and now we are talking about two or three generations coinciding with this trademark~? 1st I'd wonder if it is real or like they mention, people are just bored. 2nd, I wonder, if it does happen to be true, is it b/c more people are in 'internet groups', playing video games or generally spending more time online as opposed to real life~? It the last is true, then they were also spending that time online prior to Covid. So, those two things should not be conflated in any good research.
A lort more are on the internet now,and many older people were alone or separated from most of their families that they are used to be around,
I got to admit I am not this guys biggest fan. An I still think he's a bit more than pompous to think a single dinner with him is worth 900 USD. But two of the examples he used were simply flat out wrong.
I was ONLY three and half years old in 1969-70. An I heard first hand, soldiers coming back from Vietnam, speaking about the lies we were being sold in the media. And mind you I was just a toddler at the time. But I remember one of my uncles and another older cousin, saying basically the same thing. Having been in different parts of the conflict doing different things. One Army, one Navy. So THAT was wrong. It may not have been widely known, but the truth WAS out there, well before the book. The book simply gave us a fuller account, then a single persons perspective.
Second The Snowden Release was once again confirmation, to something I had been telling my friends about for YEARS. Since I knew that we have the ability to do it, for as long as we have had telephones. And I hate to tell you just because someone says it isn't RIGHT to do something, doesn't means it doesn't GET done. But I don't mind the gov knowing all my business. I don't have anything to hide from them or anyone. If I don't want anyone to know something, I do it the old fashioned way. I keep my mouth shut.
And In regards to the hosts comment about trying to hold someone else's false concept as POTENIALLY not false... Sorry, calling them a fool to their face might not change THEIR mind at the moment, and they may do you the favor of not speaking to you again. but the fact that you called it first...priceless. Every body else can make the leap to reality whenever they want there's lots of room here, I'll be waiting.
DID he JUST say that sleeping with 14 year old's WASNT a pedophile? He might want to ask R. Kelly about that...
Back to the host, I spent the same amount of time in lockdown, an I didn't find a group of internet idiots to be my covid buddies. In fact, I took the time to weed out stupid people, who were posting dumb and dumber posts on fb.
Not supporting 911 crap. However, it points out another flaw in his logic. We see he isn't a structural engineer EITHER. You wouldn't need to know which floor the planes were going to hit on to plant devices. You would plant them at points BELOW where the planes hit, to bring the buildings down, AFTER the planes hit. Because odds are the planes themselves wouldn't bring down BOTH towers. And you wouldn't need to break thru to the supports directly, by using shaped charges.
And the 1995 attack tried to take out the foundation of a single building, with a single large device, from the base of the structure. Which was destined to failure from the start. You would need to take out multiple supports to bring down the buildings...
On Biden and the AZ crap. After all the dust settled, they found the 12 you mentioned and BEFORE Biden had won by ONLY 7000, and afterwards he won by even more lol. Once again...priceless.
Inflation, price gouging by corporations, seeking to pacify stupid stock holders, looking for year after year GAINS without consistent or sustainable growth. While other factors play into it, THAT is the main cause.
45 KNOWS he lost. He wouldn't have grifted all the people he did for legal funds to "fight the steal", AFTER he lost. Every time they get a bit closer, he asks them for more money. If he was SO rich to start with. why would he need THEIR money?
With Polls. WHAT are you asking? WHO are you asking. And HOW are you asking them. AND why did the host shut down the kid that mentioned 535? He WAS right. And it didn't work too well for them, as I write this, Dems are ahead in early voting, by like 7 million votes. Not to mention that Dems got tons more new voters, this year. Looks like women really took their bodies personally.
I don't try to change others perspectives I just let them get around to my way of thinking in their own time.
As far as UAP's Honestly, do you think the Russians or the Chinese or the Iranians can make ANYTHING better then we can? And if they DID, do you think they would just buzz our airmen with them instead of attack out right?
Russia has proven they are a joke. Even the few stealth aircraft they got are only stealthy head on for the most part. If they had UAP Tech, it would have been used over Ukraine.
China was using Russian engines in their J20 Stealth Aircraft until recently. And the engines they ARE currently using aren't what they hoped for. Now they do have hyper sonic missiles, but I don't think they can do what UAP's have been recorded doing. And even if they did, They wouldn't have hundreds of them coming in from 80,000+ ft ABOVE the ocean and going under the water...
Iran I don't know about. I haven't really looked at them too hard, but about to start. But if they are focusing on drones as hard as they seem to be, I would say THEY don't have the tech either.
But I got to love how you HAVE went from UAP's are bs for decades, to "Lets wait and see..." .Sounds a lot like "I forgot to carry the one"...
I guess groups of powerful people never act in their own interests for their own benefit
I called in the old KGO when Shermer was on with Angie whatshername, and even he had to admit the term conspiracy theory generally ends empirical investigation more than start them Yet he uses the term as the centerpiece of his misguided logic Shermer also insists on the virtue of our institutions is a bulwark against false claims This is of course a belief of Mr Shermer and not a demonstrable fact and one which contradicts his entire premise of an empirical facts first approach
*Tell me that believing that nature can create info and codes and humans from bacteria and everything from nothing is rational.*
Fail! All answers for your opening example where correct your analogy and assertion is however incorrect, you are only consolidating that your formulation i,e. opinion is fact, that is manipulation.. You have unwittingly conspired to fool yourselves,
Good material, needs to be edited.
axioms.
I'd rather hear about this goniff's first hand knowledge of the inherent misogyny of the skeptic/science convention scene. I bet he's got some juicy stories to tell. There are better historians to tell the complexities of America's political past and who have much more courage than him. He should be seen in the light of his peers till he distinguishes himself otherwise.
I’m disappointed by the way this discussion veered off into politics.
Please turn your phone down.
😶
bs
Recession, Beginning of Depression!
Rapture, Born-again Celebration !!
Riders, Book of Revelation!!!
51:33